Michael Slager Testifies In His Defense – Part 3

161129-slager-trial-1143_db93a13264a21b3e431c4e31283b7bf2-nbcnews-ux-600-480Michael Slager took the witness stand at his murder trial today.  Following him were defense witnesses who tried to explain how Slager has selective memory.

Before watching Slager’s testimony, and if you have not yet watched it, here is the video captured by a bystander.  It shows when Slager fired his gun at Walter Scott as Scott was running away.


Here is Slager’s testimony, giving his non-video version.



November 29, 2016 – Part 2

Slager is cross-examined by the prosecutor.  Slager was asked if he conceded that at the time he shot Walter Scott, that Scott did not have the taser.  He conceded, albeit saying that he was unsure until seeing the video. The video of the shooting is shown to Slager and the jury.  The prosecution pointed out that Slager had hold of Walter’s right hand, and Walter was holding a cell phone in his left hand.  They asked Slager where was Walter holding the taser.  He was not.

Slager was asked what the object was rolling behind him before he reached for Walter’s right hand.  He answered “that would be the taser.”

Slager’s testimony for his ability not to recall what happened and why he did not follow procedure was “… my mind was like spaghetti.”

Slager never told anyone that he was tased.

The prosecution then questioned Slager about what he did with the taser after he had shot Walter Scott.

The prosecution asked Slager if he agreed that he had 18 use of force incidents in 4 years.  There is more.  Slager was cross-examined for about an hour.



November 29, 2016 – Part 3

The defense conducts re-direct of Slager.

November 29, 2016 – Part 4


The defense rested today.  Subsequent videos from today and the rest of this week, including closing arguments, will be posted in the comment section.

To see the videos and recaps for what has taken place at trial before November 29, 2016,  please see Part 1 at this link,  and Part 2 at this link.


Posted on 11/29/2016, in Cases, Cops Gone Wild, Trial Videos, Walter Scott and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 89 Comments.

  1. November 29, 2016 – Part 5

  2. Am watching/listening now to the videos. Thank you

  3. yahtzeebutterfly

    Thanks for your post. I have listened to two of the videos.

    • yahtzeebutterfly

      • hilarious stuff slager wants the jury to believe…..that his victim was coming at him with his own taser as a weapon, when video clearly shows the victim NEVER had his taser at any time…….also i think i heard him denying on cross that he could recall things that he testified to in this very trial…….

  4. That prick cop plainly murdered that man. I hope he gets the harshest sentence possible.

    • In my opinion, shooting a human in the back is the ultimate form of cowardice. Another thing is that I would not be in the middle of the road chasing a fleeing suspect who I thought was armed with a gun. I would take cover.

  5. There are many things I can say about this piece of unfiltered !%^& but they would probably come looking for me….
    I’ll just say that I hope he gets at least a life sentence in prison with regular inmates who know this story!!! He deserves the best that those inmates can give him….

    • Roach,
      The maximum sentence in that state is 30 years, but there is still the federal case against him. If I remember correctly, trial is scheduled for January.

      • Ooops. Roach, I made a mistake. The MINIMUM sentence is 30 years. The maximum is life. Sorry for the mistake.

  6. Good afternoon everyone. I’m watching the live stream of closing arguments. Meanwhile, Comcast is having problems with their servers and customers across the nation cannot access email.

  7. Off Topic

    New York Daily News reports that the cop who killed Keith Lamont Scott will not face charges. They investigated themselves and found the killing justified.


    • Oh wow, I’m so surprised. I’m sure it’s just an oversight, a one in a million mistake, because we all know LEO always does such thorough investigations on their officers!

      Seriously only an outside investigation will bring the truth forward.

    • Here is the entire live news conference:

      It looks s 42 mins long.

      Here are some highlights from it.

      15 career prosecutors reviewed final evidence and all 15 were unanimous in not pressing charges. 1/4 of the State’s SBI were involved in the case, investigating it. The ATF was also involved.

      The initial cops doing surveillance ignored his pot possession/use and only did when they witnessed him pulling out his gun. Off. Vincent was part of the initial sting.

      No video clearly shows his hands.

      Every officer on scene sees the gun.

      Keith Scott had outstanding arrest warrants, was a convicted felon and had an illegal gun.

      Scott was told 10 times to drop the gun and video supports this.

      No officer knew Scott or knew of his record or outstanding warrants.

      4 shots were fired, 3 striking him, one in wrist, one in his abdomen and one in his shoulder—the shoulder wound is consistent with Scott being bent over at the waist and the trajectory supports this. He was not shot in the back as some claimed.

      Off Vincent immediately ids himself as the shooter, all present officers guns were confiscated and all had complete rounds except Off. Vincent’s gun which was missing 4 rounds. Off Vincent was a black undercover officer who was wearing a vest which clearly had a police badge on the front. Other officers vests had POLICE on them. All shell casings were found where Off Vincent fired from. Vincent observed Mr Scott scanning each officer and he determined by everyone’s placement around Mr. Scott that he had the only clear shot in which no one else would be shot. There was a great possibility of what he called blue on blue shooting (officers possibly shooting each other in a crossfire). Vincent was the only one with a clear backstop….no one there behind Scott. Tests prove Vincent’s gun fired the shots.

      No book found at scene or in car.

      The man who sold the gun to Scott admitted on FB on 9-2-16 to a third party that he sold the gun to Scott. He was also worried about his prints being found on the gun and swears he will never sell another gun again….feeling responsible for Scott’s death. He admits to police that he also sold him the holster and modified it so the .380 would fit in it (he cuts out a small section at the top) and confirms that the holster on Scott is the one he sold him. He even went with Scott to Gander Mtn. to by it a magazine and ammo for it and the store receipt matches the last 4 digits of a card in Scott’s wallet. The magazine didn’t fit the gun and in the photos you can see the gun is missing the magazine. This photo also shows the safety off, the gun was cocked, and one round was in the chamber. In the cup holder of his car more ammo is found. In other words, the gun can be fired but you have to reload each round.

      Off. Wilson moves Scott’s gun from near Scott’s waist and then stands over it. The videos show him bending over him and then backing up and standing there, Mrs. Scott’s video also shows him standing over an object.

      Just about every witness to the shooting and those who claimed they saw it either admitted that they never actually saw it or the video proves otherwise (some claimed his hands were raised) or they lied. 2 witnesses could tell he had something in his hand but they could not say what was in his hand due to the distance from the shooting. Several said a white officer shot him, 1 said there was not a black officer there, another said he heard one Officer tase him and then a white officer shot him, another turned away and never saw the shooting. They interviewed people who also gave tv interviews.

      Mrs. Scott…..they started an interview with her at the hospital but it was terminated by her attorney, the attorney would later claim no attempt was made to interview her.
      She claimed 4 white officers fired at her husband and no black officer was present, she later changed it to Off. Vincent was present but he didn’t shoot, he wasn’t part of the action. She claimed he didn’t own a gun after his accident BUT texts between Scott and his wife 1 month prior to shooting have them arguing over his having a gun.

      Only drugs in his system were his meds and also showed recent pot usage in a separate test.

      It is unknown if charges were brought against the guy who sold the gun to Scott since it happened outside of their jurisdiction.

      Sometimes you have to wait for the full report before making a decision.

      Like in the original story xena posted I wanted to wait for the history of the gun and everything connects even before the police tracked down the seller who stole it in a burglary. Just about every witness changed their story or video proves them wrong. The conference even goes into how the vehicles were parked and how they were able to see Scott do everything. I know some will still disagree, but I feel this is a justified shooting.

      • Correction on a spelling…..I was guessing as to the spelling of Off. Vincent’s name it is actually spelled Vinson not Vincent.

      • yahtzeebutterfly

        Towerflower, thank you for the time you have taken detailing the press conference. I have just finished watching the press conference at the link you provided. It answered many questions I had had earlier. I now can understand why the prosecutor has brought no charges against Ofc. Vincent.

        Knowing that Keith had, according to his wife, just taken his medications which, as she said in an interview makes him “zoned out”, I can understand why the officers were wary of his “blank” look.

        Was there any other way they could have de-escalated the situation? I don’t have the answer to that. Was there any way Ofc. Vincent could have waited longer before shooting Keith…waited to see if Keith was actually going to aim his gun at them? Or, would such waiting have increased the risk that an officer’s bullet might miss and hit another officer because it would not have been a safe time to avoid hitting other officers?

        I hope people who claimed to be witnesses but later said that they did not see the actual event have learned the seriousness of their misinformation on the public and the public’s response to the shooting.

        It was helpful to see the store’s surveillance video and also to learn of the info provided by the seller of the gun to Keith.

        For those who have not gone to Towerflower’s video link yet, I will post the video here:

        • yahtzeebutterfly

          What still concerns me is that Keith Scott was walking calmly backwards in the videos from the scene. Makes me think about how Terence Crutcher who appeared calm and appeared to be no threat.

          Why did one officer wait to turn on his body cam?

          The gun appearing afterward on the ground near the curb still seems strange to me.

        • Yahtzee,

          “I hope people who claimed to be witnesses but later said that they did not see the actual event have learned the seriousness of their misinformation on the public and the public’s response to the shooting.”

          In some towns, people can be convinced to change their stories or suffer harmful retribution. Remember that Santana who filmed the killing of Walter Scott wanted to talk with an attorney and feel confident about protection before he released the video.

          • yahtzeebutterfly

            Interesting that you should mention that… It’s what got me up out of bed to start doing the research I am doing now… and to be thinking of other things like how the officers on the scene didn’t know about Keith’s record, but I think that the prosecutor (and tomorrow I check again the video to be sure) in the video speculated about what was on Keith’s mind knowing he had a record and perhaps was worried when he saw all of the officers ….

      • I reblogged a post about the subject.

        With much appreciation in advance, if comments are going to be more than a short paragraph, please continue discussion regarding Keith Lamont Scott on that thread.

      • As evidenced above in Walter Scott’s murder, police definitely lie & cover for each other. Even in the face of Video. When doing so, they’re breaking more serious laws (&trust) than the ones they’ve harassed, beat, maimed & killed citizens over.
        And since there’s little if any consequences for their crimes, there’s little incentive for me to trust them.
        So I’m basing MY opinion on what I personally see on video, thus know to be true& unbiased by anyone else’s after the fact narration.

        Keith Scott wasn’t threatening anyone.
        The threat was the gang of armed& hostile Cops.
        They’re banging on the guy’s window, cursing& screaming stupid shit instead of treating Keith like a citizen they’re paid to protect& serve. They’re acting as if Keith is some fugitive mass murderer.
        Everything I see them do is escalating the situ. Nothing they do shows an attempt to preserve human life. They never try to speak to him or his wife.
        Keith wasn’t threatening them, the COPS were threatening Keith. And they made good on their threat by murdering him.

        I doubt many cops would have behaved the way they did if Keith & his wife were white.

  8. November 30, 2016 – Part 1

    The jury visited the scene where Slager killed Walter Scott.

  9. Closing arguments.

    Part 1

    Part 2

  10. Closing argument – prosecution, Part 3

  11. yahtzeebutterfly

  12. yahtzeebutterfly

    As we keep up with both jury selection in the Dylan Roof trial and the Michael Slager trial now with the jury in deliberations, I am reflecting back upon the words of Rev. Clementa Pinkney (of the Emanuel Nine) in the State Senate as he spoke upon the killing of Walter Scott by Ofc. Slager. Here is that video:

  13. Jury Instructions.

    We are now on verdict watch.

    • yahtzeebutterfly

      I hope the jury stays focused on the truth brought forth by the video of the eyewitness and the eyewitness’ testimony consistently saying that there was “no fight” every time that the defense attorney tried to assert that.

      I also hope that the jury does not forget that Slager ran to get the taser and then dropped it next to Scott’s body and also remembers that Slager’s initial statement was disproved by the video.

      • indeed the testimony by slager was when he fired the first shot his victim was coming at him with the taser in his hand, the video shows that is 100% FALSE which to me is PERJURY.

        • But Bill, Slager testified that his mind was like spaghetti. I guess he doesn’t like spaghetti. (shrug) It’s simply noodles that don’t need separating in order to see they are all noodles. LOL!

          Yes, his selective memory should in the least negatively effect his credibility. It’s called being evasive.

          • At least he didn’t say “FOG” UGH! I didn’t want to turn on my computer last night to see if the jury was done. I swear he better be convicted. This was wrong……….

  14. yahtzeebutterfly

    Still on verdict watch.

  15. The jury has a question. Attorneys and the judge discussed answering the question that appears to has something to do with fear and the heat of passion. They also discussed a transcript of Peterson’s testimony. Peterson is a SLED agent who interviewed Slager.

    I’m watching live at http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/LiveUpdatesfromMichaelSlagertrial/Page

    • yahtzeebutterfly

      I just came here, also, to post a tweet about that question by the jury.

      • Yahtzee,
        Great minds think alike. 🙂

        • yahtzeebutterfly


          • this morning my wife and i were getting ready to go to the store for groceries when i said think i should call Mom before we go or wait til we get back? about a minute later Mom called me, i asked why did you decide to call at this time, she said something just told me to call you right now…….i have no question there is unspoken communication between people that take the time to know each other well.

  16. The judge has dismissed the jury for the night. They are to return at 9 a.m. tomorrow. The question has not been answered, and the transcript the jury requested is being prepared.

  17. yahtzeebutterfly

  18. yahtzeebutterfly

    This is difficult for me to post:

    • our judicial system is rigged, where officer can LIE when there is video showing their lie is NOT possible and NOTHING happens to them for the new crime of perjury.

      • yahtzeebutterfly

        I’m numb with sadness.

        The lingering cries fill the air
        I can’t breathe…
        Help Help Help Help…
        Help me. I’m sorry. I’m sorry Dad help me. Dad…

        America seemingly deaf…

        Running away, don’t shoot.
        Hands up, don’t shoot.
        Playing with toy gun, don’t shoot.
        Homeless at bus station, don’t beat and taze.
        Sitting in theater, don’t choke.
        Selling cigarets, don’t choke.
        Just walking home from the store…

        America…care much?
        Cries are filling your spacious skies…

        Tears and more tears. People scared of similar fates befalling them. Pain all around…Loved ones…Loved ones left behind.

        Will the silence of indifference ever be disturbed?

        ”…silence like a cancer grows
        Hear my words that I might teach you,
        Take my arms that I might reach you”
        But my words like silent raindrops fell,
        And echoed
        In the wells of silence”

        Clouds appearing…stormy times…teardrops raining down

      • Bill,
        I was looking for a law article to reference, but something else came up and I had to give up my search — at least temporarily.

        In general, parties to cases are not charged with perjury. That’s because the judge or jury can decide on their credibility. Or, to say it another way, the judicial system anticipates defandants to lie. For other witnesses who commit perjury, their testimony can be impeached. But that simply means that the judge (if a bench trial) or jury cannot consider their testimony.

        The charge of perjury is generally for when people lie to authorities, such as FBI investigators during investigation.

        • so when they take the oath to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth they can still LIE and have NOT committed perjury?….pretty much the definition of a RIGGED system.

          • yahtzeebutterfly

            Bill, when I reload(refresh) the page, I first see a man sitting in a chair for your gravatar, but then when the reload is complete, I see your standing, bearded man gravatar. Kind of odd tech problem…

            • i dont know how that stuff works……i changed to that picture of Dad sitting somewhere else and it shows up sometimes and other times it shows me in a publicity photo and other times it shows me with the behind the head dunk from 1971……

            • yahtzeebutterfly

              Well, that’s kinda fun 🙂

          • Bill, pretty much, because the judicial system has loads of ways of judging whether the perjury was detrimental to the rights of others or not. It sees defendants as people who will lie for their benefit.

  19. Judge reads notes from the jury and gives Allen Charge

  20. The jury is returning to the courtroom.

  21. I’m watching live at http://www.live5news.com/story/33838356/watch-live-jury-in-slager-trial-headed-back-to-courtroom-official-says. The judge is now reading a letter written by ONE HOLD OUT that does not want to convict.

    • yahtzeebutterfly


      • Here is where I editorialize. Can we imagine if the states and federal Congresses could only pass laws with a unanimous vote?

        • i would like that because only a couple of laws could get passed, 1. DONT MURDER…..2. DONT STEAL……….3. DONT put others or their property at direct risk of harm(drunk driving as example would be illegal)……..then we govern ourselves…..the type of governance the founders desired in my opinion.

          • Yeah, Bill. But, I wonder if all legislatures would agree on “don’t murder”? That is why some states now have degrees for murder, and also degrees for manslaughter. Then there are misdemeanors versus felonies. If a poor person is robbed of their last $20, that is just as damaging as a company robbed of millions, but the poor person is unlikely to see an arrest because it’s a misdemeanor.

            Shall we get into county and city ordinances? Probably not. LOL!

            • i enjoy these type discussions……i agree it is likely 1 person(as shown today) will refuse to accept reality and would say murder should be legal(which is rather strange since to be called “murder” requires it to be an ILLEGAL taking of life)….such a person is supporting anarchy which is freedom for NOBODY……

            • Bill,
              Your comment caused me to think of the movies The Purge, The Purge: Anarchy, and The Purge: Election Year. I was opposed to watching them because they were promoted as horror movies. (I’m not a fan of horror movies.) But, my son wanted to see Election Year. I’m glad that I watched it with him, and that caused me to see the two previous movies. There is DEEP political symbolism in them, as well as some anti-capitalism or anti-government greed symbolism. And no, they are not “horror” because no one is being killed by a super-human or supernatural being who comes back to life. LOL!

              But back to the subject …
              There are people who look for victim-blame, and they are also judgmental and seem to have a problem thinking retribution is the answer for something done previously in cases of self-defense. Get one of them on a jury when the defendant had a badge,and we come away with hung juries. So, I agree that not only is that supporting anarchy, but it also gives justification for vengeance and retribution AFTER-THE-FACT, and that’s because of biases, bigotries, or plain outright hatred.

  22. The jury is being brought in again. They are hopelessly deadlocked. A mistrial will be declared. Well, now things have changed. The jury wants further instructions on the law.

  23. The jury is leaving for the night and will return Monday at 9 a.m.

  24. yahtzeebutterfly

  25. So I just watch 50 mins of defense question Slager on everything about 25 of his prior encounters with other ppl to his wife’s IVF but not about him shooting Walter in the back?

  26. What an arrogant lying flippant POS. He belongs in PRISON with his fellow murderers!!!!

  27. yahtzeebutterfly

    Livestream and updates:

    Excerpt from above link:

    In a letter apparently written by one juror and signed by the foreman, the jurors asked a series of questions:

    Why was voluntary manslaughter offered?
    What is sufficient legal provocation?
    What is imminent danger?
    Define forethought in murder, is there a time limit? Is one second enough time or does it have to be longer?
    Does self defense apply to police the same as an ordinary person?

    Defense attorney Andy Savage again requested a mistrial, citing the letter sent Friday by another juror who said he could not vote guilty. He pointed to the letter saying it seems more have left their positions and are undecided. Solicitor Scarlett Wilson said she was preparing a draft response to hand to the court for consideration.

    Judge Clifton Newman denied the motion for mistrial again, and said he would give the attorneys a chance to answer the questions if they want. Newman said the court had an obligation to answer questions if the jury can break its deadlock and reach a verdict.

    • I don’t think the questions mean that more jurors are undecided. Rather, the majority might want answers from the judge for the one hold-out who is not accepting their answers and/or interpretations.

  28. yahtzeebutterfly

  29. yahtzeebutterfly

  30. December 2, 2016
    A note from the jury asked a number of questions of the court, including why was voluntary manslaughter added as a charge, how long must someone have malice in their mind toward someone to be convicted of murder. Jurors also asked whether the definition of self-defense for a police officer is different for an average person.

    Jury Questions

    Discussion of Answers to Jury’s Questions

  31. MISTRIAL the ONE racist on the jury refuses to accept facts.

  1. Pingback: We Must Rise Up-Michael Slager Testifies In His Defense – Part 3 — We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident | #BlackLivesMatter Memphis

%d bloggers like this: