Posted on 12/05/2016 12:41:15 PM PST by Trump20162020
It was an execution. Regardless of the immediate events the man was running away. I can think of only one instance in law that allows shooting a fleeing suspect and that is if the shooter believes the person could continue their criminal activity and be a danger to others.
“manslaughter”
Manslaughter is when an intentional act kills someone, usually inadvertently, not when the person is shooting with the intention of killing someone. That’s murder. This was murder.
I am all for anyone, cops include, having the right to self-defense, but not shooting unarmed fleeing suspects.
“Even if you accept his version of events, he was running away from him so no longer could be perceived as posing a threat.”
Is there not some allowance if the officer believes the fleeing suspect would be a threat to others he might encounter after running away?
Good point. Neither would Dirty Harry or Paul Kersey (played by Charles Bronson in Death Wish)
Since when are endless tweets considered reportage?
Looks like there’ll be some free stuff riots tonight!
Police can only shoot a fleeing suspect if there is reasonable cause to believe the suspect poses an immediate threat to the office or others - or
“If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”
Perhaps the officer felt this second situation was in play. If not, bad shoot - 2nd degree murder.
You’re right.
Thanks for fixing the name. I THOUGHT I spelled it wrong.
BOY that was a GREAT series.
If Vick and Dirty Harry and Kersey wouldn’t do it, you KNOW it’s wrong.
It’s almost like a police comedy movie where the officer is too lazy to chase the guy.
But it’s FREAKING REAL!!!
Okay, I get that you want him tried on murder but, the current result arose out of the difficulty of finding Malice and aforethought, as well, pushing the case so very hard on “Murder”, with instructions that the jury “could” find him guilty of manslaughter.
In fact, the questions that came back from the jury indicate they had leaned more toward murder.
it really is voluntary manslaughter as there is no way to prove prior intent but rather, it occurred “in the heat of passion”. Someone tried to argue “Constructive Manslaughter” but, I am not convinced and Involuntary is much easier to understand.
He would have been convicted on voluntary manslaughter.
(Not directed at you personally, but a comment that needs to be said)
So, next time you receive a jury summons you will faithfully report for duty and not invent a way to avoid the duty and then snicker and mock those that weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.
It should have been an unsportsman like conduct with a 15 yard penalty, first down.
You don’t run away from the cops.
In Texas a police officer may shoot a fleeing felon. If the perp fought the officer then that is a felony and on that basis alone, the shoot was legally defensable
Just FYI, manslaughter was included in the jury instructions, and they still hung. Interesting.
It will be interesting to see if they charge him with murder again...I kind of doubt it, this jury was deadlocked over the manslaughter charge.
No surprise about that. I wonder what the makeup of the jury looks like?
...
11 whites and 1 black, who was the jury foreman. The foreman wanted the judge to throw out the one dissenter.
If it was 11 for conviction and one against then I’m sure they will retry it.
...
They will. The Feds are going after him, too.
Interesting that he wasn’t charged with evidence tampering.
“Just FYI, manslaughter was included in the jury instructions, and they still hung. Interesting.”
Yes, very interesting. Love to hear their rationale. Maybe they deadlocked on murder vs manslaughter.
I can think of only one instance in law that allows shooting a fleeing suspect and that is if the shooter believes the person could continue their criminal activity and be a danger to others.
...
That’s what I thought, too, but I’m pretty sure that wasn’t used in the trial. I don’t know if that’s particular to South Carolina law or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.