Posted on 04/08/2015 12:59:17 PM PDT by IChing
Last Saturday, April 4th at about 9:30 a.m., 33-year-old North Charleston, S.C. police officer Michael Slager shot 50-year-old Walter Scott near the intersection of Remount and Craig Roads in North Charleston.
Take a good look at this alarming video, then read why I say the officer will not be convicted of murder, but of a lesser included charge of voluntary manslaughter instead.
Slager initially pulled Scott over for a broken taillight, but the incident escalated when Slager tried to take Scott into custody on an outstanding arrest warrant for non-payment of child support. Scott had some additional prior violent criminal history.
Without any analysis, it seems like a very damning video. In addition to the shooting itself, some accuse Slager of lying about the incident, and the video itself shows Slager appearing to move the taser, after the shooting.
I predict that Officer Slager is going down, but not for murder. He is being charged with murder(presumably second-degree), but he’ll be convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead. Why? Mitigating factors, as follows.
It will be pointed out to the jury that at the very beginning of the video, you can actually hear the taser being deployed; that ratchety clicking sound, off-camera and before anything really comes into focus. That means the taser was activated prior to the video frame at :17, where you suddenly can see Scott and Slager in close confrontation for a split-second, fighting over the taser.
In the next second, Scott turns and flees as you see the taser fall to the ground and Slager reach for his gun. Slager opens fire with eight shots as Scott runs away, then falls.
It will be explained that after Scott’s first attempt to flee, from the gas station where he’d been pulled over, he then physically resisted arrest, and that Slager was unable to subdue Scott to get him into custody. Due to the taser failing to stop Scott as he resisted, with Scott trying to wrest the taser away from Slager, assault on a police officer will be argued — therefore, Scott at this point is legitimately deemed by Slager to be violent felon.
The video supports this argument, and the defense will almost certainly argue it. Slager, now, has a somewhat legitimate argument that his own life is in jeopardy if Scott is able to get the taser away from him, possibly turning it on him, incapacitating him, and then accessing his pistol to use against him. So, Slager abandons the taser (it falls to the ground) and reaches for his pistol as a last resort. This immediately causes Scott to flee.
That’s the point at which a reasonable person would expect Slager to desist from using deadly force. However, some will try to argue that Slager had a duty to use any means up to and including deadly force to stop the escape of a violent felon who had just assaulted a police officer and tried to get a weapon (the taser) from the officer as being an imminent threat to others. I’m not saying the defense will necessarily try that shaky angle (Tennessee v. Garner), although they may plant suggestive seeds to that effect.
Slager’s defense team will emphasize the totality of the circumstances, exploit the mitigating factors, and rest in the reasonable doubt as to Slager’s culpability for the murder charge. Murder requires certain key elements (i.e., depraved mind, malice aforethought) which I do not believe can be proven here.
The jury will not fully accept all implications of the defense, yet because of reasonable doubt as to murder they will nonetheless not be able to agree to convict Slager on that charge. Slager’s action in the immediate aftermath (moving the taser, which can be seen as somewhat suspicious unless one deems it mere negligent handling of the scene/evidence) will help the jury rationalize convicting him of voluntary manslaughter, which can carry a prison term up to and equal to murder.
Huh?
The cop murdered the man, and since this video surfaced, the police have charged him with murder, and rightfully so.
Post 46 shows a crime taking place, murder.
Post 46 shows a crime taking place, murder.
If all I saw was ten seconds of a film of an angry B-17 bombardier pressing the button to hit Berlin, with no context about why he is in the plane or why the plane is there, I might see him as a cold blooded murderer. but then I find out that his pilot was just killed by an ME-109 and his wife was killed in a bombing in London - and the two countries are at war in which the place his just released his bombs on is the aggressor.
My point is, the video, in the right context, could vindicate the cop. Frankly, I don’t think it will, but I tend to agree with the author of the article. Involuntary manslaughter.
BTW, this video demonstrates why I think only fools aspire to become cops in our current culture. If I was one I’d be looking to get some training in C# and MVC.
Here in Washington State the people have more rights than the cops in that regard. Granted, it can be a tough trial though.
A couple years ago a store owner shot a 14-year old kid in the back that broke in at night (the owner slept there), stole some belts and buckles and fled on his bike. The owner killed him with buckshot at 100’+. No charges were ever brought on the shop owner, and the civil suit was dismissed.
Last year a guy was found innocent of killing a guy as he shot him as he drove off down the block in his pickup truck that the owner had left on the driveway warming up. Lucky shot with his pistol at quite a distance and hit the thief in the back of the head. It should never have been brought up on charges, but the prosecutor was trying to make a name for himself.
Shooting a person running away from a felony (such as after an assault) is also legal.
But - going through the trial, cost, emotional trauma, etc. One should be thinking of what they are willing to do and when, even if it is legal, before they pull the trigger.
Gee, I’m sorry, I didn’t know you might be lying.
1. The person didn’t say what they meant.
2. The person didn’t mean what you think he meant.
3. The person can’t change their post on this site once it is posted.
4. The person means what they said, but under more specific circumstances than what the blanket statement implies.
It’s good to really get a solid understanding of what someone really means before coming out with both barrels. And even then it may be better to simply say, “Opinions vary”.
:-)
The cop murdered the man,
A jury will decide if it is murder. Murder implies intent. It also considers mitigating circumstances.
The video addresses neither of those things.
No, you can pretend if you want, but the shooting cannot be explained or justified.
The shooter had two days where is was all his story, his facts, his description and everything was fine, and then this video showed up, and the cops watched it and charged him with murder.
The shooter had two days where is was all his story, his facts, his description and everything was fine, and then this video showed up, and the cops watched it and charged him with murder.
My position is based solely on the video and what I’ve heard happened leading up to what is in the video. What I heard may not be correct. If it isn’t, then I’ll change my position.
I’m very strongly “innocent until proven guilty” regarding this sort of stuff.
The shooter had two days where is was all his story, his facts, his description and everything was fine, and then this video showed up, and the cops watched it and charged him with murder.
http://americanhistory.about.com/cs/johnadams/f/adamsboston.htm
Agree.
I’ve had guns pulled on me twice. Once during an armed robbery, and the second time by a policeman during ... lets just say a misunderstanding.
I never thought I was gonna get shot during the robbery. But I was certain I was gonna get shot by the cop.
I’m always armed now. I’m a responsible law abiding citizen. If anyone pulls a gun on me I’m shooting at them until my gun is empty. I don’t care what outfit they happen to be wearing.
Huh? You are anxious to know what changed it from a routine police shooting to a murder charge?
The video did, it showed a cold blooded murder. When the police saw the video when it was turned in Monday, they filed murder charges, and the cop’s lawyer quit when he saw it.
I believe Tennessee v. Garner supersedes outmoded state laws regarding the old fleeing felon rule from common law, but I’m also certain that individual states may tend to be more inclined to give cops residual leeway depending on circumstances.
Ironically, I spent most of my Air Force career literally a stone’s throw away from the exact spot of this incident, stationed at Charleston AFB, and going through daily training/training my subordinates on the use of deadly force as a member of the 437th Security Police Squadron — back then we would recite the fundamentals at guardmount every shift, including the old fleeing felon rule, which is now, as I said, inapplicable.
If Slager later stated (before he knew of the video) that Scott was in possession of the taser at the time he shot him, not merely that he thought so, but that Scott was, Slager is more likely cooked. Best scenario for him is that he said he thought that was the case, but I do acknowledge what you said about his demeanor in the aftermath.
He was booted out on a drug offense.
Things are not always what they appear.
For starters, what if the cop was concerned that the guy was dangerous? And if there was a scuffle, there is reason to believe the cop believed he was.
There have been articles here on FR warning people to be careful about what information they glean from videos. Sometimes what they DON’T catch is even more important than the video.
And please, don’t get me wrong. I suspect this IS murder. But we don’t know enough to try this man on the internet. It’s why I’m anxious to see the facts as they come out over the course of the trial.
News is that there’s a dashcam video, yet to be released...
Alleged by whom?
I argued voluntary, not involuntary.
The man that shot the video knew that the guy had good cause to flee, that is why he recorded it.
You talk just talk to hear yourself talk.
The police watched the video and charged him with murder and his lawyer deserted him, and you want to keep rambling.
How many times can you get on a discussion forum and tell people to quit discussing the news and crimes because they are not in a court room?
Voluntary manslaughter features intent, but with mitigating circumstances. That’s why I say it’s the more likely outcome than murder.
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.