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.
...charging towards little children, (or adults for that matter), off in the distance I think that deadly force would be warranted.
Yes, that sounds far fetched, but when you are in that sort of mode, those are the kinds of thoughts that go through your mind.
But again, I’m speaking academically.
Yes,it was a bit long winded. I use hyperbolic examples on purpose. And the purpose is to demonstrate that until we can wrap a context around what someone did, we cannot make judgements on it.
It’s the difference between first degree cold blooded murder and killing in self defense. And to the unknowing observer they can both look identical.
My long diatribe was a twist on an analogy I’ve used for decades: To a person unaware of current events, germans bombing london looked morally identical to British bombing Berlin.
You need full context to interpret the actions of others. And it’s best to hold off on making “strong” judgements until that context is forthcoming.
“And the purpose is to demonstrate that until we can wrap a context around what someone did, we cannot make judgements on it.”
I beg to differ.
Here are a couple of things that are evident from just watching the video.
Walter Scott was running away from the cop. I guess you could call it running anyway, he wasn’t going fast enough to get very far.
The cop could have run him down, or even just followed him in his cruiser and called in backup.
The cop is supposedly a professional LEO. He’s supposedly trained to make decisions like this. It’s his job.
He shot 8 times and hit the guy what? 5 times.
So I’m not speculating about anything that happened before but just from the video the cop sucks at threat evaluation and to add to that he acted in the extreme.
Maybe he was just POd or maybe he was in a fear frenzy.
Hard to say he didn’t have intent to kill since he fired 8 times.
Yes, everything you said is why this is not the Zimmerman or brown case.
The only thing I differ with is your speculation on what he should have or could have done. It is not exactly the same, but similar to the old “couldn’t he have shot the gun out of his hand?” argument.
I think that at the very least he showed poor judgement. But that often goes along with acting emotionally rather than logically.
On the other hand, it’s actually possible that this cop was a racist that figured he wasn’t letting that “n-word” getting away with messing up his uniform.
Yes, I do realize it could be something like that.
It’s why I think it will get interesting as facts come out.
I have a feeling this has a lot more in common with the cop that shot the black guy going into his car to get his license than the Brown shooting.
note to self: Cuban Leaf apparently doesn’t write what he means.
Ok, got it, thanks. If I could trust cops to do the right thing, always, then I’d agree, but then we have cops like this one, who mowed down a man like a dog in the street....and maybe for not too much. That’s alright, I think I’ll stick to the laws we have governing them, now whether our land is going to hold them to those laws...not always.
Nutty as a fruitcake.
Well you’re right about one thing, that didn’t happen here. This is called a straw man argument, I believe. You come up with this far fetched “it didn’t happen like this” argument and of course another choice would be made, because the circumstances are altogether different.
which can be seen as somewhat suspicious unless one deems it mere negligent handling of the scene/evidence)
You could be correct, but tampering with evidence/crime scene shows intent.
If Slager doesn't get 2nd degree murder, Charleston will erupt.
5.56mm
note to self: Cuban Leaf apparently doesn’t write what he means.
“Cuban Leaf doesn’t always write what he means.”
I get in the most “trouble” here when I try to be too brief. And if the topic is an emotionally heated one, my comments are almost guaranteed to be interpreted to mean things that I never intended.
But I can clarify in subsequent posts, as I have here.
Opinions vary. :-)
He wasn’t an officer, he was enlisted, for two years, before getting booted out for drugs:
Slater was also in the Coast Guard, as I indicated in first comment.
No, I’m not. I have many years of training and experience in this. You simply don’t have the resources to grasp why I say what I say in terms of the legally justified use of deadly force in certain circumstances. Probably because I haven’t given you a specific example, and you don’t know of any.
“The only thing I differ with is your speculation on what he should have or could have done. It is not exactly the same, but similar to the old “couldn’t he have shot the gun out of his hand?” argument.
I think that at the very least he showed poor judgement. But that often goes along with acting emotionally rather than logically.”
The poor judgement is why I mentioned him being a professional LEO.
He wasn’t some mall cop. They’re supposed be trained and have aptitude for clear headed thinking in situations like that.
As for this being like shooting the gun out of his hand, the guy wasn’t armed and was slowly running away.
Hell maybe the cop shot him because he didn’t feel like chasing him lol.
The point being, as I said, your statement alone absent any other information is not necessarily murder. There are circumstances where it would not be, but you don’t know what they are. I do.
Sigh. The AP strikes again.
Zimmerman’s first lawyers abandoned him, too.
I actually completely agree with your post.
It’s why I think, even on what little we know, there is most definitely a case here. And as time passes my position will ebb and flow and eventually find a “sweet spot” like it did with Zimmerman and Brown.
Zimmerman’s first lawyers abandoned him, too.
Yup.
So what, you think that means something in regards to this?
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.