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.
You mean in regards to the Hindenberg disaster?
.
There are other threads, and news stories where it all is revealed if you really want to know.
.
.
>> “You could be correct, but tampering with evidence/crime scene shows intent.” <<
.
This is the essence of the whole event.
His deliberate modifications of the crime scene make it look more like Murder One.
.
If that felon happens to be shooting a gun over his shoulder at the police or is using deadly physical force against others.
There are other threads, and news stories where it all is revealed if you really want to know.
I would normally be amused over your insistence that any disagreement with you must be from lack of knowledge on my part, because your terminal narcissism is too tempting not to point out.
But the problem is that I know that that is just a cover story for what your really are - a disinfo shill pushing bias under theoretical interpretive possibilities.
The fact is that the video clearly shows a murder, and the known supporting info does not support any of your theoreticals, is enough for now. It got the guy arrested, and it supports Occam’s Razor and plain old common sense - of which you think non-cops have none. The rest of your sophomoric fantasies can wait until you find a shred of supporting evidence for them.
No, you misinterpret what I said. I’m not referring to the known elements of this case. I’m referring to your categorical statement in principle, absent other information.
That is, you saying this:
“The legal criteria is as follows: A trained police officer calmly shooting an unarmed man from 30 feet who is running away eight times in the back is murder one”
...is, on its own, not necessarily a true statement. The actual legal criteria are such that there are circumstances where such a shooting would be legally justified.
If you don’t believe what I say is true, say so.
...also, circumstances where it would be illegal, but not necessarily murder 1.
I’m not sure if your post was banging me or not. I put up that idea strictly as a possible, (and I just saw a def. Att. on FOX bring up the exact same possible as I posted last night so maybe my ‘strawman’ wasn’t to far out of bounds huh?), NOT as what I think happened. Maybe I didn’t explain what I meant correctly, (the old brain isn’t working to good lately), or maybe I did not grasp your post’s meaning properly, because I think this cop flat out executed this guy. I can see no justifiable use of deadly force here. Anyone who has studied/trained in the ‘when you can’/when you can’t’ shoot procedures would see that. This perp is waddling away at far less than warp speed and this young’n kid cop couldn’t even attempt foot pursuit to bring him under some sort of control? Damn! I’m so sick of this trigger happy crap by these cops. I see a fair trial, a sentence, and a LONG time in the can for this cop.
Whatever. I find you tedious and obvious and a waste of time. Bye.
Good, I didn’t really feel like explaining such a possible scenario to you anyway.
You know what? I don’t know either. Let’s just call it an agreement, if this is what you think. I have just recently ended chemo (this week) and still have what’s called “chemobrain” It’s hard for me to hold on to a thought and/or a conversation!
I don’t even have the energy yet to go back and look it all up again. We can argue next time, twice, to make up for it. Ok? (grin)
More than fair enough Shim. If I may....I know 3 that went thru it, (all finished it up about 6-7 years back or so), and have maintained perfect excellent health since! The common thread between them is that all 3 have followed 100% EXACTLY what there Docs told them to do since regarding: light exercise, diet and eating habits, no alcohol, no smokes and proper sleep/rest, (and a couple others I do not remember off the top of my head). You hang in there, FReepers are and will be praying for you!
Thank you Bobby. :) Now you know 1 more....who just finished two days ago! yayyyyyyyy
Michael Brown of Ferguspn fame was running away while the officer who was acquitted, was firing 8 or 9 shots at him, eventually killing him.
Most of the police shootings lately have been people who have been delivered an order to stop, or drop to the grounded instead fled.
They got killed.
Not obeying an officer’s commands is stupid beyond belief. You will be lucky to survive.
If the policeman had not retrieved the taser to plant it, I think it would be seen as a tragedy where the guy refused to follow the officer's commands.
Huh? I thought the Mike Brown case was 100% established via ballistics and forensic bullet entry wound locations that Mike Brown was charging/coming AT, (not running AWAY from), the officer as the officer fired. Did I somehow mis-read your post?
“”””Not obeying an officer’s commands is stupid beyond belief. “””
Nice bleat. Something I would expect from a sheeple.
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.