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.
God save us from demons like you then.
Not even close. Absent any other information, that scenario could just as well be a completely justified shooting. Let me take a wild guess, you have no idea why I say that, right?
Got source, por favor?
I disliked the vague and unspecified accusation. “he had some additional prior violent criminal history” If you can’t say what, or don’t know, then you shouldn’t claim it.
It made me want to shoot the author in the back as he was fleeing, defenseless. (/sarc)
How do you figure it will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the depraved mind and malice aforethought required for murder? Too many mitigating circumstances. Voluntary manslaughter will be the conviction. Especially when the jury learns they can put him away for just as long as with murder.
You’re saying there’s no possibility that the presence of the wires did not register as such in Slager’s field of vision, which in a situation like this becomes tunnel vision when he reaches for his sidearm.
What a silly fantasy.
here we go again..
but this is my last time..
the cop shot a dude in the back 7 times..
he was unarmed...
cops have a license to kill at will and get away with it..
not because of the law, but because of the command structure that allows this to continue..
the command structure is comprised mostly of civilian appointees..
but the inevitable conclusion is, if the command structure allows this, the cops are for it..
with this in mind i make the following conclusions..
cops can kill at will..
they will not be prosecuted..
no matter the evidence..
therefore, if i am confronted by a cop, i will treat them as an adversary, and if threatening moves are made, i will defend myself..
if i kill a cop, i may go to prison..
if i do not defend myself, i will be dead..
what choice would you make???
A good defense will mount that; but it will collapse like a house of cards. His best hope is on appeal, say the pretrial publicity denied him a fair trial.
Let’s see, his rap sheet is quite extensive, actually — my articles are posted on the site as opinion columns, with word limits...I think you get my drift....
Which, voluntary manslaughter conviction instead of murder? Why do you say that, exactly? Did you bother to read my explanation?
Put yourself on the jury for a minute. You’re going to vote to convict on murder? Judge’s instructions will clarify the criteria, and jurors will be told voluntary manslaughter can carry up to the same sentence as murder. See where I’m going? It only takes one.
Don’t forget also that, after being shot 6 times (IIRC) in the back, cops claimed they performed CPR. Video clearly shows them standing around picking their noses (figuratively) and made no attempts to render any medical assistance. On top of the other valid points made on this thread, the callous disregard for this man’s life - man who was a father, a veteran and who was left to die face down on the grass - will fry this jackboot SOB! Animals are put down more humanely! I support law enforcement, but this episode is completely indefensible. And, the fact that, absent the video, this would have been classified as a “justifiable” shoot, adds immense fuel to the flames of Sharpton/Jackson/Obama “police are all racist pigs” mantra. Worst thing that could have happened...
In manslaughter the perpetrator does not intend to kill but the death results from his actions. Firing 8 shots at someone certainly qualifies as intending to kill. This is a case of second degree murder.
In the second place, it really doesn't matter if he's Jeffery Dahmer. If all the policemen knows at the time of the altercation is that he's fleeing from a traffic stop, the cop has no reason to fire at a fleeing suspect 35 feet away.
Now the OP has asked me for a citation. OK. He got one. But the burden of proof was on him, not me. Given Scott's history, it's pretty likely he's been rousted several times as a result of an Ex making inflammatory [and probably exaggerated, even untrue] accusations. Was he a loser? Probably. That is not a capital crime. Neither is "resisting."
Police supporters need to learn to pick their battles, or lose all credibility. There is no hill to stand on in this case, not even a falsified history of the murder victim.
No, I’m sorry. I don’t get your drift. I’m not being facetious. You have to spell it out for me. Or show me where to get a list of accurate convictions.
All the “details” in your vanity post.
Wrong; voluntary manslaughter includes intent.
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.