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.
The #blacklivesmatter is going to be the elephant in the room. It’s in the air and even the lofo’s breathe air.
While the race issue is clearly cynically manipulated, it is still where we are. I just believe that prosecution will (and should) go at this hard.
Wonder if SC law allows jury to return a lesser verdict than the charge.
I should have been more clear, I’m sorry. By “you” I meant the author of this tripe. Not YOU.
I don’t see any reason to even say Scott was a loser. He served honorably in the Coast Guard. That’s all I know so far.
And requires provocation. Which is what in this case?
Fred, you’re a bit warped here. Shimmer1’s post was in support of yours, and you reacted as if Shimmer1 was arguing against you! You also act as if I’m trying to acquit Slager. Read the damned article!
No, it isn't. Stop lying. He's got a history of not making support payments. That's not an "extensive rap sheet."
There are ways to collect from deadbeats that are cost effective and non-violent. They also leave the perpetrator alive to continue to make future payments.
More seriously for murderer Michael T. Slager, who has an extensive history of prior complaints against him, none of Scott's domestic issues were known to Slager when he opened fire, so they cannot be extenuating or mitigating factors in his murderer's defense.
“County police officers arrested him in 1987 on a charge of assault and battery, and he was convicted in 1991 of possession of a bludgeon.
“Ten years passed before he was arrested twice in 2001 on contempt charges. He would face several similar charges occasionally during the next decade until his last arrest in 2012.
“He also had convictions from 2008 for driving under suspension and having an open alcohol container in his car.”
If I was a full-time, paid reporter, not an opinion columnist with space limits, I might write articles as long as that one.
Why was this officer trying to cuff a suspect on a bench warrant, by himself? If he knew he was taking someone in, why didn’t he call for assistance? I wonder if there is a LOT more to this story.
Provocation is merely a common factor, not necessarily in all cases. If I have to explain further, especially given the nature of this encounter and how it unfolded with its various factors, I’d rather direct you to other sources of legal definitions, etc.
You’d vote to convict for murder if you were on the jury, then? Even given the criteria, and circumstances, with beyond reasonable doubt being the threshold? Really? Think all jurors would? There you go. Voluntary manslaughter. Loong sentence.
I believe you once committed assault and battery yourself.
Oh, sorry! That was somebody else.
But now -- by your standard -- you have a "history of violence." Because you've been incorrectly accused of it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3277164/posts?page=68#68
You were saying? Oh, right, you’d vote to convict on murder, because there’s no mitigating factors to lower it to vol. manslaughter re the perp fighting him to get the taser from him, etc. Got it. Glad there are more than one juror if I ever have a bad shoot....
Go ahead and rebut me if it suits you, and if you think you can.
My bad, he was a gentle giant obviously, loved his mamma and a future astronaut
So now you've diluted a "history of violence" to "an extensive rap sheet." That's the closest to the truth we're going to get with you.
And, BTW, I called Slager a "murderer" to illustrate your own technique to you.
We both agree that, fortunately, the final determination will be left to a trier of fact. That trier of fact will not be permitted to even hear about the victim's deadbeat history, let alone allow the defense to describe it as an "extensive rap sheet."
In fact, trying to pretend this case is similar harms the credibility of anyone who stood up to defend officer Wilson.
Oh ok, kill him then. /s
Who’s trying to pretend it’s similar?
No, no, you two. This is my fault .I wasn’t clear who I was talking to or about. Don’t argue over 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.