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.
Tell you what — I called the Zimmerman case AND the Wilson case exactly correctly — if you wish, go ahead and make YOUR prediction on this one, and when it’s all said and done we’ll see who predicted accurately.
Tell you what — I called the Zimmerman case AND the Wilson case exactly correctly — if you wish, go ahead and make YOUR prediction on this one, and when it’s all said and done we’ll see who predicted accurately.
LOL, who didn’t call the Zimmerman and Wilson case correctly, they were obvious from the beginning.
So is this one, he murdered the man.
Yeah, right, endless numbers of people, including many conservatives, said both Z and Wilson were going down due to the political situation, etc.
Slager’s biggest problem MAY turn out to be his statements after the fact. If he’s found to have deliberately lied afterward by saying that Scott actually had the taser (not merely that he thought Scott had it), not realizing that the video was forthcoming, the jury will be that much more inclined to ignore the mitigating factors. It’s going to be interesting.
Slager’s biggest problem MAY turn out to be his statements after the fact. If he’s found to have deliberately lied afterward by saying that Scott actually had the taser (not merely that he thought Scott had it), not realizing that the video was forthcoming, the jury will be that much more inclined to ignore the mitigating factors. It’s going to be interesting.
I have a very good understanding why you say that. And it has nothing to do with the law.
May I ask why you believe that failure to obey police commands should be a death sentence?
So does running from the police when you are asked to pull over in your car.
I’m no fan of the police, but my take is that you take your life into your own hands when you run from the police while they are yelling for you to stop.
But then, I’m an “old school tough love” sort of guy.
If true, you are deranged.
My position is from a strong principle I hold: Human beings are not machines. We are not perfect. We have a thing called Adrenalin. When someone has been through what that cop had been through, all bets were off. Chris Rock had it right in his funny video. “obey the law” and “DON’T RUN”.
The ONLY excuse for running when the cops are yelling for you to stop is that you are deaf.
Here’s my problem: I’ve had it with our modern sissy lala culture. I am steeped in Louis L’Amour novels.
What would Chick Bowdrie do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_Bowdrie
For the record, I don’t care if this perp was black or white. When you get tazed and still put up a fight and, when the cop has his gun trained on you and telling you to stop (and he’s pumped up with adrenalyn from the scuffle he had with YOU, don’t be surprised if you suddenly find yourself at the great white throne judgement.
Running from an armed cop yelling for you to stop is just STUPID. And you deserve whatever you get at that point.
I’m no fan of the cops and don’t trust them, but unless I’m armed and ready to shoot it out with the cop, when a cop with a gun yells for me to stop, I STOP. Any other action is taking my life into my own hands. My unarmed hands.
Of course it has to do with the law, why do you say it doesn’t?
Under what conditions?
Yes, even if you are running away.
I’m really tired of us pussyfooting around with this kind of behavior. It’s why we have this kind of behavior.
I should point out that my list basically matches yours. I did not imply, but should have, that I didn’t mean literally anyone running from the police - like the guy running down the sidewalk, passing a cop, and the cop yells for him to stop.
This case was the type of case I was talking about. And your number 2 covers it.
Watch the video!
Nothing you have assumed is real.
The real question is was the event long enough for the charge to be first degree, rather than second.
But to give the video context, we have to know what happened BEFORE the guy got up and ran. I’m sure the context will be offered in the courtroom.
God save us from demons like you then.
Whenever I see a post on FR that wants me to react the way you reacted to my post my first thought is, did he literally post what he meant? Am I inferring something he didn’t mean?
Of course, once the answer to those and other questions are forthcoming, you may still have the same opinion. But at least it will be based on more than a single typed line on an internet chat. ;-)
I just want to shout at the runner, “Just frigging STOP, you moron. You are going to get yourself killed.”
And alas, he did.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Now, if they can prove in a court of law that the cop actually had threatened the man and there was no struggle between them, I will change my opionion.
But I know what Adrenalin can do to a man’s thought process - both the cops and the perp. I cut them both some slack. And as we are learning, the outcome can be bad for both of them.
” I now also believe Slager’s defense will include him insisting that he mistakenly believed Scott had the taser in his hands when he took off.”
Based on the video I thought the same thing, the cop didn’t see it land at his feet and behind him. HOWEVER, once he cuffs the deceased guy he does not look around on the ground near the body for the taser in the grass or scratches his head wondering where the heck the thing went. He cuffs the guy and gets up quickly, turns and runs back to where the taser was. He knew it was back there.
And in Washington State one can shoot a fleeing felon (if the guy had assaulted the cop during the arrest). But the dropping of the taser and the deceit by the cop - I would give him 20 years for that, even if it is ruled to be a justifiable homicide.
Gee, I’m sorry, I didn’t know you might be lying.
Exactly. Threatening moves made include pointing a taser, violating their trained force continuum and attempting to use it on person for submission like a dog. Never mind tasers can kill. Apparently, the gang in blue deems it an acceptable risk for their “less than lethal” tool to possibly kill someone. This is against the law and liability. Nope, tasers pointing also means go to guns and eliminate a threat.
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.