Posted on 04/17/2015 10:33:50 AM PDT by IChing
The video of South Carolina police officer Michael Slager taking steady aim and repeatedly shooting the fleeing Walter Scott in the back is rather shocking and disturbing. It shows the horrible consequence of Slager completely following through on his decision to resort to deadly force when, after a foot chase and fierce physical fight, Scott looked to be turning the officer’s own taser against him.
Some who have analyzed the incident and video closely know that the details are somewhat different than the authorities and media would have people know.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/12/game-changer-or-paradigm-shift-walter-scott-shooting-enhanced-video-shows-officer-slager-with-taser-darts/comment-page-1/
The moment of decision looks to have happened so fast. Lightning fast. With taser wires visibly somehow attached to both men, at the moment of struggle over the taser when Slager is justified in going to his gun, the taser flies from between them, landing behind the officer as Scott suddenly whirls and runs away from the officer. But Slager’s resolute drawing and repeatedly firing into Scott’s back after that point is uninterrupted.
A clear-cut case of murder, according to many.
However, even in failing to halt his deadly volley of shots when the situation immediately changed (arguably from one of justified deadly force to something else), Slager is not guilty of murder, and an honest jury will not convict him of it.
Why do I say this? Arguments have raged in online forums non-stop, with speculation about all kinds of contingencies, about the technical capacities of tasers, and especially about Slager’s state of mind (the heart of the matter, really) at the moment he fired each individual shot.
The best assessment of what really happened, in my opinion, is this post at FreeRepublic.com.
“It has been discussed in scientific papers that the human mind under duress is generally unable to stop certain actions quickly once they have commenced.
"This has been applied to the law enforcement setting where a police officer, after being in physical combat, is justified in using deadly force but then the circumstances change in front of him. An officer may neurologically be unable to stop firing until either the suspect is down or several seconds elapse.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3278316/posts?page=495#495
What is seen in the video is, at most, voluntary manslaughter. I have argued this from the beginning, and many indignant, irrational readers act as if I’m declaring Slager entirely innocent of anything. Such people act as if manslaughter isn’t even a crime, often deemed a very serious one carrying heavy punishment — sometimes equal to sentences for murder.
There was a prolonged foot chase and a physical fight over a distance of several hundred yards, with both men on the ground at one point, Scott on top of Slager (that image is glimpsed in an early frame of shaky video, just prior to the two men coming into view on their feet).
It can be legitimately argued that Slager had reason to fear for his own life at the moment Scott appeared to be gaining control of the taser. That’s because of the threat — plausibly existing in Slager’s mind (whether seen after the fact as well-founded or not), given the lightning-fast chaos and intensity of the situation — that Scott could use it to incapacitate him, take his pistol, and do whatever to him.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Graham v. Connor says that juries must try police-involved cases from the perspective of an “objectively reasonable officer” on the scene at the time, not merely that of a reasonable non-police person later on, and they must carefully consider the conditions that police operate under:
“The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.”
It’s doubtful Slager ever claimed Scott actually succeeded in tasing him, or in lodging prongs into his outer clothing (despite some saying taser prongs appear to be attached to Slager’s chest and leg), but the necessary factors for justifying use of deadly force against Scott were arguably present at the moment the two standing men come into the video frame — except that Scott suddenly whirls and takes off.
Some argue that Slager may have believed Scott still had the taser. Some argue that Tennessee v. Garner applies in Slager’s favor, while others say it applies against him.
The state has their calculated and political reasons for “overcharging” by going for murder, but if they really want the accused to be sentenced to prison, they’d better give jurors the chance to go for manslaughter and/or even lesser charges — otherwise Slager walks, and all hell breaks loose.
Sure, hell will still break loose if the verdict is less than murder, but the riots and mayhem won’t be anywhere near as bad as if the state goes with only the excessive charge of murder, and Slager beats the rap entirely.
In a public statement, Solicitor Scarlett Wilson said the indictment against Slager will be presented to the Charleston Grand Jury in May at the earliest.
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/28792149/prosecutor-death-penalty-does-not-apply-in-michael-slager-case
Is there a chance that the Grand Jury doesn’t even affirm probable cause, if murder is the only charge presented to them? Imagine the insane racial violence and entire cities destroyed if that were to happen! Given that grand jurors voting for a “true bill” don’t have to be unanimous (simple majority instead), and that a no-bill happens only about 1 out of every 10 times, I’d say that’s unlikely.
More analysis of the struggle over the taser, with a new, zoomed-in clip of that portion of the video, is here.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/14/new-zoom-video-the-walter-scott-officer-slager-taser-struggle/
In this stabilized and audio-enhanced video of the incident, Scott can be seen on top of Slager in the early seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKNsK9ySAQQ
Why have the authorities and major media distorted and hidden certain things in this case? Simple. Upon public release of the bystander’s cell phone video, they knew full well that massive rioting was about to explode unless they immediately threw Slager to the wolves and charged him with to the hilt, with murder, while (whether honestly or not) publicly denouncing everything about his actions and statements.
Did Slager lie about any part of the incident after it happened? I’m not sure. The authorities have made claims about Slager’s personal account of what happened being allegedly inconsistent, but they have not released it – so how are we to know?
What I am sure of is that there is reasonable doubt as to the charge of murder. I am utterly certain of it.
It’s going to be a dangerous summer.
You wrote it, didn't you....'fess up.
Duh
Here in the state of Washington, the people have less stringent standard for justifiable homicide than the police. At least on paper. And has been ruled as such in several cases over the last few years. (Guy shot in the back stealing a truck, kid shot in the back after breaking in and running away with some belt buckles, guy shot in the back as he was trying to knock down a door into the house (dad was outside, mom and daughter inside).
Past results do not guarantee future results.
I’ll take that bet. Murder 1.
L
South Carolina does not have degrees of murder.
More importantly tell me why he planted evidence. Tell me why he mishandled evidence. Tell me why he needed days to get his story straight. Tell me why he lied on his report.
thats funny
Oh, you’ve seen his report, have you?
What, specifically, did he supposedly lie about, and how do you know he lied?
Cops are trained to retrieve any weapons dropped or displaced during an altercation so that bystanders can’t get their hands on them. It’s likely that when Slager saw that the cartridge was no longer in the taser, he simply dropped it because it was empty and not a threat. Then Slager appropriately continued to tend to Scott. He holstered the taser moments later.
That is that he cannot be forced to even make a report, and none has been released. He has the right to remain silent, in fact.
You were saying?
Don't know. One thing that caught my eye was the issue of overcharging. I don't know if this apples in SC but at the conclusion of the George Zimmerman trial we saw his attorney Don West freak out when the prosecution presented third degree murder based on child abuse as a lesser offense.
So, I wouldn't be surprised to see the prosecution do the same if they feel the evidence and the standard of reasonableness doesn't justify the murder charge.
Finally someone gets it.
...except SC doesn’t have degrees of murder.
Quite right. Just went and looked up the SC statutes:
SECTION 16-3-10. "Murder" defined: "Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.
SECTION 16-3-50. Manslaughter: A person convicted of manslaughter, or the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, must be imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years.
So unless people believe that Slager sought to kill Scott, I can't see why they would charge him with murder. Manslaughter is the appropriate charge.
What if his report says he went back and retrieved the taser?
I’ve wasted a lot of time watching the videos and listening to the news reports.
People do things for reasons.
I don’t understand why the cop shot the perp. as he was running away. They had words before he began running.
Additionally, some fellow was taping the event. (Why wasn’t he aiding is fellow man?)
Something isn’t being told here.
Even if the cop was a bigoted murderer, his behavior in the video, didn’t manifest that type of thinking.
What were the events leading up to the confrontation and justifying in the mind of the perp, ..for him to run away?
“That is that he cannot be forced to even make a report,”
That is true.
This is a comment from the thread below a post on TheConservativeTreehouse.com which featured this article:
disgustedwithjulison says:
April 17, 2015 at 5:11 pm
We also don’t know the following….there were two males in the car. Slager was scuffling (tussling) with one…but had no idea if he was going to be ambushed by the other (who wasn’t following their chase…but could have been and Slager would have been blindsided and possibly killed by the passenger). Slager shooting at a fleeing violent suspect while not knowing where the other suspect was due to the disorientation of wrestling suspect 1 also needs to be taken into account (Slager’s personal safety was in potential jeopardy due to the actions of Suspect 1). Suspect 1 was creating a situation where Slager had to make a quick and unfortunate decision to protect himself from being teamed up on on a remote back driveway.
I still have a lot of trouble with this shooting….but I also feel it is the American way to look at all the facts before passing judgement.
Not familiar with SC law, but a murder charge generally carries with it a number of degrees. In fact, some states don’t even use the term manslaughter.
I would need to know more about the statute he would be charged under, but your point is valid about overcharging cases.
It’s a troubling case.
If the man had not been killed, it certainly seems that the officer had used excessive force for the situation, as neither he nor anyone else was clearly in mortal danger at the time by any action of the man in question.
In a sane environment, the officer would have waited for backup and then arrange a plan to safely apprehend the man at some point later.
It appears to me that the officer either acted out of anger or frustration, and he made a critical error that resulted in the mans death. So it’s more than excessive force regardless of any further evidence unless that evidence validates the decision to kill the man. These validations are generally pretty clearly stated in most jurisdictions if not all.
IMO, not privy to all of the evidence yet, but based on that video and what I have read, in my jurisdiction the charge would be manslaughter. In some jurisdictions it would be murder 2 or 3...
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.