Posted on 04/08/2015 6:11:22 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue
The video is so damning that authorities promptly charged a South Carolina officer with murder.
In the footage, an African-American man, apparently unarmed, is seen running away from the officer. He gets several yards away before the officer aims his gun toward his back.
Eight shots later, the man falls to the ground. By that point, he appears to be at least 25 feet from the officer.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
The discussion I am having relates to outcomes. Not innocence.
The statement was made that the officer will spend life in prison. I doubt that. I expect a conviction for either negligent homicide or at worst manslaughter. But, we have to let the facts develop. If he is a racist having made threatening remarks and actions, maybe he is toast. If he is convicted in SC of negligent homicide he might not spend any additional time in jail. But, he will be tried and we will all see the outcome.
There are many explanations for his actions. I have posted one of them above. If there are no witnesses to discredit that type of theory, he could be found not guilty. I don’t expect it, but we just don’t know yet. So relax. Time will tell.
This is not a normal case where the normal rules apply. Feds are going to get involved and they’ll be out for blood.
In order to invoke federal jurisdiction they have to show that there is probable cause that the shooting was motivated by federally protected conduct. What would that be?
I know this is off topic some, but this whole idea that a taser is non-lethal force when the government uses it on you, but you are an immediate threat to do great bodily harm to the government agent or others around you if you take the taser from the government agent, is just weird. I guess part of it would be a fear the government agent could be based and his weapon taken, but still that does not get to a threat to others around when one is running away. Still it is an odd bit of logic that in the government’s hands a weapon is a non-lethal multiplier of force, but in a private citizen’s hands it make the person an imminent danger to others.
Check the laws....depends if the code states that a known fleeing felon poses a danger to others...where the officer believes that physical harm could be done by the perp...can use deadly force....does not state armed or unarmed...but again...check the code and training from your department on this....this can prevent hostage situations...rape..etc...it is a decision call on part of the officer and must be noted in the report...
Do you have a link showing that the senator said something inappropriate?
If you do, kindly post it.
If not, you need to STFU!
That is not correct. The relevant clause of the statute - the one the feds will use to get him - has nothing to do with motivation. It's very straightforward =>
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,...
If the feds get involved, then I'm four-square on Officer Slager's side and against the United States of America!
Because unwarranted federal involvement means there is a point larger than the guilt or innocence of this cop!
I don’t want to do what others here often do, get in a flame war with like minded persons. However, you really need to read the statute again. More critically. Or study its application. Google some articles on the subject. You will get the hang of it. Read US v. Lanier. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=95-1717
You have quoted a statute that comes into play when there has been a deprivation of federal civil rights by murder, and not articulated any predicate for its imposition. If your interpretation was correct, all murder would be federal murder and subject to federal jurisdiction. We should all pray to God that is not correct.
“If not, you need to STFU! “
As is typical of a Democrat, you would shut down any and all that disagree with you.
I note that Apple's revamp of it's photo program sends your shots to the cloud immediately.
I'd say you're an embarrassment to FreeRepublic, but you haven't been here long enough to reflect anything on FR.
DingDingDing!
This was "target practice" for him. His entire presentation tells me what he was shooting at was no more human to him than a picture.
No it wouldn't. Just murder under color of law.
When a person in authority acting under color of law violates the constitutional rights, privileges or immunities of someone, the statute applies.
This puts other “good shoots” in question.
I’ve done my best with you. If you want to believe that the USDOJ has authority in every murder case because life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a constitutional right, you have a lot of company. Mostly statist demorats.
Color of law only means “by the police officer.” And, as I have tried to tell you about 4 times, there is a second part which requires that the murder be committed in order to deprive the victim of a Constitutional right. Others like yourself have argued that a person has a Constitutional right to live. However, the Supreme Court disagrees. 18 USC 242 was enacted as a Reconstruction Era civil rights statute and has always been interpreted that way. A simple murder by a police officer is not a violation of 18 USC 242.
Nope. Murder by itself under color of law is enough to invoke the statute, no motivation is required. Motivation would only come into play with the second clause. The first clause is independent of the second. Note the 'OR' between the 2 clauses =>
__________________________________________________________________
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
OR
to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
Like Anton said, while the words aren't in the Constitution, the ideas of “Life, Liberty....” sure are. Another ruling (Tennessee vs. someone) that another freeper brought up was that a similar type of shooting was ruled illegal under the 4th Amendment.
I try to be aware of my state's laws with regard to CCW, and know of many instances where a person shot a guy in the back and they weren't charged, or were charged and found innocent. The fleeing person was no risk to anyone, etc. But it makes it tough when the clause you read sounds like it could be invoked at any time. Although perhaps if you aren't a cop that clause doesn't apply. Although I would imagine their are other clauses for citizens.
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.