Posted on 12/05/2016 9:44:58 PM PST by Trump20162020
Michael Slager, the officer who faced murder and manslaughter charges for shooting an unarmed black man in the back, will face a re-trial after the jury deadlocked over his case on Monday — and experts say there's still a strong case against him.
While eleven jurors backed convicting an officer for the shooting at one point, according to a note written by one of the jurors, a holdout juror said he felt he could not vote to convict the officer in "good conscience."
Prosecutors swiftly announced they would re-try the case, which is a legal option after any jury deadlocks.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
“Are you saying Slager had malice aforethought”
He had an opportunity to decide whether to shoot the guy or not.
He had an opportunity to preserve the crime scene.
He had an opportunity to truthfully report on what had happened.
He did not know he was being recorded.
At the very least he had considered before this event how a scene should be prepared and reported on if he decided to shoot someone where justification may not be clear.
That the dead guy was no angel is his defense.
The municipality paid a substantial settlement based on the available evidence.
Overall it’s not unreasonable to conclude he murdered the guy. There is no good way to present the video evidence that shows good solid policework. Therefore it would be more of a surprise to see him acquitted by a jury than it would be to see him convicted.
How did he know?
Why not just shoot him at the traffic stop?
“How did he know?”
The moment he ran from the stop topped off with fighting the officer.
Let me reverse that question if you don’t mind, not directed at you but for a few others here.
How did the officer know the suspect was unarmed.?
Judge, juror, and executioner huh?
How did the officer know the suspect was unarmed.?
So let me direct it back to you. If the presumption is that he is armed then why not shoot him at the traffic stop?
> Are you seriously defending a cop who shot an old black man in the back who was running from him? The cop couldn’t chase him and tackle him? Or, just follow him till the old guy ran out of gas?
He did chase and tackle him. Scott was 50, that makes him “an old guy”? Middle age
> Did you actually see the video - I did, and you’re FOS
Thanks for a reasoned comment.
Jeopardy does not attatch to a mistrial.
Run from a cop and then fight a cop puts you in the odds of getting shot category. Had he not run this would never have happen.
Don’t direct it back just answer the question. let me help! Nobody but the suspect knew he was unarmed, the officer had no way of knowing. What the officer did know at the time of the shooting was he had a combative possibly armed felon trying to flee.
Had the cop not shot him in the back from a distance of 20 feet and greater none of this would have happened.
Don’t direct it back just answer the question. let me help! Nobody but the suspect knew he was unarmed, the officer had no way of knowing. What the officer did know at the time of the shooting was he had a combative possibly armed felon trying to flee.
But again, if fleeing from a police officer is grounds for him to shoot Walter Scott then why not just shoot him the moment he started running at the original stop? Since the cop had no idea if he was armed then either?
Or simply pass on his name and address from the vehicle registration to his department. Then have somebody wait at his house till he shows up.
“But again, if fleeing from a police officer is grounds for him to shoot Walter Scott then why not just shoot him the moment he started running at the original stop? Since the cop had no idea if he was armed then either?”
At that point he wasn’t a threat but he did turn it into a felony. The fight with the officer upgraded it to a threat. But let me also add that the suspect escalated this from a simple stop to a chase and fight that ended in his death. The suspect was in control of this situation from the start. Suspect made at least two bad decisions resulting in his death. One dead dumbarse.
Well, it's okay then that he shot him. He's just middle age.
I don't recall in the video seeing the cop tackle him. I DID see a cop stop, take a measured aim and shoot a guy in the back.
No excuse for this. NONE.
So, in your mind, any fleeing suspect can be shot because he might be armed?
Can a civilian do this?
Whatever happened to holding public officials to a higher standard? Or, is that only talk?
Him fighting the cop was a game changer.
How about people hold themselves to a higher standard, don’t do drugs, don’t run from cops, don’t fight with cops. The suspect ignored all these standards and got himself killed. Good riddance, one less dumbazz on the street.
And where was the threat later? When Scott was 15 or 20 feet from the officer and running away?
Fleeing police may be a felony but it does not carry a death sentence. Neither does physically resisting a police officer. Deadly force should be a last resort and used only to prevent death or injury to the officer or people in the surrounding area. No rational person could believe that Scott met that criteria. The officer acted in a reckless and criminal manner by shooting Scott. He fully deserves to be prosecuted for it.
He was stupid enough to get himself killed over a traffic violation. At the time of the shooting the officer didn’t know where the taser was or if the suspect had it. With a taser I can disable an officer and take his weapon away and even kill him with his own weapon. The suspect fully deserved to be shot, hell he was begging for by his own actions. Pizz on him.
Scott had cocaine in his system. Perhaps that gave him the extra boost he needed to fight with Slager on the ground and take his Taser away.
At the time of the shooting the officer didn’t know where the taser was or if the suspect had it. With a taser I can disable an officer and take his weapon away and even kill him with his own weapon.
...
Slager testified that he thought Scott still had the Taser as he was running away. Slager also knew he had no readily available backup. His department was understaffed by about 50% that day.
And the officer was reckless enough to shoot a fleeing, unarmed suspect. And he certainly knew where the Taser was when he walked back and moved it closer to the body so it's just as likely he was aware of where it was all along. There is nothing justifiable in this shooting and the officer in question has nobody but himself to blame for his predicament.
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.