And I'm not so sure a SC jury wouldn't convict, even under this case law.

No, the shooting wasn't justified, Slager had called for backup and could have given a full description if he had been exhausted by the chase.

Given Scott's reaction to the taser (next to none except getting more frantic about running), I'm strongly suspecting an interesting tox report.

However, given the whole picture, there is likely to be at least one law'n'order type who will vote to acquit and not budge and one appalled citizen who won't go below manslaughter.

ETA: and if there is any doubt, I'm the appalled citizen.

Both probes require notable skin contact / penetration to function properly. If one probe misses, or gets stuck in a belt or doesn't make good contact, the incapacitation effect of the device is completely ineffective. It simply does nothing.

Tasers are great when they're used in situations for which they are designed, and with appropriate lethal cover. But their unreliability is why they're not a replacement for deadly force in deadly force scenarios.

and Scott was standing directly in front of Slager, so I don't think aim was much of a problem. Also his shirt was a knit one that appeared to be lightweight.

I also know response varies widely and that they can be lethal for people with heart disease.

Scott seemed to be angered by it more than anything.

Scott was an old man and not running very fast. It would have taken nothing to tackle and cuff him.

because the chase had already been quite a long one (via Google Earth). Slager was winded when he called for backup (via the police audio) and there had already been at least one wrestling match on the ground (via the account of the man who shot the video of the shooting).

Some of these old folks can fool you. I remember calling security for a little old lady who maybe weighed 80 pounds sopping wet and was about that age. Security opened the door to the room and said "you gotta be shitting me" and then they saw the sharps container she'd ripped out of the wall, cement clinging to the molly bolts. It took 4 burly hospital cops to subdue her enough for us to get the restraints on so we could medicate her and put all the tubes back in.

He was not a THREAT.

And Slager apparently planted evidence by the corpse and lied in his police report. He is going down.

during a traffic stop , attempts to grab his taser is a threat and just committed a felony


This will be the argument

So his word is worthless....

People that know they are guilty, act guilty. People that actually think they are innocent, act like it.

The cop almost immediately moved the Taser to the victim's body. If he actually thought he was justified in shooting the victim, it shouldn't have even occurred to him that he would have a reason to plant evidence.

But what I wrote is the only thing his lawyer can say and try to use
the wording of the law to justify the shooting

Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2015, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)

That's a long way from "they were struggling on the ground." The cops in the San Bernadino video are likewise "struggling on the ground" with their victim, who is handcuffed on the ground getting the shit beaten out of him.

if he was able to get up from the ground and run away

as he ran, which means he was absolutely no threat.

Plus the killer cop had his license and could have easily waited for back-up to arrest him later.

There was no pressing need to arrest a guy with a broken tail light at that minute, much less shoot him in the back and kill him. That was acted out anger by the out of control cop who punished the victim for running away by killing him.

The killer knew he had fu_ked up, which is why he planted evidence, the taser, next to the victim's dead body.

The killer and his lawyer can say all they want but they can't get around the video that shows him deliberately pumping 5 out of 8 shots in the back of an unarmed man.

He's going to jail and he needs to. The cons inside will welcome him with open arms, which means he's screwed — maybe in more ways than one.

To me it wasn't even murder

The cop decided to execute him and he should be in prison the rest of his life

I'm just posting how the defense will play this out

You can see this a mile away.....

He shot him in the back while he was running away. There's no way around that fact.

The man was jogging away. He obviously intended to kill the man. He then tried to cover it up, and his fellow officers helped him with it. Everything 100% verifiable. He is fucked.

get to kill him unless you think he is an immediate threat to harming the public. He was not armed.

And the cop has to pursue this man and not just shoot unless they are in immediate danger.

Thanks.

It's been going on for generations.

about doing CPR. He was fearful of losing his job because a minor traffic offense person ran?

If that brainless idiot thought he'd kill someone in order to "get in trouble" then has no business doing anything more than bagging groceries.

It's amazing, the lengths people will stretch to exonerate this asshole.

Do you honestly think cops get fired just because someone runs away?? Stop it

Plant the taser on the victim if it was on the up and up. And you're forgetting the other cop who saw the drop. Now that the story is out, he can speak the truth, and maybe save his own ass.

The front of the taser broke off the barrel end
That's what he's dragging behind him when he was shot

From your second link:

the back and the planting/tampering with evidence, caught in crystal clear video, video not disclosed until after the accused has filed contradictory, credibility-killing written and verbal reports, is.....a criminal police defence lawyers' nightmare scenario.

First degree murder means no guilty plea is permitted and the matter will go quickly to trial....play the tape...the prosecution rests.

it was an obvious murder and attempted cover-up.

... down is a slam dunk... what are they going to say!?

It was a stick?

can't

so he was no threat to anyone.

Besides, the cop had his fucking drivers license so he was not an escape risk.

And the cop planted evidence. Tell that to a jury and see how it goes over.

He also did not pursue a man running much slower than he could of run.

What a idiotic story. Embarrassed you posted it.

Ex-pig is a murderer caught red handed, I hope people can see through the uniform.

and he will get probation & time served..

Each "side" gets a morsel

and the police dept will pay out another huge settlement (out of which his child support issues will be settled )

eom

At this point the choice is either convict these officers and throw them under the jail or the alternative is the formation of really vicious and nasty resistance groups around the country like during the 60's and 70's. Its just the natural progression of things when people view authority as being heavy handed and oppressive regardless of what a court says.

Ferguson was vicious and nasty but its just a small example of how this could really turn out and we are just one video taped killing away from total chaos and anarchy on levels that we could never imagine and everything we've worked on from crime prevention to race relations could go down the tubes along with everything else.

I pray this doesn't happen but we're circling the drain.

innocuous of interactions with the police would lead to my extra-judicial execution by them . . . merely because I was black.

That is some serious 'circling the drain' right there. This country had better get its shit together and tout de suite or your prognosis may come to seem rather tame in retrospect.

Was a federal "1983" civil rights case brought by the family of the victim and carries no precedential value in a state court murder prosecution. Same with Graham v Connor, it was a civil case where the police were sued for excessive force.

unarmed man in the back while he is running away is NOT self-defense. If the
cop had used the gun during the struggle, as Zimmerman did, then the argument
could be made.

Being in a "stance" position, shooting at the back of an unarmed man and
killing him is murder - cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder.

Dick

white privilege is not getting him out of a video showing him pumping 6 bullets in the back of a a fleeing, unarmed man, then planting evidence to cover up his guilt — wife expecting a baby or not.

was Charlie Manson. The smear of the victim will be total and absolute no matter how much of it they have to make up out of nothing.

purposefully twisting what I said.

And no jury is going to convict a white cop whose wife is pregnant. It will be a hung jury, count on it.

The right is already spreading rumors about gaps in the tape. You know, the gaps that would show that the cop had a reason to believe his life was in danger.

Last edited Sat Apr 11, 2015, 01:11 PM - Edit history (2)

And after the botched non-verdicts in Ferguson and Brooklyn, and the quick charges against the San Bernadino cops who beat the sh_t out of the already tazed and unconscious horseback rider, I highly doubt that even a jury in South Carolina will look at that video and find that murderer not guilty — especially since the expecting wife has already been granted insurance coverage.

That brings me to another thought: White cops who want to kill unarmed, non-threatening and fleeing black men should make sure their wives are pregnant so they won't be found guilty? Guess signs saying "keep your wives barefoot and pregnant" will be on bulletin boards in all police headquarters now .

saying all white cops with pregnant wives should be free to murder black men.

You are being intentionally obtuse in order to start an argument.

Not interested.

Not trying to start an argument, glad we seem to be on the same page but again, make your positions clear.

It took two exchanges for me to realize you weren't defending the cop.

That does not even go into evidence.

requires sympathy for the plaintiff and the stamina to refuse to return a verdict.

A 'conservative' white jury is not going to let a white women raise a child by herself because her cop husband shot a black man.

That's a fact.

It's your country not mine. Thank the invisible Jesus for that.

I have serious doubts that any prosecutor would zealously pursue a murder conviction against a cop for shooting a black man dead. Corruption, probably, but this, no.

And the jury will be carefull packed with bigots.

The fact pattern places this squarely under Tennessee v Garner, not Graham v Connnor.

More importantly, this is a state criminal case, not a federal civil rights case.

The question will turn on was the shooting self-defense. It clearly was not. And the officer lying about the facts shows he KNEW it wasn't. He tried to cover it up.

There is nothing on that video a defense can use.

This isn't Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin. This is on video.

Easy conviction.

It's a competitive target practice technique. It's not something someone does in a blind panic. He got in the stance, lined up the target, and executed him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/04/10/walter-scott-killed-by-michael-slagers-weaver-stance/

i was thinking the exact same thing. it's obvious that the cop should NEVER have been allowed in the police force in the 1st place (he's trigger happy) but to play devil's advocate, could the weaver stance show that he was acting on instinct like in a shooting range? i'm not justifying it at all ... i still think he should be in jail. but as far as this cop thinking "i'm going to kill me a fill-in-the-blank today", i don't think that's what happened. i think because he was in a physical altercation & thought that the man went for his taser, he wanted to subdue him & instinct took over (granted that instinct was 100% WRONG) but i would call it short of "murder". it was more of an adrenaline filled "i need to stop that guy at all costs" & as you pointed out, the weaver stance & target shooting & focus of "STOP" at all costs took over. trigger happy, yes. murder? i think the verdict is still out...

be studying what 'reasonable' means in relation to shooting at someone 8 times hitting them 5 times in the back as they are running away, posing NO THREAT to the cop.

Can't we hope he'll be convicted if the evidence requires it? Of course he'll use all the defenses available. That doesn't mean he can't be convicted if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - like is, no one would be saying he didn't do the killing. He can claim self defense but that does not mean the jury will find it applied.

And the victim's personality/problems/past doings is not admissible evidence. The state can move to exclude that.