YES!!!! North Charleston Murderer Officer Slager INDICTED

[Derideo_Te]

I agree that the jury ends up making the call given all the evidence but there is no police protocol that justifies shooting an unarmed person who is running away.

If the perp is carrying a weapon that he had already discharged he can be shot while running away for sure.

Except that he wasn't carrying anything. Slager picked up the taser and dropped it next to the body to cover up his illegal shooting.

Or so it appears. There is likely way more to this. I'll wait for evidence at trial.
The only thing definitively established is that the perp is a criminal who resisted arrest and ran from the police. Beyond that, it's still up in the air.

How do you know he's a criminal? I don't know that.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

He resisted arrest.

Hearsay!

 

[SwimExpert]

The nice policeman shot him because he was concerned the perp would incapacitate him with the tazer he took from the policeman.

Which is why we need the death penalty. When cops murder people because the cop is a fucking idiot, everyone is better off when he is removed from the gene pool.

 

[dannyboys]

Being indicted and being convicted are light years apart.
We'll see what happens.
Manslaughter>five years>out in two. Write book. Make lots of $.
The GJ will indict a ham sandwich. Big fucking deal.
The Police Union has the best lawyers in the country.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Drama queens. No one is against a trial. Stop the shenanigans. Nice try

Really? What's the thread title say?

It says I hate trials and lets lynch him Again, stop it, this isnt Days of our Lives pal

 

[The Professor]

The video is partial and may be edited. We don't know. Let's see what comes up in trial.

Video shows him shooting a fleeing man and then moving evidence from it's original place to next to the body of his victim.

Or so it appears. We don't know what else went into the event.
Again, the Eric Garner episode looked very damning until the evidence came out at trial. Changed everything.

I agree that the jury ends up making the call given all the evidence but there is no police protocol that justifies shooting an unarmed person who is running away.

There is one exception. A policeman has the right - some would say a duty - to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon:

“Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

Tennessee v. Garner Cop Block
The entire case may boil down to this question: Did officer Michael Slager have probable cause to believe that Walter Scott committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. From what I have read about the case so far, such probable cause did not exist. But that is just my humble opinion and I know enough about the law to know that jury verdicts are often unpredictable. My best guess: plea bargain; however, if it goes to court, conviction.

A fleeing suspect with a weapon might be probable cause. However the officer was the only one with any weapons and we only have his word about the taser. The fact that he picked it up and placed it next to the body in order to incriminate his victim looks like a post facto attempt to hide his own culpability.

You are correct. However, even if Scott tasered Slager that act alone would not give Slager the right to shoot him. In order for the police to use deadly force to prevent an escape, the law requires that the fleeing suspect must have used or threatened to commit serious bodily harm. The question is whether the use of a taser constitutes such harm. I have not been able to find any case law that deals with this subject on all four points; however, I do know that tasers are considered to be relatively safe, especially when used on a healthy person as most policemen are. Further the effects of the taser are short lived. I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly view the use of a taser as committing serious bodily harm. But, hey, the whole fucking world is crazy now and the only thing you can be sure of is that it's going to get even crazier.

I fully expect the prosecution to go into great detail about how common tasers are and how, over a period of years, they have proven to be effective and safe. The prosecution will also argue that Slager was tasered in a struggle for the taser, meaning that Scott did not intentionally taser him. The prosecution will also make a major issue out of Slager's obvious lies. In this case, if I had to represent one side or the other I would much prefer to be on the side of the prosecutors.

My analysis. Scott never committed nor threatened to commit serious bodily injury to Slager. All he wanted to do was run away to avoid going to jail. What Slager did was unconscionable and illegal. I still go with my prediction: plea bargain (I think Slager would be foolish not to); however, if it goes to a jury, conviction.

OK, ladies and gentleman, I have said everything I intended to on this subject so I will give you all the last word.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Video shows him shooting a fleeing man and then moving evidence from it's original place to next to the body of his victim.

Or so it appears. We don't know what else went into the event.
Again, the Eric Garner episode looked very damning until the evidence came out at trial. Changed everything.

I agree that the jury ends up making the call given all the evidence but there is no police protocol that justifies shooting an unarmed person who is running away.

There is one exception. A policeman has the right - some would say a duty - to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon:

“Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

Tennessee v. Garner Cop Block
The entire case may boil down to this question: Did officer Michael Slager have probable cause to believe that Walter Scott committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. From what I have read about the case so far, such probable cause did not exist. But that is just my humble opinion and I know enough about the law to know that jury verdicts are often unpredictable. My best guess: plea bargain; however, if it goes to court, conviction.

A fleeing suspect with a weapon might be probable cause. However the officer was the only one with any weapons and we only have his word about the taser. The fact that he picked it up and placed it next to the body in order to incriminate his victim looks like a post facto attempt to hide his own culpability.

You are correct. However, even if Scott tasered Slager that act alone would not give Slager the right to shoot him. In order for the police to use deadly force to prevent an escape, the law requires that the fleeing suspect must have used or threatened to commit serious bodily harm. The question is whether the use of a taser constitutes such harm. I have not been able to find any case law that deals with this subject on all four points; however, I do know that tasers are considered to be relatively safe, especially when used on a healthy person as most policemen are. Further the effects of the taser are short lived. I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly view the use of a taser as committing serious bodily harm. But, hey, the whole fucking world is crazy now and the only thing you can be sure of is that it's going to get even crazier.

I fully expect the prosecution to go into great detail about how common tasers are and how, over a period of years, they have proven to be effective and safe. The prosecution will also argue that Slager was tasered in a struggle for the taser, meaning that Scott did not intentionally taser him. The prosecution will also make a major issue out of Slager's obvious lies. In this case, if I had to represent one side or the other I would much prefer to be on the side of the prosecutors.

My analysis. Scott never committed nor threatened to commit serious bodily injury to Slager. All he wanted to do was run away to avoid going to jail. What Slager did was unconscionable and illegal. I still go with my prediction: plea bargain (I think Slager would be foolish not to); however, if it goes to a jury, conviction.

OK, ladies and gentleman, I have said everything I intended to on this subject so I will give you all the last word.

I concur with your opinion.

 

[Dana7360]

The guy had been a cop for a long time. That's what makes this one not as clear as it looks. If he was trigger happy that probably would have manifested itself a long time ago.
It's also just as easy to speculate that he thought the culprit was running off with his taser that he had just used on the cop suggesting the culprit is capable and willing to use it on someone else, making the shooting justifiable. But I admit I don't know.
Unlike cop haters, I'll wait for the evidence.

So in your opinion, anybody who thinks there is a possibility the cop might be wrong is a cop hater. Is that right?

I never suggested any such thing. I was referring to those who want to skip due process and go right to a lynching because they have preconceived notions about cops.

Not aware of very many people advocating that. There are, however many who are upset because it looks like cops can do damn near anything and get away with it.

I don't see that. I see a lot of people refusing to comply with police and then crying 'police brutality'. I just saw it in my own locale last night. And every anti-cop poster here is making judgment without considering due process. That is scary.

Slager will get his due process. That is not in any doubt at all. Neither is there any doubt that he shot his fleeing victim in the back and killed him.

The person that slager shot killed didn't get his due process at all.

slager took that from him by killing him.

 

[Dana7360]

The nice policeman shot him because he was concerned the perp would incapacitate him with the tazer he took from the policeman.

Which is why we need the death penalty. When cops murder people because the cop is a fucking idiot, everyone is better off when he is removed from the gene pool.

Why would the cop have to go pick up the taser from where the cop was standing when he killed the man, then walk all the way to where the dead man was and plant that taser next to the dead man if the dead man had taken the cop's taser?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If the perp is carrying a weapon that he had already discharged he can be shot while running away for sure.

Except that he wasn't carrying anything. Slager picked up the taser and dropped it next to the body to cover up his illegal shooting.

Or so it appears. There is likely way more to this. I'll wait for evidence at trial.
The only thing definitively established is that the perp is a criminal who resisted arrest and ran from the police. Beyond that, it's still up in the air.

How do you know he's a criminal? I don't know that.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

He resisted arrest.

Really? At what point was the victim placed under arrest?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The minute he didn't comply and ran. Why is this so hard for so many to comprehend? If you comply there are no problems.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If the perp is carrying a weapon that he had already discharged he can be shot while running away for sure.

Except that he wasn't carrying anything. Slager picked up the taser and dropped it next to the body to cover up his illegal shooting.

Or so it appears. There is likely way more to this. I'll wait for evidence at trial.
The only thing definitively established is that the perp is a criminal who resisted arrest and ran from the police. Beyond that, it's still up in the air.

Nope!

The video definitively established that Slager killed the victim who was no threat to him at all.

You don't know that and neither do I. That's why I'll wait for the trial and presentation of evidence.

Unlike you I am able to clearly comprehend the unbiased witness evidence of the video. There is no ambiguity in what transpired. He drew his gun and shot a fleeing man in the back and killed him. He then tampered with the evidence to hide his criminal actions. The video isn't lying about what he actually did.

There is a major lapse between the shooting and the stop.
I'll wait for the trial and let the Ox Bow mob wallow in their own presumptuousness.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The video is partial and may be edited. We don't know. Let's see what comes up in trial.

Video shows him shooting a fleeing man and then moving evidence from it's original place to next to the body of his victim.

Or so it appears. We don't know what else went into the event.
Again, the Eric Garner episode looked very damning until the evidence came out at trial. Changed everything.

I agree that the jury ends up making the call given all the evidence but there is no police protocol that justifies shooting an unarmed person who is running away.

There is one exception. A policeman has the right - some would say a duty - to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon:

“Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

Tennessee v. Garner Cop Block
The entire case may boil down to this question: Did officer Michael Slager have probable cause to believe that Walter Scott committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. From what I have read about the case so far, such probable cause did not exist. But that is just my humble opinion and I know enough about the law to know that jury verdicts are often unpredictable. My best guess: plea bargain; however, if it goes to court, conviction.

A fleeing suspect with a weapon might be probable cause. However the officer was the only one with any weapons and we only have his word about the taser. The fact that he picked it up and placed it next to the body in order to incriminate his victim looks like a post facto attempt to hide his own culpability.

That's your interpretation based on selective info. I'll wait for the trial.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If the perp is carrying a weapon that he had already discharged he can be shot while running away for sure.

Except that he wasn't carrying anything. Slager picked up the taser and dropped it next to the body to cover up his illegal shooting.

Or so it appears. There is likely way more to this. I'll wait for evidence at trial.
The only thing definitively established is that the perp is a criminal who resisted arrest and ran from the police. Beyond that, it's still up in the air.

How do you know he's a criminal? I don't know that.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

He resisted arrest.

Hearsay!

He ran from the police. But I'll still wait for the trial.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Drama queens. No one is against a trial. Stop the shenanigans. Nice try

Really? What's the thread title say?

It says I hate trials and lets lynch him Again, stop it, this isnt Days of our Lives pal

Then why do you keep commenting?

 

[PredFan]

Progressives are the scum of the earth.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So in your opinion, anybody who thinks there is a possibility the cop might be wrong is a cop hater. Is that right?

I never suggested any such thing. I was referring to those who want to skip due process and go right to a lynching because they have preconceived notions about cops.

Not aware of very many people advocating that. There are, however many who are upset because it looks like cops can do damn near anything and get away with it.

I don't see that. I see a lot of people refusing to comply with police and then crying 'police brutality'. I just saw it in my own locale last night. And every anti-cop poster here is making judgment without considering due process. That is scary.

Slager will get his due process. That is not in any doubt at all. Neither is there any doubt that he shot his fleeing victim in the back and killed him.

The person that slager shot killed didn't get his due process at all.

slager took that from him by killing him.

I'll wait and see if that is determined at trial. I'm not like the cop haters here. I don't know everything like they do.

 

[Dana7360]

I never suggested any such thing. I was referring to those who want to skip due process and go right to a lynching because they have preconceived notions about cops.

Not aware of very many people advocating that. There are, however many who are upset because it looks like cops can do damn near anything and get away with it.

I don't see that. I see a lot of people refusing to comply with police and then crying 'police brutality'. I just saw it in my own locale last night. And every anti-cop poster here is making judgment without considering due process. That is scary.

Slager will get his due process. That is not in any doubt at all. Neither is there any doubt that he shot his fleeing victim in the back and killed him.

The person that slager shot killed didn't get his due process at all.

slager took that from him by killing him.

I'll wait and see if that is determined at trial. I'm not like the cop haters here. I don't know everything like they do.

If you had watched the video you would have clearly seen him walk back to where he was standing when he killed Scott, picked up the taser, then walked back to where the dead man was and planted that taser next to his dead body.

The video doesn't lie and clearly shows what happened. You can choose to ignore facts but that doesn't make the honest facts wrong.

A person can accept the truth of the situation without being a cop hater. You're just projecting your beliefs and attitude on everyone who doesn't agree with you. The fact is, you hate people who aren't like you. So you expect all those who aren't like you to hate those who aren't like them. The world doesn't work that way.

A person can see the truth without hating cops.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Not aware of very many people advocating that. There are, however many who are upset because it looks like cops can do damn near anything and get away with it.

I don't see that. I see a lot of people refusing to comply with police and then crying 'police brutality'. I just saw it in my own locale last night. And every anti-cop poster here is making judgment without considering due process. That is scary.

Slager will get his due process. That is not in any doubt at all. Neither is there any doubt that he shot his fleeing victim in the back and killed him.

The person that slager shot killed didn't get his due process at all.

slager took that from him by killing him.

I'll wait and see if that is determined at trial. I'm not like the cop haters here. I don't know everything like they do.

If you had watched the video you would have clearly seen him walk back to where he was standing when he killed Scott, picked up the taser, then walked back to where the dead man was and planted that taser next to his dead body.

The video doesn't lie and clearly shows what happened. You can choose to ignore facts but that doesn't make the honest facts wrong.

A person can accept the truth of the situation without being a cop hater. You're just projecting your beliefs and attitude on everyone who doesn't agree with you. The fact is, you hate people who aren't like you. So you expect all those who aren't like you to hate those who aren't like them. The world doesn't work that way.

A person can see the truth without hating cops.

I saw that. And so did the cop standing with him when it happened. There is obviously more to it. I'll wait for the trial.

 

[SwimExpert]

The nice policeman shot him because he was concerned the perp would incapacitate him with the tazer he took from the policeman.

Which is why we need the death penalty. When cops murder people because the cop is a fucking idiot, everyone is better off when he is removed from the gene pool.

Why would the cop have to go pick up the taser from where the cop was standing when he killed the man, then walk all the way to where the dead man was and plant that taser next to the dead man if the dead man had taken the cop's taser?

Very good question!

Why would the cop have to plant the taser on a dead man, if the dead man had his taser?

 

[SwimExpert]

The minute he didn't comply and ran. Why is this so hard for so many to comprehend? If you comply there are no problems.

Do you seriously not comprehend how entirely circular that is? He resisted arrest by running away, because by running away he became under arrest?

 

[SwimExpert]

I fully expect the prosecution to go into great detail about how common tasers are and how, over a period of years, they have proven to be effective and safe.

Why? It would all be completely irrelevant. The man was running away, and was shot in the back. There is absolutely no way possible to make a case of self defense.