South Carolina COP charged with murder

Ain't never gonna happen. The VERY best he can hope for is Voluntary Manslaughter. He will go away for a very looooong time.

joker.gif
lmao3.gif
haha.gif
DM36_Contest__Silly_dance_by_N_ico.gif
tantrum-1.gif
ROFLMAO_emote_by_morima.gif
ROFLSmiley.gif
doggie-1.gif


Johannes Mehserle was convicted of manslaughter, sentenced to only two years, and served less than one.

What is your definition of "...a very looooong time?"

Blues
 
Slager's first lawyer dumped him as soon as the video came out. Wow, how bad do you have to be for a criminal defense lawyer to dump you! Anyway, I think I heard on the bail denial video that he has a public defender. So imagine if the defense can get the video tossed out and not admissible...
 
What defense is he going to get, his department already fired him, his partner -- the one cop who showed first at the scene must have seen him dropping the alleged taser or yet to be identified object so likely will testify what he saw.

Shooting someone in the back eight times while the suspect is running away -- what was he thinking?

The "object" was dropped after the cop had already noted someone filming him, yet he goes back, pick the object and drop it off thereafter and in front of his own cop partner. This is straight from movies scene yet saddly a reality of today's America.

To protect and to Serve, wonder to whom?
 
The dashcam video has been released. Please listen to the victim and think about what he is saying and if your feelings might change somewhat. It will be interesting to hear about the car he was "buying" but didn't have anything to back that up. The victim may have taken off because of the car and not the warrant for non-payment of child support.
 
The dashcam video has been released. Please listen to the victim and think about what he is saying and if your feelings might change somewhat. It will be interesting to hear about the car he was "buying" but didn't have anything to back that up. The victim may have taken off because of the car and not the warrant for non-payment of child support.

https://youtu.be/WQa9zmxanZY

Please listen carefully to what the murderer says right after he asks for the drivers license of the now deceased Walter Scott. I hear Michael Slager say- "The reason for the stop is your third brake lights out." I did a bit of research and found that S. Carolina only requires motor vehicles to have one stop light on a motor vehicle, that is the law. The SC Supreme Court ruled that it does not matter how many stop lights a vehicle is equipped with, if only one is working you are complying with SC law. In this case the cop/murderer said in the dash cam video that he stopped the driver/deceased because the "third" brake light on the vehicle was not working. Since the vehicle seemingly had not only one but actually two stop lights working properly, I would suggest this "traffic stop" is a perfect example of racial profiling. Very sad, and unfortunately this terrible injustice could happen to any one of us or to a loved one who is targeted by a rogue cop.
 
The dashcam video has been released. Please listen to the victim and think about what he is saying and if your feelings might change somewhat. It will be interesting to hear about the car he was "buying" but didn't have anything to back that up. The victim may have taken off because of the car and not the warrant for non-payment of child support.

Still doesn't justify shooting Walter Scott while running away, unarmed, not being an immediate threat to anyone. If Officer Michael Slager would have called and waited for backup, Scott would be in custody and Slager not in jail.
 
The dashcam video has been released. Please listen to the victim and think about what he is saying and if your feelings might change somewhat. It will be interesting to hear about the car he was "buying" but didn't have anything to back that up. The victim may have taken off because of the car and not the warrant for non-payment of child support.

Exactly...we give our LEO's authority to be prosecutor, jury, and judge right there on the street - no need to make arrest when justice can be metered out quickly and efficiently to a suspected car thief, because, after all, isn't the sentence for stealing a car the death penalty? Why wait to go through all that silly legal process when the police officer on the spot can just take care of everything for us.
 
Amazing how a guy behind on child support drives a Mercedes but anyway, Not sure what this cop was thinking when he decided to unload on this guy. And not sure why guy was let out of the car to begin with. I feel for his family because South Carolina is going to hang him out to dry.

And the guy taking the video is scared for his life now? Jason Bourne has better things to do with his time than go after some black guy who took a video.
 
The dashcam video has been released. Please listen to the victim and think about what he is saying and if your feelings might change somewhat. It will be interesting to hear about the car he was "buying" but didn't have anything to back that up. The victim may have taken off because of the car and not the warrant for non-payment of child support.
It changes nothing, the shooting wasn't warranted even if the call was stolen. Lesson to be learned here -- do not give cops a reason for a "traffic stop,"" else, and likely, things may just go wrong. Very wrong on this case.

Sad part is the dead of the victim and also I noted no signs of remorse after the shooting, anyone else?
 
I assume the guy who took the video lives in that community. If the other cops on the scene were as complacent about what was going on as appears in the video, then he has good reason to fear for his life. It's not like a cop has never shot anyone in that community without justification.

I think the failure of fellow officers to act appropriately in these videos is what is most disturbing. It shows a cultural and institutional virus running through law enforcement departments that all of us should be concerned about.
 
Howdy,


Just out of idle curiosity.............

While watching the vid in the link you can head Whitey Ford's "What it's like" playing in the background.

Did someone add the sound track or was the cop listening to Whitey Ford?

Either way I find it kinda strange since he practices Islam.

Paul

P.S. Why in the heck would a 50yo man try to outrun a cop in a foot chase? Just curious on this one too.
 
The dashcam video has been released. Please listen to the victim and think about what he is saying and if your feelings might change somewhat. It will be interesting to hear about the car he was "buying" but didn't have anything to back that up. The victim may have taken off because of the car and not the warrant for non-payment of child support.

What will be interesting to hear is the justification for the traffic stop to begin with. South Carolina law:

Code of Laws - Title 56 - Chapter 5 - Uniform Act Regulating Traffic On Highways
SECTION 56-5-4560. Stop lamps required on motor vehicles.

From and after July 1, 1949 it shall be unlawful for any person to sell any new motor vehicle, including any motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, in this State or for any person to drive such vehicle on the highways unless it is equipped with a stop lamp meeting the requirements of Section 56-5-4730.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 46-531; 1952 Code Section 46-531; 1949 (46) 466.

SECTION 56-5-4730. Signal lamps and signal devices.

Any motor vehicle may be equipped, and when required under this chapter shall be equipped, with the following signal lamps and devices:

(1) A stop lamp on the rear which shall emit a red or yellow light and which shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake and which may but need not be incorporated with a tail lamp; and

(2) A lamp or lamps or mechanical signal device capable of clearly indicating any intention to turn either to the right or to the left and which shall be visible both from the front and rear.

A stop lamp shall be plainly visible and understandable from a distance of one hundred feet to the rear both during normal sunlight and at nighttime and a signal lamp or lamps indicating intention to turn shall be visible and understandable during daytime and nighttime from a distance of one hundred feet both to the front and rear. When a vehicle is equipped with a stop lamp or other signal lamps, such lamp or lamps shall at all times be maintained in good working condition. No stop lamp or signal lamp shall project a glaring or dazzling light.


The dash cam video clearly shows A properly operating stop lamp which certainly appears to meet the requirements of the law. Therefore, the traffic stop was illegal to begin with violating the victim's 4th Amendment Rights requiring reasonable suspicion of an infraction being committed in order for a non-consensual detainment. Hopefully the prosecuting attorney jumps all over that right from the beginning. My feelings have changed a bit - the charge of illegal arrest should be added to murder. Although, I see a manslaughter conviction coming. Murder is:

Code of Laws - Title 16 - Chapter 3 - Offenses Against The Person
SECTION 16-3-10. "Murder" defined.

"Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 16-51; 1952 Code Section 16-51; 1942 Code Section 1101; 1932 Code Section 1101; Cr. C. '22 Section 1; Cr. C. '12 Section 135; Cr. C. '02 Section 108; G. S. 2453; R. S. 108; 1712 (2) 418.

I think it is going to be pretty hard to prove with malice.

Manslaughter:
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.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 16-55; 1952 Code Section 16-55; 1942 Code Section 1107; 1932 Code Section 1107; Cr. C. '22 Section 10; Cr. C. '12 Section 148; Cr. C. '02 Section 120; G. S. 2465; R. S. 120; 1869 (14) 175; 1931 (38) 332; 1934 (38) 1463; 1993 Act No. 184, Section 159.
 
Howdy,



Just out of idle curiosity.............

P.S. Why in the heck would a 50yo man try to outrun a cop in a foot chase? Just curious on this one too.

I don't get it either. He had already provided ID in the form of DL and even if he could have outrun him, was matter of time to get to him based on info provided.
 
I was wrong....

Based on erroneous information provided by wallyb, my comments regarding the traffic stop being unlawful were incorrect. I knew I should have researched it further. The South Carolina Supreme Court case is State v. Jihad. (Yeah, I know...)

Link Removed

Further, § 56-5-4730 clearly evinces legislative intent that even a discretionary brake light must be in good working condition by prefacing the good-working-condition requirement with the conditional phrase "when a vehicle is equipped with a stop lamp. . . ." The word "when" in context here means "in the event that" or "whenever." (5) "When a vehicle is equipped with a stop lamp" therefore means "whenever" or "in the event that" a vehicle is equipped with a stop lamp. This phrase has meaning only if it refers to discretionary stop lamps since reference to the mandatory single stop lamp would not require this conditional phrase. See In re: Decker, 322 S.C. 215, 471 S.E.2d 462 (1995) (a statute should be construed so that no word, clause, provision, or part is rendered superfluous).

The Court of Appeals's interpretation of § 56-5-4730 requiring that only a single stop lamp be in good working condition overlooks the "when a vehicle is equipped" phrase which refers back to the first sentence of the statute providing for both mandatory and discretionary stop lamps. We hold, under a plain reading of § 56-5-4730, it is unlawful to drive with a non-functioning brake light. Accordingly, the traffic stop in this case was valid. The Court of Appeals's decision is

REVERSED.
 
I don't get it either. He had already provided ID in the form of DL and even if he could have outrun him, was matter of time to get to him based on info provided.

Walter Scott owed more than $18,000 in child-support payments and already had a warrant for his arrest out. The bench warrant for his arrest had been active since a January 16, 2013, court hearing. At that time, Scott had owed $7,836 — but the amount had increased to more than $18,000 at the time of his death. (Source: Walter Scott Had Bench Warrant for His Arrest, Court Documents Show - NBC News).

Walter Scott was simply trying to evade an imminent arrest by running away while Officer Michael Slager was still in his car.
 
What will be interesting to hear is the justification for the traffic stop to begin with. South Carolina law:

Code of Laws - Title 56 - Chapter 5 - Uniform Act Regulating Traffic On Highways



The dash cam video clearly shows A properly operating stop lamp which certainly appears to meet the requirements of the law. Therefore, the traffic stop was illegal to begin with violating the victim's 4th Amendment Rights requiring reasonable suspicion of an infraction being committed in order for a non-consensual detainment. Hopefully the prosecuting attorney jumps all over that right from the beginning. My feelings have changed a bit - the charge of illegal arrest should be added to murder. Although, I see a manslaughter conviction coming. Murder is:

Code of Laws - Title 16 - Chapter 3 - Offenses Against The Person


I think it is going to be pretty hard to prove with malice.

Manslaughter:

You missed something in your quoted section.
A stop lamp shall be plainly visible and understandable from a distance of one hundred feet to the rear both during normal sunlight and at nighttime and a signal lamp or lamps indicating intention to turn shall be visible and understandable during daytime and nighttime from a distance of one hundred feet both to the front and rear. When a vehicle is equipped with a stop lamp or other signal lamps, such lamp or lamps shall at all times be maintained in good working condition. No stop lamp or signal lamp shall project a glaring or dazzling light.
The fact that the car has 2 to start with as a minimum requires all to be maintained. Federal law for a long time has required new cars to have two. And even more recently, three or more.

And I missed your updated message. :redface:
 
It changes nothing, the shooting wasn't warranted even if the call was stolen. Lesson to be learned here -- do not give cops a reason for a "traffic stop,"" else, and likely, things may just go wrong. Very wrong on this case.

Sad part is the dead of the victim and also I noted no signs of remorse after the shooting, anyone else?
My point was that he may not have jackrabbited because of the child support but because of the fact that he may not have owned the car. I also wonder about his driver's license. Many states will revoke your license for failure to pay child support. The victim had every reason to suspect he was going to be arrested. But it still doesn't give the cop the right to shoot an unarmed man running away from him.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,531
Messages
610,692
Members
75,032
Latest member
BLACKROCK6
Back
Top