S&W645
NRA Life Member
Even worse happened out in CA recently. With 10 deputies ending up suspended. I think part of this is coming from the thinking it's us vs them.
South Carolina COP charged with murder
- Thread starter ArmyCW4
- Start date
Saltheart Foamfollower
New member
My opinion of you just went up 10 points. Not many on here (myself included) would admit to an error.
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
Navy is one of the more honest posters here from what I've seen.
JCliff
New member
.
As cold as that killing was, I agree that it is at least equally disturbing, if not more so, regarding the actions of Slager and the other officers following the shooting. Slager was clearly confident in doing what he was doing post-shooting...which has every appearance of planting/changing evidence at the scene to begin manufacturing the post-shooting narrative he would need, and he did this openly in front of other officers. This sure looks like deeply embedded and agency-wide corruption of the worst sort, which is a very frightening thing to behold/contemplate. The department takes its cues from the top. At the very least this is a clear failure of leadership by the Chief, and at the very least he should be canned. I hope SLED's investigation goes beyond the shooting and into the post-shooting actions taken by a number of officers. We'll see.
r1derbike
New member
If the victim was running to evade felony charge(s), is the LEO warranted to use deadly force, and if so, does his "planting" of the taser or some other object near the deceased's body completely negate his defense? It was disturbing to watch several videos and stills on this stop. Especially the planting of "evidence" near the body.
I'll wait until the final gavel fall to publicly call this murder-by-cop, if he is so convicted. But blues and others are right; he will not be charged with what the videos/stills show, but something lesser. Count on it.
I'll wait until the final gavel fall to publicly call this murder-by-cop, if he is so convicted. But blues and others are right; he will not be charged with what the videos/stills show, but something lesser. Count on it.
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
For one thing, Slager didn't know that Scott had an arrest warrant out for him at the time the chase began. So, all Slager KNEW at the time was that a man was running for a busted tail light and perhaps, probably, he thought Scott had stolen the vehicle and/or had such a warrant for his arrest given that those two things are somewhat common violations that people flee for/from. The last two things would have been speculation on the part of Slager, the only thing he knew was that Scott didn't own the car and that the car had a busted tail light.
The "Fleeing Felon Rule" was established in Tennessee v. Garner and no, simply being a felon is NOT grounds to be shot in the back while fleeing police. Any such fleeing individual must present a known, clear and direct deadly threat to the lives of others before they can be lawfully gunned down while running. Think: A fleeing bank robber who has a gun in his hand or a gang banger who just shot at people and is running away with the weapon visible. Those sort of things are what qualify a person being shot in the back by police. The situation we're discussing does NOT fall within the rules established in Tennessee v. Garner, this situation was clear-cut murder.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
So was the killing of Oscar Grant.
Didn't matter.
So was the killing of Kelly Thomas.
Didn't matter.
So was the killing of Jose Geurena.
Didn't matter.
So was the killing of Keith Vidal.
Didn't matter.
So was the killing of Robert Saylor.
Didn't matter.
So was the killing of Steven Washington.
Didn't matter.
So was the killing of Louis Rodriquez.
Didn't matter.
So was the killing of Frank Mendoza.
Didn't matter.
So was the killing of John Wrana.
Didn't matter.
So was the killing of Daniel Saenz.
Didn't matter.
Everyone knows I could go on ad infinitum, but the truth is, the charge of first or second degree murder against a cop is so rare that the statistic is only eclipsed in its rarity by the miniscule number of convictions for the same charges.
Slager will never be convicted of murder one or two. Count on it.
Blues
This is interesting (mildly):
*Update* Game Changer OR Paradigm Shift ? ? Walter Scott Shooting: Enhanced Video Shows Officer Slager With Taser Darts? | The Last Refuge
Seems like it would be pretty easy to prove whether or not Slager was shot with the taser darts - there would be wounds/holes, right? I wonder if the defense is going to read that and plan - "Hey! Let's go with that story!"
And there is no enhanced video....the resolution of the original video is still the same with the same number of pixels - sure you can increase the size of the pixels to fill the screen, but there is a huge difference between enlarging and enhancing.
*Update* Game Changer OR Paradigm Shift ? ? Walter Scott Shooting: Enhanced Video Shows Officer Slager With Taser Darts? | The Last Refuge
Seems like it would be pretty easy to prove whether or not Slager was shot with the taser darts - there would be wounds/holes, right? I wonder if the defense is going to read that and plan - "Hey! Let's go with that story!"
And there is no enhanced video....the resolution of the original video is still the same with the same number of pixels - sure you can increase the size of the pixels to fill the screen, but there is a huge difference between enlarging and enhancing.
bofh
Banned
That Officer Michael Slager was shot with a taser dart during the struggle may be used to show his motivation to shoot Walter Scott and as justification to fire the very first 2-3 shots, but not as justification to fire all 8. Like in any other self defense situation, once the lethal threat is gone, so is the justification for using lethal force.
The linked blog talks about micro-seconds of decision-making, which is actually a little bit more complicated. Human reaction time as part of the human OODA loop works with a delay. First, before Slager reaches for his firearm, he had already made the decision to use it, i.e., during the struggle. It then takes time for the brain to process that Scott runs away. The very first 2-3 shots may be argued to be justified if the case can be made that Slager was in fear for his life or great bodily harm during the struggle. However, after those 2-3 shots, Slager knew that he was shooting at someone running away and who is no longer a threat. That's why he is being charged with murder.
The other issue is that it looks like one dart went into Slager's leg while the other went into is in the upper torso region of Scott. Neither got actually tasered. While losing control of an operational taser may justify the use of deadly force, losing a non-operational taser or unsuccessfully deploying a taser (thus making it non-operational) does not.
As I said before, if Slager would have just backed off, continued to follow Scott to observe his location from a distance, and called for backup, Scott would be in custody and Slager not in jail.
Stengun
New member
Howdy,
Yep, or a regular jury. Juries often decides a verdict based on things other than the facts presented to them. The makeup of the grand jury or the jury can and will effect their verdict.
In this case only time will tell.
Nowadays every time a cop is involved in a questionable shooting they all say the same thing: "I was in fear of losing my life." When a cop says this most people want to say "Well, in that case it's justifiable!"
That's the lamest load of BS that I've heard in a very long time.
Try using that BS while on the battlefield in the military.
If you are afraid of an unarmed, slightly overweight 50 year old man, maybe, just maybe you need to find a different line of work.
Maybe McDonald's. Just don't work the drive-thru window because I don't want you to "f-up" my order.
Paul
Yep, or a regular jury. Juries often decides a verdict based on things other than the facts presented to them. The makeup of the grand jury or the jury can and will effect their verdict.
In this case only time will tell.
Nowadays every time a cop is involved in a questionable shooting they all say the same thing: "I was in fear of losing my life." When a cop says this most people want to say "Well, in that case it's justifiable!"
That's the lamest load of BS that I've heard in a very long time.
Try using that BS while on the battlefield in the military.
If you are afraid of an unarmed, slightly overweight 50 year old man, maybe, just maybe you need to find a different line of work.
Maybe McDonald's. Just don't work the drive-thru window because I don't want you to "f-up" my order.
Paul
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I am of the understanding that Slager has already been charged without a grand jury convening. If there are states that convene GJs after the fact of being charged, and SC is one such state, I've never heard of that process before, and wonder how it could work if the GJ didn't make the same probable cause finding as the DA already has. My guess is that there will be no GJ in this case.
Not to take this off-topic, but just to remind some folks of another recent case where a GJ was convened when the local prosecutor had the autonomous authority to file charges without one being involved, the process playing out in SC with Slager is how I said it should've gone for Darren Wilson. In neither case would (or do) I expect to see a murder 1 or 2 conviction, but whatever the verdict in the Slager case, it will be easier to swallow than the GJ's refusal to indict in the Wilson case. Actually, my biggest problem with the Wilson case was not so much what the jury members ruled, it was that there was no one in the proceedings presenting a prosecution case at all, as McCulloch's team treated witnesses detrimental to Wilson's side as hostile witnesses at best, and as criminals themselves at worst, and gave Wilson himself free reign to tell his side of the story with no one challenging a single word he said. Not only is it exceedingly rare that a potential defendant testifies in the proceedings determining whether or not he goes to trial, it is even rarer that a prosecutor doesn't ask for an indictment from the grand jury, and McCulloch did not.
At least in this process Slager will actually be judged against all the evidence with both sides' interpretations of what that evidence shows being heard by a jury of his real peers - and not by a phonied-up process where the "prosecutor" becomes the "defendants" defense attorney, the evidence and testimony is never tested for veracity by vigorous cross-examination, and the constitutional processes of trial by jury aren't replaced with an elaborate performance of Kabuki Theater.
In any case, I think the possibility of Slager avoiding a trial through a GJ being convened and returning a "Not True" bill, is a ship that has already sailed.
Blues
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
One of the first questions I asked myself about this case was what the ME would release about who got the T@ser Darts stuck in them. That will provide some great information about who had control of what. Regardless, is a once-discharged T@ser possibly being taken away from the scene of a struggle grounds for lethal force usage? The fact remains that Scott disengaged and ran away from Slager and neither man suffered a full T@ser jolt during the fight, according to available evidence. Slager made a bad call, regardless of what sort of struggle he was presented with previously.
We need to see the ME's report regarding wounds inflicted to both people involved. We need to see the evidence available that would be present on both men's clothing, in regards to T@ser prongs and such. Also, what did Slager go back and pick up and drop next to Scott? If the T@ser was taken away from him by Scott then it would have been an integral piece of evidence and should NOT have been moved from where it fell. THAT'S EVIDENCE TAMPERING 101 and a HUGE no-no, even I know that. Slager's Defense Attoney, Andy Savage (best in the Low Country) is going to have to explain why Slager moved the supposed T@ser after the fact... along with everything else, of course.
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
I believe I read somewhere that it was an X26 model and very common. My understanding is that they can be used as a stun gun only if the fired cartridge has been removed, thus revealing the open probs/prongs or whatever they're called. I'd have to watch the video again and again to see when the cartridge was removed and who had control of the T@ser thereafter.
During the video you do hear Slager yell, "T@ser, T@ser, T@ser" which is of course protocol before firing. Then, if I heard correctly, you can hear Slager yell "Get down!" shortly after. It seems that Slager had control of the T@ser, fired it but likely missed. Perhaps only one barb stuck in Scott so Slager continued the chase, caught up with Scott and the two struggled over the fired T@ser then. Was Slager able to disconnect the first cartridge and insert another before he reached Scott a second time? Does that explain why the first cartridge appears to be wrapped around Scott's leg or stuck in it when he runs? How is it exactly that Slager was able to close the distance again but not tackle Scott? If there was a fresh cartridge in the T@ser a that time, why didn't Slager discharge it again as he ran up to Scott?
If Scott did manage to get the T@ser away from Slager, he appears to then toss it down and run away. While in those few seconds Slager may not seen the T@ser being thrown down, why did he shoot Scott as he ran away? The immediate threat was gone. Why didn't he chase him again? Did Slager know the T@ser had been tossed? He seems to know right where it was when he went back for it and still, why did he toss it next to Scott? It appears he was planting evidence and knew that if the T@ser was thrown to the ground and Scott didn't have control of it as he ran that it was a No-Shoot scenario. It appears Slager knew he had to plant the T@ser near the body in order for his shoot to be justified, otherwise it would appear as murder.
DavidWhite
Banned
DavidWhite
Banned
Link Removed
Waffles
Member
In South Carolina, he HAS to be indicated by the Grand Jury unless HE waives it. .
BluesStringer
Les Brers
If that's true, what meaning do the words "charged with murder" have if no grand jury has been convened yet, assuming Slager has not waived access to that process? Or do you happen to know if he has waived it, and if so, do you have a citation for that?
Also, do you have a code citation that verifies what you say here by any chance?
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I'll answer my own post....
I found this right after replying above:
That language is very screwy. The prosecutor "will obtain" an indictment from the grand jury? How about "The prosecutor will present evidence of probable cause to indict the suspected criminal, and then obtain an indictment?" Otherwise, the grand jury is nothing but a rubber stamp by statute according to that language above, except that the GJ still appears to have the autonomous authority to return a No Bill in rebuke of the prosecutor's request for their rubber stamp.
Am I reading that wrong? It doesn't sound like the prosecutor is obligated to present even enough evidence to establish probable cause, and likewise, the GJ can accept or reject on their own collective whim the request for "obtaining an indictment."
That said, clearly Waffles stated SC law accurately, but that raises more questions than answers about what the words "charged with murder" actually mean in SC since we haven't heard anything about a grand jury process being convened, waived, or already under way up to now.
So, it doesn't seem that Slager is actually charged with anything at this point, right? At least not of anything having to do with an unjustifiable homicide, right? If that's true, then all the reportage about him being "charged with murder" is meaningless blather unless and until a grand jury rubber stamps the prosecutor's request to "obtain and indictment."
MAN, there's some weird laws in and around this country!
Blues
I found this right after replying above:
That language is very screwy. The prosecutor "will obtain" an indictment from the grand jury? How about "The prosecutor will present evidence of probable cause to indict the suspected criminal, and then obtain an indictment?" Otherwise, the grand jury is nothing but a rubber stamp by statute according to that language above, except that the GJ still appears to have the autonomous authority to return a No Bill in rebuke of the prosecutor's request for their rubber stamp.
Am I reading that wrong? It doesn't sound like the prosecutor is obligated to present even enough evidence to establish probable cause, and likewise, the GJ can accept or reject on their own collective whim the request for "obtaining an indictment."
That said, clearly Waffles stated SC law accurately, but that raises more questions than answers about what the words "charged with murder" actually mean in SC since we haven't heard anything about a grand jury process being convened, waived, or already under way up to now.
So, it doesn't seem that Slager is actually charged with anything at this point, right? At least not of anything having to do with an unjustifiable homicide, right? If that's true, then all the reportage about him being "charged with murder" is meaningless blather unless and until a grand jury rubber stamps the prosecutor's request to "obtain and indictment."
MAN, there's some weird laws in and around this country!
Blues
