South Carolina COP charged with murder

[S&W645]

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

To confuse you even more, Summary Courts in SC can hear criminal cases. I agree, we have some messed up courts and laws.

 

[Waffles]

Bluestringer did a good job quoting the rules. Hers is my 2 cents, for what it is worth.


In SC, a police officer can obtain a warrant for arrest based on probable cause, and an arrest is made. The arrested person then has a right to have a Bond set. In this case, Murder, the bond hearing must be before a General Sessions Court. If it is for a minor offense, such as Shop Lifting, the case is heard in a Magistrate Court. For more serious offenses (in this case Murder), the warrant is obtained and the individual is arrested. He than has a right to a Preliminary Hearing where the state gives its probable cause (some Defense Counsels try to try the case here) and in most cases the case is forwarded to the Grand Jury. It makes no difference what the Preliminary Hearing outcome is, the case can be forwarded to the Grand Jury. At this time, the case is presented and the Grand jury either indicates or not. (It is said that in SC, the Solicitor can indicate a Ham Sandwich.) The case is then set for trial. When the Grand Jury sits is up to the Solicitors Office. Some places it sits 4 times a year for 30 days, others more often. Sometimes a Special Grand Jury sat to hear a case. but not very often. Now, the Grand Jury may not return a "true Bill" for Murder, but indict for Man Slaughter, or whatever. The actual trial may not take place for sometime, often up to a year and in some places, longer.

Now, in this case involving Slager, he was arrested for Murder on a warrant. don't mean he did it, just that a Judge (in this case a Magistrate) issued a warrant based on Probable Cause and the subject arrested and placed in jail. A bond hearing should have been held (not reported to my knowledge) and a bond set or waived y the defendant. I would bet that a Judge (General Sessions type would set "no bail" or and out of this world $$$$$$$$$$$$ amount. This case will play out over the next several months. Now, an update: The Chief Justice of the SC Supreme Court has appointed a circuit court judge to oversee all future matters in the case against a former North Charleston police officer charged in the killing of an unarmed black man earlier this month. There will be a lot of banter, back and forth over this as the Judge is Black and you can be sure that a gag order may be put in place. Time will tell.

Link Removed

 

[lafaillepj]

Bottom line is he should never have left the car and ran. If he had stayed in the car he would probably still be alive. No matter what his reason was it was a stupid move on his part. As for the Cop the courts will decide his fate.

 

[BigSlick]

Bottom line is he should never have left the car and ran. If he had stayed in the car he would probably still be alive. No matter what his reason was it was a stupid move on his part. As for the Cop the courts will decide his fate.

Bottom line is the cop had no reason to shoot him. If you are in fear for you life of someone running away from you then you are in the wrong business. Maybe Slager should try cupcake decorating.

 

[ArmyCW4]

Bottom line is he should never have left the car and ran. If he had stayed in the car he would probably still be alive. No matter what his reason was it was a stupid move on his part. As for the Cop the courts will decide his fate.

Two wrongs don't make one right.

Bottom line is he should never have left the car and ran. If he had stayed in the car he would probably still be alive. No matter what his reason was it was a stupid move on his part. As for the Cop the courts will decide his fate.

Two wrongs don't make one right. This is real life and not a hattrick.

 

[JCliff]

Bottom line is he should never have left the car and ran. If he had stayed in the car he would probably still be alive. No matter what his reason was it was a stupid move on his part. As for the Cop the courts will decide his fate.

Bottom line is that the wrongs done by Officer Slager are grotesquely out of proportion to any of the wrongs attributed to Mr. Scott. Slager's actions (and possibly those of his whole department/agency...there are strong indications of this) are repugnant to our constitution, the rule of law, and undermine the very fabric of our society to a degree far greater than any of the wrongs committed by Mr. Scott.

 

[dstryr]

In contrast, this officer had every justification to pull the trigger and didn't and it could have cost him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhJKyK6VqDI
Officer: 'I wanted to be absolutely sure before I used deadly force' | Local News - WLWT Home

 

[JCliff]

In contrast, this officer had every justification to pull the trigger and didn't and it could have cost him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhJKyK6VqDI
Officer: 'I wanted to be absolutely sure before I used deadly force' | Local News - WLWT Home

.
THAT...was excellent police work, and deserves to be recognized as such.

 

[BluesStringer]

.
THAT...was excellent police work, and deserves to be recognized as such.

I agree wholeheartedly. I watched only the first minute or so of the video before I had to jet out the door earlier today. I saw the subject finally prone out and then had to go. Not sure what dstryr is referring to when he says it "could have cost him?" Did he get disciplined for not pulling the trigger or something? I guess I'll find out when I catch up, but I certainly hope not. A non-trigger-happy cop is the rarest of species these days. That kind of restraint and self-control should be the goal for all LEOs, not something to criticize. Guess I need to go read a bit now...

Blues

 

[dstryr]

Blues, the trip and fall while backing up and keeping distance between them is what I meant. 'If' the bad guy had a gun that would have been his best opportunity to use it. I should have concluded with what JCliff posted.

 

[aacx22]

Bottom line is he should never have left the car and ran. If he had stayed in the car he would probably still be alive. No matter what his reason was it was a stupid move on his part. As for the Cop the courts will decide his fate.

Considering what the cop did, it's less surprising that people would try to escape from him.

 

[aacx22]

In contrast, this officer had every justification to pull the trigger and didn't and it could have cost him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhJKyK6VqDI
Officer: 'I wanted to be absolutely sure before I used deadly force' | Local News - WLWT Home

Yeah... In spite of the good outcome, I almost wish he would have. He was very lucky and next time may not be.

 

[BluesStringer]

.....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

Well, the rubber stamp came down today - it's official now - Link Removed, but I haven't found a report yet that specifies which degree of murder.

I still doubt he will be convicted of 1st or 2nd degree, but at least one of those is the top charge, which I believe is (refreshingly) unusual in and of itself. Seems pretty clear-cut to me that he qualifies for either charge. I just don't have much faith in most prosecutor's offices to aggressively prosecute such a high level charge for fear of damaging their office's and the cop's symbiotic (and many times incestuous) relationship. Guess we'll see, but at least it's official now, Slager is charged with an appropriately (IMO) high level charge.

Blues

 

[NavyLCDR]

I was wondering what was going on, there was absolute silence on the news about Slager.

 

[Waffles]

I was wondering what was going on, there was absolute silence on the news about Slager.

Reason being is because there is no money in it for the Race Baiters like Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, etc. to make it front page news.

 

[BluesStringer]

Older thread, I know, but new information pertaining to Slager just came out yesterday or today. Slager is now under federal indictment for denying the civil rights of Walter Scott.

Those not familiar with the case this thread is about should know that Michael Slager was a cop in Charleston, SC who was caught on video firing eight rounds into the back of Walter Scott, killing him. The video also shows Slager planting/moving/manipulating evidence after the shooting, which is also part of the federal indictment, specifically obstruction of justice. The federal indictment also includes a charge of unlawful use of a weapon during the commission of a crime.

Slager was, and still is, facing state level murder charges already. The mayor, city officials and cop-shop were all quick to denounce Slager's actions the day of the shooting, and he was fired shortly after the bystander's video was released.

I said from the beginning that I'll be amazed if any level of murder is what Slager gets convicted of. This new info about DoJ's involvement does little to nothing to influence how the state trial may go regarding the murder charge, so I'm stickin' to my original prediction. It will be highly uncharacteristic of a prosecutor to push hard for a murder conviction against a cop at trial, and just as uncharacteristic of a jury to convict a cop for that level of crime. I still predict a manslaughter conviction at best (or at worst, depending on who's perspective you're evaluating the case from), whether voluntary or involuntary, and I still would be surprised if he serves more than a couple of years, if he's convicted at all on the state charges.

I always default to thinking the DoJ should stay out of state-level cases, but if ever there was a case in which federal civil rights laws were violated, this is it. I never "applaud" the federal government, but have to say that I'm OK with their adding another level of crime for Slager to be held accountable to, and am hopeful that if the state can't put him away for the rest of his life, he might at least get another few (or more) years added to whatever he (maybe) gets convicted of by the SC system. Not that I have a choice, but I guess I'll wait and see......

Blues

 

[Reba]

Reason being is because there is no money in it for the Race Baiters like Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, etc. to make it front page news.

They were also not welcome here if they planned on stirring up things. Some of Walter Scott's family are my neighbors, and the church for his service was just a few miles down the road from my house. The family did not want any out-of-town rabble rousers to show up.

 

[Reba]

Local updated coverage:

Link Removed

 

[BluesStringer]

I will be amazed if this cop is convicted of anything more than excessive force, if that even. Consider Johannes Mehserle, the murdering cop who killed Oscar Grant in Oakland, CA several years ago. Mehserle was charged with first degree murder, convicted of involuntary manslaughter, sentenced to two years (!!!), but was out in less than 1 year. I know it's two different coasts, two different situations, two different cities and two different cultural norms for the respective areas, but it's the same "justice" system when it comes to cops. There were multiple videos of Grant's killing, shot in the back while handcuffed laying face down on the concrete. Mehserle just "mistook" his service weapon for his taser according to his defense strategy, which in and of itself would've been excessive force to deploy since Grant was already in custody. Juries are as blinded by that badge as much as cops are brainwashed into believing that The People would still be their enemy even if they acted like human beings towards us.

I'm going to try to keep up with this story. Any gentleman's bets on this cop getting more than Mehserle did (2 years)? I say no way. What say you?

Blues

I placed that post on 4/8/15 on the same day it was reported that Slager would be charged with murder in the Walter Scott back-shooting killing. Yesterday the jury was released. It is not clear to me at this point whether or not a mistrial was declared on Friday, but almost assuredly it will be declared during this coming week if that lone hold-out sticks to his/her position. One single hold-out quoted below displaying his/her inability to convict a cop who was clearly shown on videotape shooting Scott in the back and then manipulating the evidence to fit the lying story he would subsequently tell about Scott getting a hold of his Taser. I suppose there's a chance that the DA will re-prosecute the case, but as the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied, and the Scott family and wider American public has been denied justice in this case nonetheless. Disgusting....

Lone Juror Says He Can't Convict Ex-Cop in Walter Scott Killing

​

(Video coverage at link)
(I don't like using NBC anymore than anybody likes clicking on an NBC link, but since FOX refuses to cover stories about killer-cops, it's either NBC in this case, or CNN. Deal with it.)
​

A lone juror said Friday he can't convict a white former police officer who fatally shot a black man in South Carolina, and the jury said they want to continue deliberating.

The juror in a letter to the court said "I cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict" against Michael Slager, a former patrolman who pulled over Walter Scott in North Charleston, and ended up shooting him as a bystander recorded the incident on video.

The jury foreperson said in a separate note to the court that it was only one juror who was "having issues," Circuit Judge Clifton Newman said. The juror opposed to conviction said in the letter, "I cannot and will not change my mind," Newman said.

(More at link...)
​

 

[NavyLCDR]

Must be that the other 11 jurors are just "cop haters". At least that is probably how the 1 hold out juror thinks - the kind of person that puts cops on pedestals and worships them.