Thread: Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

The officer felt justified in his actions because he didn't have all the information.

He didn't know he was being recorded.

Originally Posted by Excon

JUst saying ...
If that is the case it would be wrong because he was an Officer when the incidnent happened.

Maybe. But that certainly might be a motive.

Originally Posted by j-mac

Can't "pre meditation" occur even seconds before the act?

I don't think so. I think that would still qualify as in the moment. If the argument was that this was premeditated...it wasn't. Unless this officer knew he was going to be stopping this guy at this time and had made the decision to kill him. Good luck proving that.

Originally Posted by csbrown28

I'm not dramitizing it. HP's cause more damage than FMJ's. That's why there is an agreement not to use them in war, but we use them on our own civilians. Just pointing it out.

HP would would stop the target faster. They also would reduce over penetration. We SHOULD allow them in war. Especially in places where targets won't have armor. FMJs will just go right through. HP rounds are the only logical defensive round. They reduce risk to bystanders.

Originally Posted by j-mac

Not me...He stopped, planted, and methodically took aim, then proceeded not to just shoot once, or twice, but 8 freakin' times....I think manslaughter should be for cases where you don't intend on killing someone, but it happens...This was murder.

Originally Posted by Ockham

1st degree Manslaughter would be a gift for this cop actually - I'd be more apt to side with 2nd degree murder as shooting at someone 8 times in the back (in this case) was not premeditated (no evidence to show premeditation) but where death would be a distinct possibility.

Originally Posted by Peter King

I was thinking from the way the Dutch legal system looks at it, murder in our system is planned/premeditated and "doodslag" which to us is "manslaughter" where it is not a premeditated act of homicide.
Because I do not think he premedidated this killing so for me it is manslaughter (homicide without prior premedidation).

Originally Posted by j-mac

Can't "pre meditation" occur even seconds before the act?

Originally Posted by stonewall50

I don't think so. I think that would still qualify as in the moment. If the argument was that this was premeditated...it wasn't. Unless this officer knew he was going to be stopping this guy at this time and had made the decision to kill him. Good luck proving that.

SC Judicial Department

Murder is the killing of a person with malice aforethought, either express or implied. Id. With the exception of the death of the victim, each and every element of murder must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a jury to convict a defendant of ABIK. Id.

“Malice aforethought” is defined as “the requisite mental state for common-law murder” and it utilizes four possible mental states to encompass both specific and general intent to commit the crime. Black’s Law Dictionary 969 (7th ed. 1999). These four possibilities are intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, extremely reckless indifference to the value of human life (abandoned and malignant heart), and intent to commit a felony (felony murder rule).[3] Id. “General intent” is defined as “the state of mind required for the commission of certain common law crimes not requiring specific intent” and it “usually takes the form of recklessness . . . or negligence.” Black’s Law Dictionary 813 (7th ed. 1999).

Clearly, the above definitions illustrate that malice aforethought encompasses both the specific and general intent to commit murder. As ABIK encompasses each of the required elements of murder except for the death of the victim, it is axiomatic that malice aforethought be the mental state required to commit ABIK. Further, the South Carolina Supreme Court has stated “the required mental state for ABIK, like murder, is malice aforethought.” State v. Fennell, 340 S.C. 266, 275, 531 S.E.2d 512, 517 (2000).

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

SC Judicial Department

It seems that drawing his weapon and aiming can be seen as an example of both malice and forethought.

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

It seems that drawing his weapon and aiming can be seen as an example of both malice and forethought.

What if he thought he was a danger because he was a black man running loose?

Originally Posted by csbrown28

I'm not dramitizing it. HP's cause more damage than FMJ's. That's why there is an agreement not to use them in war, but we use them on our own civilians. Just pointing it out.

HPs reduce the possibility of over-penetration, thereby reducing risk to bystanders.

Originally Posted by disneydude

Politifact is biased? Where did you come up with that? They are probably the LEAST biased source out there. If you bothered to look at the link you would see that the claim you made, perpetuated by Bill O'Reilly and other right-wing radio propogandists, is technically correct. However, when you see that there are 5x as many whites in America as blacks you see that it is disproportionately blacks who are killed by police.

well no ****. But on the same thought, who disproportionately commits the crimes? you would have to factor all of that in to get an accurate idea to prove anything.


and **** politifact:

Study Finds Fact Checkers Biased Against Republicans - US News
PolitiFact Florida’s 5 Most Biased Rulings - Media Trackers

Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und

well no ****. But on the same thought, who disproportionately commits the crimes? you would have to factor all of that in to get an accurate idea to prove anything.


and **** politifact:

Study Finds Fact Checkers Biased Against Republicans - US News
PolitiFact Florida’s 5 Most Biased Rulings - Media Trackers

You would also have to figure out who is disproportionately in poverty, under-eductated, and come from broken homes.