Judge Declares Mistrial in Michael Slager Murder Trial

Excon · Dec 6, 2016

MaggieD said:
To retry him after a hung jury is, in my opinion, double jeopardy again. Prosecution gets one bite of the apple. Can't prove the case? Done.

I know that's not HOW it's done, but I think it should be.

I understand both sides of the coin here and I struggle with the concept.
The purpose of a trial is to reach a verdict. Not just for purposes of finality but for contentment of society as well. Since a verdict was not reached it is considered that the person has actually not been put in jeopardy. I can agree with that up to any point before the Jury starts deliberations. Any time after that I feel the jeopardy portion of the trial has commenced.

I believe that Hung should be the third available verdict, meaning that the Prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to get twelve people to agree (which is what some claim a not-guilty verdict is.) Those jurors represent society as a whole so Society's inability to reach a verdict should be considered a verdict in and of itself.

But that is not how our current laws work and there is no great movement to have them changed, so I go with what we have.

MaggieD said:
From what I know of this case, though, I think he broke the law.

And yet he didn't.

bmr528 · Dec 6, 2016

I always consider the chain of events in these cases.

He was driving a car without proper paperwork. He failed to do a walk around before driving. He had something to hide from the officer otherwise he would not have bolted. Once he was caught (again) he struggled with the officer. It appears he reached for
one of the Officers weapons. Then he ran again. Did he deserve to be shot? probably not, but he set the chain of events in motion. He could have just set in his car, took his medicine( ticket or arrest for whatever he was hiding) and he would be home today.

Cops should be treated like rattle snakes, Avoid them at all cost, If you see one, stay calm and cool, Most of all if you start dis respecting them and they rattle,, You are in big trouble, ( deserving or not ).

djl

Excon · Dec 6, 2016

soot said:
He shot an unarmed, defenseless, fleeing (if you can call the fat man shuffle Scott was doing "fleeing") man in the back.

Because he "felt threatened".

By a fleeing man, who was 20 feet ahead of him and whom he had no reason to believe was armed in any fashion.

Upon review of the case he was immediately fired from the police department and charged with state and federal felonies.

That last fact is pretty damning, given how the "thin blue line" of police cronyism and law enforcement industry corruption will generally close ranks and defend a cop for virtually any manner of abuse of force.

This is a clear case of North Carolina 2nd degree murder.

That's what he'll go to jail on if he doesn't plea it down, or maybe he'll be allowed to plea to 2nd degree murder in exchange for the feds dropping the charges.

iLOL
G_d no!
He shot a man that had established himself as actual threat.
Scott resisted arrest, attacked the Officer, took his taser and tased him.
The decision to shoot him was made immediately on the heels of this when Scott was facing him.
At that point Scott was a threat and was not unarmed.
Scott turning and fleeing in the moment in which the Officer was already responding with deadly force did not negate the threat he had already made himself to be.

As I already pointed out to ttwtt78640.

Excon said:
Charles Morgan, a forensic psychiatrist and University of New Haven (Conn.) criminal justice professor, took the witness stand for the defense.

[...]

His testimony was designed to tell jurors that Michael Slager had no time to rethink his decision to open fire on Walter Scott.

"Under stress," Morgan said, "you don’t have time to second-guess things when you’re operating on that level.

"That behavior is pretty automatic."

WATCH: Slager trial jury will continue deliberating

Slager had already made the decision to fire, Scott turning and running with his back to the Officer didn't change that.

By the expert's testimony, the decision to shoot was irreversible.
In the 1.5 seconds it took him to draw, aim, and fire, he had to act on what was a perceived threat, which could, at any moment, turn around and clear the same distance of 17 feet in 1.5 seconds and attacked him again. Or he could have even encountered someone else and harmed them in his need to get away.

soot said:
, this murderer ...

He acted within the bounds of the law and is no way a murderer. Even this Jury moved past that charge and hung on the Manslaughter charge.

Ockham said:
I didn't have the benefit of seeing or hearing the evidence in the courtroom, so with only the info outside of the courtroom available, I'd say I'm amazed he wasn't convicted. There are in my mind two clear cut cases where the video evidence was so damning, I find it hard to rationalize ANY other outcome; The Staten Island case of Eric Gardner, and this one. In either, the offenses that the accused committed did in no way require the extreme actions by the police.

Your narrative is off. There were no extreme actions in the Garner case and there was no choke hold. It was a "head lock" which was released prior to him even saying he couldn't breath.

He was larger than the Officers on the scene and then resisted.
Taking down this larger individual to get him under control was appropriate.
His claiming he couldn't breath was only done after the Officer who used a "headlock" released it. And saying you can't breath is an indication that you can breath.
It wasn't a "choke hold" and his health problems and resisting had far more to do with his death.

Ockham said:
I didn't have the benefit of seeing or hearing the evidence in the courtroom, so with only the info outside of the courtroom available, I'd say I'm amazed he wasn't convicted..

Then you are not aware that the Officer made the decision to use deadly force when Scott was an actual threat and facing him, and did not see that threat toss the taser he had just used on the Officer.

Excon · Dec 6, 2016

ludin said:
It still confuses me that he wasn't convicted via hung jury.

That is because you ignore the actual evidence.

ludin said:
It fits murder 2 manslaughter ...

No it does not.

ludin said:
This guy did nothing to warrent being shot.

Yes he did.

ludin said:
The cop planted a gun on the guy and called it in

You continue to spew this lie even though being corrected.
The Office did not plant a weapon and then call it in. That assertion in nothing but an irrational claim.
As you were already told.

What you are saying is that he chose to plant evidence (that he had absolutely no need to), in front of another officer and at least one civilian who he knew was recording him. That is just irrational.

ludin said:
instead the cop shot him in the back then planted evidence to try and prove it was
a legit shooting.

Just stop with the lies and learn the evidence.

ttwtt78640 said:
I don't think anyone, even Excon, would assert that standard self defense allows that.

It does when you are already responding the the threat the person made their self to be. Their decision to flee while you are already responding doesn't negate the fact that they already established their self as a threat.

And as already pointed out to you.

Excon said:
Charles Morgan, a forensic psychiatrist and University of New Haven (Conn.) criminal justice professor, took the witness stand for the defense.

[...]

His testimony was designed to tell jurors that Michael Slager had no time to rethink his decision to open fire on Walter Scott.

"Under stress," Morgan said, "you don’t have time to second-guess things when you’re operating on that level.

"That behavior is pretty automatic."

WATCH: Slager trial jury will continue deliberating

Slager had already made the decision to fire, Scott turning and running with his back to the Officer didn't change that.

By the expert's testimony, the decision to shoot was irreversible.
In the 1.5 seconds it took him to draw, aim, and fire, he had to act on what was a perceived threat, which could, at any moment, turn around and clear the same distance of 17 feet in 1.5 seconds and attacked him again. Or he could have even encountered someone else and harmed them in his need to get away.

Ockham · Dec 6, 2016

Excon said:
Your narrative is off. There were no extreme actions in the Garner case and there was no choke hold. It was a "head lock" which was released prior to him even saying he couldn't breath.

No it was a choke hold, the ME and autopsy confirm it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/n...ed-from-officers-chokehold-autopsy-finds.html

Excon said:
He was larger than the Officers on the scene and then resisted.
Taking down this larger individual to get him under control was appropriate.

His crime was a misdemeanor according to New York State Tax Law 1814(b), which as I already stated, could have been completed by issuing a ticket.

There was no headlock. The video and the ME autopsy prove it was a choke hold, which NY Police have banned from use because, well, people die from it and they banned it before the Gardner incident. So you're factually incorrect. Oh and NY settled with the wrongful death suit filed by the family for $5.9M. If the police did nothing wrong, why pay?

Excon said:
Then you are not aware that the Officer made the decision to use deadly force when Scott was an actual threat and facing him, and did not see that threat toss the taser he had just used on the Officer.

The officer is a coward. Let me be blunt and tell you what I think happened. I think the cop pulled Scott over, Scott didn't listen to the cop and resisted. That pissed the cop off, so the cop pulled out his gun and shot the guy in the back. His decision to use force was not required as I already stated previously.

It reminds me of this incident - where the cop handcuffs an elderly man who's correct, his car requires no inspection sticker with dealer plates, then the cop tasers him while on the ground and handcuffed. At least in this case, the cop was fired and is probably flipping burgers at a Jack in the Box somewhere.

Slager should be tried over and over until he's found guilty, or you know, I'd be happy with the cop accepting a plea down to MAN1, 15-20 years, no parole. He does it all. I think that's fair.

Manc Skipper · Dec 6, 2016

MaggieD said:
It is bad enough he's facing Federal charges re this incident. I'm not a fan of what appears to be double jeopardy. To retry him after a hung jury is, in my opinion, double jeopardy again. Prosecution gets one bite of the apple. Can't prove the case? Done.

I know that's not HOW it's done, but I think it should be.

From what I know of this case, though, I think he broke the law. That's beside the point to my opinion though.

Nobody should escape a murder charge because one jury member refuses to find a white cop guilty of shooting a black man, whatever the evidence.

MaggieD · Dec 6, 2016

Manc Skipper said:
Nobody should escape a murder charge because one jury member refuses to find a white cop guilty of shooting a black man, whatever the evidence.

Whoa. How do we know that?

ludin · Dec 6, 2016

MaggieD said:
It is bad enough he's facing Federal charges re this incident. I'm not a fan of what appears to be double jeopardy. To retry him after a hung jury is, in my opinion, double jeopardy again. Prosecution gets one bite of the apple. Can't prove the case? Done.

I know that's not HOW it's done, but I think it should be.

From what I know of this case, though, I think he broke the law. That's beside the point to my opinion though.

double jeopardy only applies to on a verdict of guilty or not guilty. in this case the jury came back with nothing.

ludin · Dec 6, 2016

Manc Skipper said:
Nobody should escape a murder charge because one jury member refuses to find a white cop guilty of shooting a black man, whatever the evidence.

good thing we have an actual court system not based on what you believe.

Excon · Dec 7, 2016

I am addressing this separately as it has nothing to do with this topic.

Ockham said:
No it was a choke hold, the ME and autopsy confirm it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/n...ed-from-officers-chokehold-autopsy-finds.html

iLOL
No.
It was not a choke hold. It was a head lock. Not that it matters to the legality of the matter, as a choke-hold is not illegal.

The ME, which has not been provided a copy of the report to the Public, has not revealed how it reached its conclusions, is not the authority on whether or not it was a choke hold.
It is nothing but a guess. Not actuality.

By Bo Dietl

Headlocks are used in thousands of arrests each year, especially of individuals not cooperating with the police. I used the maneuver in dozens of arrests.

And it was a headlock, not a chokehold. To be a chokehold, there must be constant pressure on the person’s neck, compressing his windpipe or cutting off the flow of blood to the carotid artery, rendering him unconscious.

Watch the video: It’s obvious that the arresting officer put his arm around Garner’s neck to bring him to the ground — but once Garner was on the ground, he was still conscious and able to say he couldn’t breathe.

Not a chokehold: Truth of the Garner arrest | By Bo Dietl

"It was not a chokehold," said Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. The union represents Daniel Pantaleo, the police officer accused of applying the hold.

Mr. Lynch called the medical examiner's report "a political document not backed up" by a later, more scientific report. A city official said the findings of the preliminary report have been deemed final.

"It was bringing a person to the ground the way we're trained to do," Mr. Lynch said, adding, "we will get use-of-force experts to say that."

Police Unions Blast Mayor in Chokehold Case

These two folks have far more knowledge in what is and isn't a choke-hold than a ME does. One even explains why it wasn't a choke-hold.
Damage to the tissue does not mean it was a choke-hold.

Fact: It was not a choke hold.

Verified by what a choke hold actually is. That does not mean the headlock wouldn't have caused the seen damage.

Fact: He had damage to his neck tissue.

It is speculation that it was caused by the Headlock and very well could have been caused by his medical treatment after the fact.

Facts: The Officer was not indicted and did nothing criminally wrong.

Ockham said:
His crime was a misdemeanor according to New York State Tax Law 1814(b), which as I already stated, could have been completed by issuing a ticket.

Besides his resistance being prior and persistent conduct, the fact that it was a misdemeanor is irrelevant.

He resisted arrest. That is all on him. All he had to do was comply.

Ockham said:
There was no headlock. The video and the ME autopsy prove it was a choke hold, which NY Police have banned from use because, well, people die from it and they banned it before the Gardner incident. So you're factually incorrect.

Wrong.
The video shows a headlock. The ME does not determine what is or isn't headlock.

And again, not that it matters as a neither a headlock or choke-hold is illegal. A choke-hold being against Department Policy doesn't make it illegal. It is not a criminal action.

Ockham said:
Oh and NY settled with the wrongful death suit filed by the family for $5.9M. If the police did nothing wrong, why pay?

There are multiple reason why one would settle a law suit and does not indicate that they did anything wrong unless there is an actual admittance of guilt.
In this case it could be because it would be cheaper in the long run or for sake of finality or public outcry. You do realize that decisions at that level are often Political as well right? It very well could be for Political reasons.
Heck, it could even be because they felt culpable over the paramedic's actions and not the Police or the person making the decisions at that level pushed it because they would not accept that his death wasn't caused by the headlock.

You simply do not know, and trying to use this decision as if it indicates guilt, is as absurd as it is illogical.

Excon · Dec 7, 2016

Ockham said:
The officer is a coward.

iLOL No.
Thank you for establishing that you engage in emotive babble.

Ockham said:
Let me be blunt and tell you what I think happened. I think the cop pulled Scott over, Scott didn't listen to the cop and resisted. That pissed the cop off, so the cop pulled out his gun and shot the guy in the back. His decision to use force was not required as I already stated previously.

Your laughable opinion is not supported by the evidence and just says you do not know the evidence.

Ockham said:
It reminds me of this incident- where the cop handcuffs an elderly man who's correct, his car requires no inspection sticker with dealer plates, then the cop tasers him while on the ground and handcuffed. At least in this case, the cop was fired and is probably flipping burgers at a Jack in the Box somewhere.

iLOL
That is hilarious for two reasons
1. There is no similarity in the events regarding the two incidents.
2. The Officer was cleared by a Grand Jury and he was hired as an Officer in Beeville.

Ockham said:
Slager should be tried over and over until he's found guilty, or you know, I'd be happy with the cop accepting a plea down to MAN1, 15-20 years, no parole. He does it all. I think that's fair.

Thank G_d reality will dictate what happens and not your absurd opinion.

Excon · Dec 7, 2016

Manc Skipper said:
Nobody should escape a murder charge because one jury member refuses to find a white cop guilty of shooting a black man, whatever the evidence.

1. That's not what happened.
2. Yes, a Jury that does not arrive at a verdict should be the verdict because you can not convince twelve members of Society with the evidence you have.

Excon · Dec 7, 2016

ludin said:
MaggieD said:

It is bad enough he's facing Federal charges re this incident. I'm not a fan of what appears to be double jeopardy. To retry him after a hung jury is, in my opinion, double jeopardy again. Prosecution gets one bite of the apple. Can't prove the case? Done.

I know that's not HOW it's done, but I think it should be.

From what I know of this case, though, I think he broke the law. That's beside the point to my opinion though.

Click to expand...

double jeopardy only applies to on a verdict of guilty or not guilty. in this case the jury came back with nothing.

Way to not pay attention to the emboldened and underlined.

Manc Skipper · Dec 7, 2016

Excon said:
1. That's not what happened.
2. Yes, a Jury that does not arrive at a verdict should be the verdict because you can not convince twelve members of Society with the evidence you have.

A guilty man should not be freed because a racist refuses to convict him. The foreman sent notes to the judge during the trial suggesting the juror had "issues".

ludin · Dec 7, 2016

Manc Skipper said:
A guilty man should not be freed because a racist refuses to convict him. The foreman sent notes to the judge during the trial suggesting the juror had "issues".

Prove he was a racist first. Slander is a poor argument.

Excon · Dec 7, 2016

Manc Skipper said:
A guilty man should not be freed because a racist refuses to convict him. The foreman sent notes to the judge during the trial suggesting the juror had "issues".

Stop with the absurdities. Racist? that is your racist opinion.
A guilty man should go free if 12 people can not agree with convicting them. That is part of the process and should be a verdict.

As for this Juror having issues? iLOL
Yes, he had an issue convicting a person innocent of the charges. Did you not read his own letter to the Judge?
The foreman idiotically thought that was an issue. iLOL

And btw, the Jury later could not unanimously convict on the lesser charge either.

Ockham · Dec 7, 2016

Excon said:
iLOL No.
Thank you for establishing that you engage in emotive babble.

Cop shoots someone in the back who's running away from them, he's a coward. Period.

Excon said:
Your laughable opinion is not supported by the evidence and just says you do not know the evidence.

Please, post the evidence since you apparently have access to the court records and the testimony from the trial. When you don't, (and you won't), you're blind support for murder will be on parade.

Excon said:
That is hilarious for two reasons
1. There is no similarity in the events regarding the two incidents.

I never claimed they were similar. Nice strawman though.

Excon said:
2. The Officer was cleared by a Grand Jury and he was hired as an Officer in Beeville.

Who cares where he was hired.... the guy was canned and hopefully is laughed out of a mall cop job for the rest of his life since he never should have had a badge in the first place.

Excon said:
Thank G_d reality will dictate what happens and not your absurd opinion.

You're blind support of murder is disturbing as hell. As you already know, I will call out BS like Michael Brown and the bogus "hands up don't shoot" which was a lie from the start, carried forward by the so called "witnesses" who lied under oath, and which blacklivesmatter then took national based on that lie. But when a cop does wrong, I'll call it out. This cop needs to go to jail. Period. Your opinion is blind support is what is laughable here. Wrong is wrong no matter which side does it - have the courage to do the right thing or you're just as bad as the liars from blacklivesmatter. :shrug:

Excon · Dec 7, 2016

Ockham said:
Cop shoots someone in the back who's running away from them, he's a coward. Period.

More emotive babel. Figures.
No he shot someone who was a threat who's turning and running did not negate the threat he was.

Ockham said:
Please, post the evidence since you apparently have access to the court records and the testimony from the trial. When you don't, (and you won't), you're blind support for murder will be on parade.

iLOL Evidence has already been provided and not just in this thread.
Trial testimony has also been presented in this thread.
So your "wont" and "don't" assertion is just more irrelevant babble.

If you want to argue you are going to have to be specific.

Ockham said:
I never claimed they were similar. Nice strawman though.

iLOL
Saying in an argument of one incident about an Officer reminds you of incident with another Officer isn't speaking to any similarities. Surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
By the exact wording you are correct, by totality of the context of our discussion, you are being dishonest.

Ockham said:
Who cares where he was hired.... the guy was canned and hopefully is laughed out of a mall cop job for the rest of his life since he never should have had a badge in the first place.

Who cares? Obviously you do as you brought this irrelevancy up.
And what is funny is that your "probably" wasn't true in the slightest.

If you do not like things being pointed out about the irrelevancies you bring up, stop bringing up irrelevancies. :shrug:

Ockham said:
You're blind support of murder is disturbing as hell.

And there you go again speaking about things you do not know. He is not a murderer.
Learn the evidence before you speak.
As for being blind support/argument? That is also you as I know the evidence and you obviously don't.

Ockham said:
As you already know, I will call out BS like Michael Brown and the bogus "hands up don't shoot" which was a lie from the start, carried forward by the so called "witnesses" who lied under oath, and which blacklivesmatter then took national based on that lie.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Ockham said:
But when a cop does wrong, I'll call it out. This cop needs to go to jail. Period.

And this is where you go wrong.
This Officer did not do anything criminally wrong and you can not point to anything he did that was criminally wrong.
And though you had to chance to try and argue your position by the evidence, you did not do so, and wasted a whole post deflecting and showing you don't actually know the evidence.

Ockham said:
Your opinion is blind support is what is laughable here. Wrong is wrong no matter which side does it - have the courage to do the right thing or you're just as bad as the liars from blacklivesmatter. :shrug:

Your negatives only speak of your position.
Stop wasting time and actually debate the evidence.
I will be waiting.

Ockham · Dec 7, 2016

Excon said:
More emotive babel. Figures.

Just my opinion. Not my problem if you don't like it.

Excon said:
No he shot someone who was a threat who's turning and running did not negate the threat he was.

Explain to me how someone who is 20 feet away, running full away from the cop, with no weapon is a threat. It's BS and you know it.

Excon said:
Evidence has already been provided and not just in this thread.

Then link the post #.

Excon said:
Trial testimony has also been presented in this thread.

BS, as the mistrial wasn't declared until Dec 6th and the court testimony has not been released to the public by the court. So that's factually incorrect. Just like I said you wouldn't post it. :thumbs

Excon said:
If you want to argue you are going to have to be specific.

Since the court has not released the testimony there is no specific.

Excon said:
Saying in an argument of one incident about an Officer reminds you of incident with another Officer isn't speaking to any similarities. Surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Because they both were in the wrong, one was dismissed correctly, the other is a murderer and should go to jail.

Excon said:
Who cares? Obviously you do as you brought this irrelevancy up.

Where he was hired is as irrelevant as if he wore socks that day, which you well know.

Excon said:
If you do not like things being pointed out about the irrelevancies you bring up, stop bringing up irrelevancies. :shrug:

I never brought up where he was hired, you did, to what... distract?

Excon said:
And there you go again speaking about things you do not know. He is not a murderer.

He is and he'll be retried, and he'll be convicted and he'll go to jail.

Excon said:
As for being blind support/argument? That is also you as I know the evidence and you obviously don't.

I base my opinion off of what I see.... I saw a cop shoot a man 20 feet away who was running away. You say someone running away at 20 feet away is a threat to the cop, which on it's face is ludicrous. Even a child knows that, but apparently you do not.

Excon said:
Irrelevant to this discussion.

It lends to my credibility - whereas you're opinion that Slager was in danger from a man running away from him was a threat destroys your credibility. It's irrelevant to you because you cannot counter it.

Excon said:
And this is where you go wrong.
This Officer did not do anything criminally wrong and you can not point to anything he did that was criminally wrong.

In my world of right and wrong, shooting someone in the back who is running away from you and who is 20 feet away when you shoot, who is unarmed is murder. I'll let him plea down to Man1 though.

Excon said:
And though you had to chance to try and argue your position by the evidence, you did not do so, and wasted a whole post deflecting and showing you don't actually know the evidence.

You have no more evidence than I do, as the court transcriptions were not released. Your bluff about having evidence is BS, same as your support for a murderer cop.

Excon said:
Your negatives only speak of your position.

My position is clear. The cop murderer a man.

Excon said:
Stop wasting time and actually debate the evidence.

I'll repeat: You have no more evidence than I do, as the court transcriptions were not released. Your bluff about having evidence is BS, same as your support for a murderer cop.

Excon said:
I will be waiting.

Waiting for what - the retrial and conviction? Me too... can't wait. And I'm going to push it in your face at ever chance I get. It'll be fun.

Excon · Dec 7, 2016

Responding to some of your more blatant, and/or off-topic, irrelevancies.

Ockham said:
Just my opinion.

Although I am more than aware a person's emotive babble is their opinion, thank you for telling me.

Ockham said:
Because they both were in the wrong, one was dismissed correctly, the other is a murderer and should go to jail.

iLOL
No. The only thing wrong here is your reply.

Ockham said:
Who cares? Obviously you do as you brought this irrelevancy up.

Click to expand...

Where he was hired is as irrelevant as if he wore socks that day, which you well know.

iLOL Non-responsive to what you quoted, and a silly response given the fact that you are the one who brought forth the irrelevancy of the other Officer.

Ockham said:
If you do not like things being pointed out about the irrelevancies you bring up, stop bringing up irrelevancies.

Click to expand...

I never brought up where he was hired, you did, to what... distract?

Hilarious.
You brought up the irrelevant information. My reply pointing out that he was hired again as an Officer, though as irrelevant to the thread as your bringing up this other Officer was, my reply was very relevant to your "probably" comment.

Ockham said:
You say someone running away at 20 feet away is a threat to the cop, which on it's face is ludicrous.

Wrong again, just continuing to show you do not pay attention.
That is your absurd take and not what I relayed at all.

Ockham said:
Even a child knows that, but apparently you do not.

Apparently you do not know what you are talking about.

Ockham said:
In my world ...

In your world? iLOL
You have already shown that in your world you do not know the evidence to even be discussing this.

Excon · Dec 7, 2016

Ockham said:
Evidence has already been provided and not just in this thread.

Click to expand...

Then link the post #.

iLOL The problem here is that you obviously did not pay attention to what has been provided in the thread.
The the information previously provided was contained in a post that also quoted and replied to you. Doh! Read the thread. It is there.

Ockham said:
BS, as the mistrial wasn't declared until Dec 6th and the court testimony has not been released to the public by the court. So that's factually incorrect. Just like I said you wouldn't post it.

Wrong as usual.
All you are doing now is just continuing to confirm you have no idea what you are talking about and do not even pay attention to what is contained, not just in the thread, but the OP as well.

The mistrial was declared on the 5[SUP]th[/SUP], the same day that this thread was created with it's three linked articles regarding the declared mistrial. Double Doh!

Ockham said:
Since the court has not released the testimony there is no specific.

Again showing you do not know.
The video evidence is available and has been thoroughly discussed in other threads.
The trial is also available on video.

Ockham said:
He is and he'll be retried, and he'll be convicted and he'll go to jail.

No he isn't a murder and you couldn't show he is if your life depended on it.
As for conviction? I do not deny he has a chance of being convicted. That doesn't mean he should be or will be.
As for being convicted of Murder? Unlikely if the lesser included offense is provided again, because, as I am sure you do not know, the Jury was hung by more than one member on the lesser included Offense of manslaughter, not murder.
You do realize for that to happen they had to move past the murder charge to even consider the Manslaughter charge as it was the lesser included offense, right?

Ockham said:
I base my opinion off of what I see.... I saw a cop shoot a man 20 feet away who was running away.

iLOL What you saw and what the video fully contains are two different things as there is more detail in the video that you apparently do not know.

That video revealed that taser use was warned by the Officer.
That video revealed that the taser was actually employed.
That video shows the Officer might have been tasered himself.
That video showed it was more than likely that Scott had the taser prior to turning and running.
That video shows the Officer was already in the act of responding with deadly force to the threat that Scott made himself to be before Scott turned and ran.
Then the video showed the Officer continuing to follow through with his decision to use deadly force while Scott made it 16 feet before the first shot.

These last two were shown to occur in less than two seconds.

All of the above, but for the 16 foot distance, was argued long before the trial and all of it was revealed in the actual trial itself.

In addition, the Officers report that Scott had taken his taser was also available, along with more information, prior to trial.

During trial all of the above was confirmed.

The Officer did fire the taser at Scott.
Scott did attack the Officer after he was tased.
Scott did take the taser from the Officer and tased him. (Burn marks on the Officer's uniform testified as being only from a taser, and not refuted.)
Based on Scott's previous actions the Officer was scared when Scott came at him with the taser, and decided, while he was a threat and facing him, to use deadly force.
The Officer did not see Scott toss the taser.
By unrefuted expert testimony, once the decision to use deadly force was made, it was irrevocable.

Scott was a threat when the Officer decided to shoot and was in the process of responding to that threat.
By self defense law, that decision at that moment in time was reasonable, and as testified to by expert, irrevocable.
And in accordance with training, you continue to fire until the threat stops.

That Scott turned and ran after that the reasonable decision was already being acted upon does not negate the Officer's actions, as he was responding to the threat that Scott was.

Excon · Dec 7, 2016

Ockham said:
It lends to my credibility - whereas you're opinion that Slager was in danger from a man running away from him was a threat destroys your credibility. It's irrelevant to you because you cannot counter it.

That is not what I relayed so what you say is not true.
You again confirm you have no credibility on this as you do not know what you are talking about.

Ockham said:
In my world ...of right and wrong, shooting someone in the back who is running away from you and who is 20 feet away when you shoot, who is unarmed is murder.

Your world, as already shown, being one of which you do not know what you are talking about, is screwed up.
There are scenarios where that is lawful, one was shown above.
So again you show you have no clue.
I could even show you a video of one scenario where an Officer knows the suspect threw his gun away (unarmed) but continued to shoot after he did. He was cleared because under some circumstances you can shoot a suspect you know is fleeing.

Ockham said:
I'll let him plea down to Man1 though.

Yes... in your world. iLOL

Ockham said:
You have no more evidence than I do, as the court transcriptions were not released. Your bluff about having evidence is BS, same as your support for a murderer cop.

[...]

I'll repeat: You have no more evidence than I do, as the court transcriptions were not released. Your bluff about having evidence is BS, same as your support for a murderer cop.
Waiting for what - the retrial and conviction? Me too... can't wait. And I'm going to push it in your face at ever chance I get. It'll be fun.

iLOL
Apparently I do have more evidence than you do and even know it more thoroughly, as you clearly have shown you do not know it.

Bluff? iLOL
On your part, yes.
All you had to do was pay attention to and follow the information provided in this thread. Information that was in a reply that also contained a reply to you. But no, you decided to try and bluff your way through this and instead just revealed that you do not know what you are talking about.

All you do is confirm you have no credibility here.
Push on with your bs.

Ockham said:
My position is clear. The cop murderer a man.

Yes... in your absurd delusional world. iLOL
And yes that is an irrational claim.
As already provided in this thread.

As provided multiple times in the threads regarding this incident.

"Safe rule if thumb…if someone tries to tell you a cop murdered someone in broad daylight, on a public street, in front of who knows how many witnesses, with no chance in hell of getting away with it, stop and think about what it is they are asking you to believe. No doubt, there are bad cops out there, but that doesn’t mean they are stupid. Heck, even non-cop criminals know better than that for the most part, except for the ones who don’t care if they get caught."

Ockham said:
Waiting for what - the retrial and conviction? Me too... can't wait. And I'm going to push it in your face at ever chance I get. It'll be fun.

This is hilarious.
You talk of things you know not.
Get a clue.
I am arguing what the evidence shows, not what a Jury will find. A jury verdict one way or another does not negate what I have argued.
Which is different than you arguing about things you know nothing about.

Secondly you might want to familiarize yourself with what I thought the outcome of a trial would be, before making that foolish mistake. It was not the same as the evidence argument as I know Jurors do not always grasp the intricacies of the evidence.
So yes, it will be fun watching you fall flat on your face again if you choose to go that route.

Ockham · Dec 7, 2016

Excon said:
iLOL The problem here is that you obviously did not pay attention to what has been provided in the thread.

So no post #. That's about what I expected.

Excon said:
Wrong as usual.

And no court released trial testimoney. Again, color me shocked.

Excon said:
The video evidence is available and has been thoroughly discussed in other threads.
The trial is also available on video.

Please link the entire trial on video then. When you don't, you'll be outed yet again as having zero credibility.

Excon said:
No he isn't a murder and you couldn't show he is if your life depended on it.

He's a murderer on video, who will soon be on trial and found guilty.

So let me sum up, according to your opinion, I don't know anything, yet you provide zero evidence other than you saying I don't know anything. Goodness, how convincing that is. Tell you what, here's where I leave you to your own devices as what you've provided is zero. Other than your blind devotion to a murderer. Congratulations on that you must be very proud.

Excon · Dec 8, 2016

Ockham said:
So no post #. That's about what I expected.

Hmmm? Let's see.
It is your responsibility to know what has been posted/argued in a thread where you are participating in the discussion.
As that information was already provided in this thread, it was on you to read it, not on me to provided it again.
You choosing not to read it only speaks to the intent of your posts in this thread and that sure isn't honest debate.

I even told you that you could find the information in a post in which I had also quoted you. (There was only one of those.)

And even though you were told how you could find it in this thread, you chose not to avail yourself of it and instead chose to deflect with nonsense.
This is all on you, not me.

What is funny is that this exchange about this available information just started on page 5 and you know that information wasn't on that page, and you should know that our exchange started when I quoted you on page 3. So you know by elimination that the information could only be on page 3 or 4 and yet you don't even bother to look.
And even though there were only two posts of me quoting you on page 4, and only one on page 3, you still choose not to look.

Only three possible posts on two pages and you couldn't bother to avail yourself of it. What a shame.
That is and always will be on you.

Post #? No.
It is your responsibility to avail yourself of all the information provided in a thread, not on me to provide it again just for you.

If you want it, do your own work, as you are not going to get me to do your work for you. And you are not capable of getting me to providing it again just for you, simply because of your dishonesty and attitude.

Ockham said:
Please link the entire trial on video then. When you don't, you'll be outed yet again as having zero credibility.

First of all, you are the only one who has been established as having no credibility multiple times.
Secondly, given the fact that you failed to avail yourself of the previously provided information and then basically claimed that I had not provided any such thing by saying my claim was "bs", no, I am not going to provide you anything that you can find on your own at this time.

If you want me to provide a link, you are going to have to earn it.
Go find the information I previously made available, enlighten yourself and come back here and apologize for calling my claim that I had provided said information, "bs".

Otherwise no, you are not going to get anything from me in regards to this.
Either exercise due diligence in regards to availing yourself of the information available and apologize, or you get nothing.
And don't for one second think I expect you will do this. But who knows, maybe you will be honest for once and surprise me.

Excon · Dec 8, 2016

Ockham said:
Excon said:

Ockham said:

BS, as the mistrial wasn't declared until Dec 6th and the court testimony has not been released to the public by the court. So that's factually incorrect. Just like I said you wouldn't post it.

Click to expand...

Wrong as usual.
All you are doing now is just continuing to confirm you have no idea what you are talking about and do not even pay attention to what is contained, not just in the thread, but the OP as well.

The mistrial was declared on the 5[SUP]th[/SUP], the same day that this thread was created with it's three linked articles regarding the declared mistrial. Double Doh!

Click to expand...

And no court released trial testimoney. Again, color me shocked.

iLOL
This is you again confirming you do not know what you are talking about, just as you didn't in regards to the other things above.

Testimony not released by the Court? Wut? iLOL
As you were told, the trial was video'd and it is available. That contains testimony. Duh!
What is funny is that you didn't even know the Trial was placed on a live feed for all to view as it happened. Doh!

Ockham said:
He's a murderer on video,

Wrong as usual.
I pointed out was was available on the video you mention here, pointed out what was revealed in trial, and explained why you are wrong, but you chose to ignore it.

I also already informed you that the original Jury moved on from the murder charge and hung on whether or not he was guilty of manslaughter and the significance of that.
But please continue to cling to your misguided and ignorant beliefs.

Ockham said:
... according to your opinion, I don't know anything, ...

No, you have literally shown you do not know what you are talking about.
Over, and over, and over again.

Ockham said:
yet you provide zero evidence other than you saying I don't know anything.

It has either been shown or explained to you what you get wrong.

Zero evidence? This claim of yours is you again showing you do not know what you are talking about.

(What comes now on the heels of that claim is me explaining why you do not know what you are talking about in this regard. You know, just like I told you I do above.)

Much evidence has been provided. I pointed out what was also available in the video of the incident and what was made available during trial.
What wasn't made available to you, sans the previously posted testimony, was conformation by link of that evidence.
So stop with your dishonesty.

Ockham said:
as what you've provided is zero.

This is your dishonesty again. Besides what was mentioned in the previous reply above, you chose not to avail yourself of the available information. That is all on you.
Had you instead been honest in debate, availed yourself of the available information and actually address the arguments made, we could have had a discussion even if we disagreed.
But obviously you didn't want that. That is on you.

Ockham said:
Other than your blind devotion to a murderer. Congratulations on that you must be very proud.

Your opinion is noted and dismissed as irrelevant nonsense. There was no murder and you have repeatedly shown you do not know the evidence to even be claiming it is one.

Judge Declares Mistrial in Michael Slager Murder Trial

Excon

bmr528

Well-known member

Excon

Excon

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

MaggieD

ludin

ludin

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

ludin

Excon

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Excon

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Excon

Excon

Excon

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Excon

Excon