• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Slager Will Walk

ttwtt78640 said:
The reason for the outstanding arrest warrant on Scott was his failure to pay court ordered child support - not a traffic ticket. What would you suggest be used, instead of jail time (preferably with work release), to help encourage (force?) folks to pay court ordered child support?
Click to expand...
If we do that, then fine, but we should stop proudly proclaiming to the world that we don't have "debtor's prisons". Whether they're technically incarcerated for contempt of court or whatever, it still all stems from not paying a debt. We should be intellectually honest and call it what it is.
 
Goshin said:
There are no Unions worth mentioning in SC, police or otherwise. SC is a very VERY non-Union state.

The ex-cop may or may not be convicted of murder. My guess is he will plea to Manslaughter, which can carry up to a 30 year sentence in SC.
Click to expand...
Hadn't thought about that, but you're right. Good chance it will never even make it to court.
 
radcen said:
Sorry, don't buy it for a second.

From your linked article: "...will portray him as a courageous, selfless, dedicated, even heroic police officer, one who unflinchingly faced danger on a daily basis, and one who may have made a mistake, but a flawed human like the rest of us who is certainly no murderer full of malice."

Calmly and coolly drawing his weapon and shooting a guy in the back as he was distant and running away... then consciously planted evidence... does not qualify as any of that.
Click to expand...

I think I have to agree. I give cops tons of leeway on this sort of thing, but I see no reason for the officer to draw his weapon and fire 8 shots at a fleeing man. Its not an acceptable way for police to operate. There were clearly other police in the area, the guy wasn't going anywhere and he wasn't dangerous. I feel bad for the cop because he made a horrible decision, but a man is dead because of his actions and he needs to be held accountable for that.

That said, I think Geraldo made a good point on Fox the other night. He said this is manslaughter, not murder and if they push for a murder charge the guy will likely walk. Over charge the guy and justice will never be served.
 
PeteEU said:
I give it a 50% chance of him walking.. it is the US justice system after all. Even a clear cut case of murder like this.. well.
Click to expand...

Except it's not a clearcut case of MURDER I would've charged with manslaughter.

The real key will be what the physical evidence says, Slager planting evidence on the body should mean no one will take his word seriously, but if forensic evidence backs up most of his account then murder is too high a charge
 
Joe Steel said:
He may have said things which were interpreted as false. I don't believe he intentionally lied. For instance, if he said "he took my taser" he may have meant "he took a hit from my taser."
Click to expand...
I seriously hope you're just playing Devil's Advocate, because if you're not...
 
Joe Steel said:
Scott had been stopped by the police. I'm assuming that makes Scott some kind of prisoner because they have nominal control.
Click to expand...

If Scott were truly a prisoner he could legally have been killed soley for the act of running away and nothing else would've matter. To best of my knowledge it's legal to use deadly force to stop the escape of a prisoner in every state

Scott was detained, which is a different legal status
 
VanceMack said:
Whether or not he did or didnt is not relevant to his decision to shoot a guy fleeing from him. Im not too worried about whether or not he lied to try and make himself look better after the fact.
Click to expand...

The question of the OP is whether or not the officer will be convicted of murder. The actions of the officer during and after the event are relevant to both his state of mind and his credibility should he take the stand and/or the credibility of any official reports or notes he took of the event. The fact that the video directly contradicts his official report/notes damages his credibility in all aspects of the event. It's the way juries think.
 
CanadaJohn said:
The question of the OP is whether or not the officer will be convicted of murder. The actions of the officer during and after the event are relevant to both his state of mind and his credibility should he take the stand and/or the credibility of any official reports or notes he took of the event. The fact that the video directly contradicts his official report/notes damages his credibility in all aspects of the event. It's the way juries think.
Click to expand...

You may with vengeance in your heart decide that was murder. But if you put yourself in the cops situation I don't know how you can rationalize murder. He stopped a guy. Had to chase a guy, tased a guy, then the guy grabbed his taser from him and ran yet again. That's a whole lot of context for a 'murder' charge.
 
VanceMack said:
You may with vengeance in your heart decide that was murder. But if you put yourself in the cops situation I don't know how you can rationalize murder. He stopped a guy. Had to chase a guy, tased a guy, then the guy grabbed his taser from him and ran yet again. That's a whole lot of context for a 'murder' charge.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a lot more evidence than is publicly available. I'm not aware of any evidence to date, other than the officer's report, that Scott was tased or that he grabbed his taser. It may be true, but based on the officer's actions, I'm not prepared to just believe his word on that. If that's what happened, why was Scott able to run after being tased and there'd be no reason to move the taser. Officers are trained not to move evidence of a crime. Maybe Scott's finger prints are on the taser, if you're right and the officer is telling the truth. It will be very helpful evidence if true.

However, the person who filmed the shooting claims that Scott didn't grab the taser. But that's subject to a jury's deliberations about who is more truthful under the circumstances.

I agree that Scott acted poorly and illegally by fleeing the car. He also acted poorly and illegally by running from the officer in the park area. But officers aren't authorized to gun down all fleeing suspects. Other than the officer being royally ticked off that this guy didn't stay in the car and didn't stop when chased, I can see no legal reason from the evidence we have to date that his only course of action was to use lethal force to stop him.
 
VanceMack said:
Dood...dont be goofy for the sake of trying to make some sort of convoluted point. It is obvious that Scott had the taser and dropped the taser which means at some point he took the taser. It is also beyond question he ran. Twice. All of this gives context. None of it justifies the deliberate shooting of a man 10-15 feet away from the cop.
Click to expand...
In the interest of full honesty...

- I wasn't bothered by Scott running the second time, which was the first video I saw. The first video that most people saw. I didn't know the context leading up to that point. Regardless what happened, I felt that nothing justified the manner in which Slager shot him.

- When I saw the second video from the dash cam, where Scott bolted from the vehicle initially... and this is where the honesty comes in... I lost a great deal of sympathy for Scott. I mean, WTF, dude?

- Having said that, there is still zero justification for Slager shooting him, and while I have less sympathy for Scott, I am unwavering in condemnation of Slager and still view this as cold-blooded murder.
 
Fletch said:
I think I have to agree. I give cops tons of leeway on this sort of thing, but I see no reason for the officer to draw his weapon and fire 8 shots at a fleeing man. Its not an acceptable way for police to operate. There were clearly other police in the area, the guy wasn't going anywhere and he wasn't dangerous. I feel bad for the cop because he made a horrible decision, but a man is dead because of his actions and he needs to be held accountable for that.

That said, I think Geraldo made a good point on Fox the other night. He said this is manslaughter, not murder and if they push for a murder charge the guy will likely walk. Over charge the guy and justice will never be served.
Click to expand...
Possible, but I don't think so. If anything, I think he (Slager) will become the "Hold Police Accountable Poster Child".
 
How long does someone have to contemplate killing to cross the line from manslaughter to murder? A day? An hour? A minute? Three seconds?
 
CanadaJohn said:
You seem to have a lot more evidence than is publicly available. I'm not aware of any evidence to date, other than the officer's report, that Scott was tased or that he grabbed his taser. It may be true, but based on the officer's actions, I'm not prepared to just believe his word on that. If that's what happened, why was Scott able to run after being tased and there'd be no reason to move the taser. Officers are trained not to move evidence of a crime. Maybe Scott's finger prints are on the taser, if you're right and the officer is telling the truth. It will be very helpful evidence if true.

However, the person who filmed the shooting claims that Scott didn't grab the taser. But that's subject to a jury's deliberations about who is more truthful under the circumstances.

I agree that Scott acted poorly and illegally by fleeing the car. He also acted poorly and illegally by running from the officer in the park area. But officers aren't authorized to gun down all fleeing suspects. Other than the officer being royally ticked off that this guy didn't stay in the car and didn't stop when chased, I can see no legal reason from the evidence we have to date that his only course of action was to use lethal force to stop him.
Click to expand...

I think the charge will be second degree murder. And he will be convicted.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You seem to have a lot more evidence than is publicly available. I'm not aware of any evidence to date, other than the officer's report, that Scott was tased or that he grabbed his taser. It may be true, but based on the officer's actions, I'm not prepared to just believe his word on that. If that's what happened, why was Scott able to run after being tased and there'd be no reason to move the taser. Officers are trained not to move evidence of a crime. Maybe Scott's finger prints are on the taser, if you're right and the officer is telling the truth. It will be very helpful evidence if true.

However, the person who filmed the shooting claims that Scott didn't grab the taser. But that's subject to a jury's deliberations about who is more truthful under the circumstances.

I agree that Scott acted poorly and illegally by fleeing the car. He also acted poorly and illegally by running from the officer in the park area. But officers aren't authorized to gun down all fleeing suspects. Other than the officer being royally ticked off that this guy didn't stay in the car and didn't stop when chased, I can see no legal reason from the evidence we have to date that his only course of action was to use lethal force to stop him.
Click to expand...

There are two videos. The nice thing about video is it doesn't require he said vs he said. The dash cam video shows him being pulled over, the officer walking to his car, taking back his ID to call it in, and then the driver running. We have the second video showing him stopped, then at the 17 second mark dropping the taser and running.

That doesn't excuse the shots fired. But I doubt murder charges would fly., and certainly not murder 1.
 
radcen said:
How long does someone have to contemplate killing to cross the line from manslaughter to murder? A day? An hour? A minute? Three seconds?
Click to expand...

I have often wondered that too. Almost everything I do is premeditated.
The only thing that isn't premeditated is slipping on ice and landing on my ass.
 
Crosscheck said:
I have often wondered that too. Almost everything I do is premeditated.
The only thing that isn't premeditated is slipping on ice and landing on my ass.
Click to expand...
IMO, the time he took to level his weapon and carefully aim was his premeditation. While I can't read minds, his actions tell me that he was consciously thinking, "I'm going to kill this guy." He had plenty of time and opportunity to change his mind.
 
Joe Steel said:
He may have said things which were interpreted as false. I don't believe he intentionally lied. For instance, if he said "he took my taser" he may have meant "he took a hit from my taser."
Click to expand...

Holy crap. You are stretching that so thin it broke my eyes just reading it.

You broke my damn eyes!
 
radcen said:
How long does someone have to contemplate killing to cross the line from manslaughter to murder? A day? An hour? A minute? Three seconds?
Click to expand...

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

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).
​
 
There's a decent chance he'll spend less than a year in jail even if he's convicted. He's still a cop in America.
 
radcen said:
IMO, the time he took to level his weapon and carefully aim was his premeditation. While I can't read minds, his actions tell me that he was consciously thinking, "I'm going to kill this guy." He had plenty of time and opportunity to change his mind.
Click to expand...

I can't say for sure, no one can, but it seems to me before the officer shot he was thinking "that little ****er is running away from me again? I'll show him not to run" - bam bam bam. A jury will be told, shooting a suspect eight times is not a proper way to apprehend someone. Unless an officer's life or the lives of others are imminently in danger, shooting is not an option.
 
VanceMack said:
Dood...dont be goofy for the sake of trying to make some sort of convoluted point. It is obvious that Scott had the taser and dropped the taser which means at some point he took the taser. It is also beyond question he ran. Twice. All of this gives context. None of it justifies the deliberate shooting of a man 10-15 feet away from the cop.
Click to expand...

Scott got the taser in a struggle with Slager. Struggle with and disarming a police officer may have made him a dangerous to the community within the meaning of the relevant statutes. It may have justified the shooting.
 
radcen said:
Sorry, don't buy it for a second.

From your linked article: "...will portray him as a courageous, selfless, dedicated, even heroic police officer, one who unflinchingly faced danger on a daily basis, and one who may have made a mistake, but a flawed human like the rest of us who is certainly no murderer full of malice."

Calmly and coolly drawing his weapon and shooting a guy in the back as he was distant and running away... then consciously planted evidence... does not qualify as any of that.
Click to expand...

The fleeing suspect had just struggled with and disarmed the police officer by taking his taser. That makes him a danger to the community and may have been all the justification the officer needed.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Except it's not a clearcut case of MURDER I would've charged with manslaughter.

The real key will be what the physical evidence says, Slager planting evidence on the body should mean no one will take his word seriously, but if forensic evidence backs up most of his account then murder is too high a charge
Click to expand...

I don't think the actual charge matters much. The whole point of charging Slager was charging him with something so they could put him in jail and avoid Ferguson-style rioting. Eventually, the charges will be dropped.
 
radcen said:
I seriously hope you're just playing Devil's Advocate, because if you're not...
Click to expand...

Slager was in a stressful situation. His words can't be taken at face value. He's going to have to be interviewed before we really know what happened.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
If Scott were truly a prisoner he could legally have been killed soley for the act of running away and nothing else would've matter. To best of my knowledge it's legal to use deadly force to stop the escape of a prisoner in every state

Scott was detained, which is a different legal status
Click to expand...

But he still could be shot if he tried to flee and was thought to be dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom