• 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!

Judge tells Michael Slager jurors to keep deliberating

Excon

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
9,087
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Judge tells Michael Slager jurors to keep deliberating

(CNN)The judge in the trial of former South Carolina police Officer Michael Slager told jurors to keep deliberating Friday afternoon after they told him they don't believe they can reach a consensus.
Slager is charged with murder in the April 2015 shooting death of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, after a traffic stop in North Charleston.
"You have a duty to make every reasonable effort to reach a unanimous verdict," Judge Clifton Newman told the jury in a Charleston courtroom.

[...]​

Judge tells Michael Slager jurors to keep deliberating​



The Jury is made up of 11 White and 1 Black.



Tweet

Andrew Knapp- 2 Dec 2016
Jury is deadlocked, saying nothing would change mind of "the juror." Sounds like lone holdout.
#SlagerTrial #WalterScott

Tweet​


The Jury was given three options. Murder, Manslaughter and Not Guilty.

He should be found not guilty if it was argued correctly.
 
Napoleon said:
He is plainly guilty as the video attests.
Click to expand...
Clearly you do not know the video evidence enough to even be speaking about it as you are wrong.
 
Excon said:
Clearly you do not know the video evidence enough to even be speaking about it as you are wrong.
Click to expand...

The guy was moving away from the police officer when multiple shots were fired in his back. How is the police officer not guilty? Are we supposed to believe he was threat when he was eighteen feet away and moving in the opposite direction from where the police officer took the shots?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
The guy was moving away from the police officer when multiple shots were fired in his back. How is the police officer not guilty? Are we supposed to believe he was threat when he was probably a hundred feet away and moving in the opposite direction?
Click to expand...
1. He had resisted arrest, attacked the Officer, took his tazer and tazed the him.
2. At the moment he decided to fire, Scott was a threat.
The Officer was already in the process responding (drawing his firearm to shoot him) to the threat Scott made himself to be while facing the Officer when he turned and ran.
This all happened is a matter of moments and would require more time for the brain to register what was happening to be able to stop what was already decided upon.
 
Excon said:
1. He had resisted arrest, attacked the Officer, took his tazer and tazed the him.
2. At the moment he decided to fire, Scott was a threat.
The Officer was already in the process responding (drawing his firearm to shoot him) to the threat Scott made himself to be while facing the Officer when he turned and ran.
This all happened is a matter of moments and would require more time for the brain to register what was happening to be able to stop what was already decided upon.
Click to expand...

Bull. He continued to fire until the suspect was on the ground. If it was merely a situation of being unable to stop in time he wouldn't have fired so many shots.
 
Henrin said:
Bull. He continued to fire until the suspect was on the ground. If it was merely a situation of being unable to stop in time he wouldn't have fired so many shots.
Click to expand...
iLOL No.
You continue to shoot until the suspect is no longer a threat, that usually happens when they stop moving.

The point which you seemed to miss was that he was already in the process of responding to the threat Scott made himself to be.
That threat did not cease to exist simply because he turned and ran.

And btw, I am not saying he will be found not guilty, I am saying he should be under that states laws.
 
Excon said:
iLOL No.
You continue to shoot until the suspect is no longer a threat, that usually happens when they stop moving.

The point which you seemed to miss was that he was already in the process of responding to the threat Scott made himself to be.
That threat did not cease to exist simply because he turned and ran.
Click to expand...

So you're saying he intended to continue to shoot and it wasn't merely something already in motion. Good to know.
 
Mental gymnastics. Its not as fun to watch as real gymnastics.
 
Henrin said:
So you're saying he intended to continue to shoot and it wasn't merely something already in motion. Good to know.
Click to expand...
It is pretty clear that what I said was that the decision to shoot was made when Scoot was facing him.
 
Excon said:
Judge tells Michael Slager jurors to keep deliberating

(CNN)The judge in the trial of former South Carolina police Officer Michael Slager told jurors to keep deliberating Friday afternoon after they told him they don't believe they can reach a consensus.
Slager is charged with murder in the April 2015 shooting death of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, after a traffic stop in North Charleston.
"You have a duty to make every reasonable effort to reach a unanimous verdict," Judge Clifton Newman told the jury in a Charleston courtroom.

[...]​

Judge tells Michael Slager jurors to keep deliberating​



The Jury is made up of 11 White and 1 Black.



Tweet

Andrew Knapp- 2 Dec 2016
Jury is deadlocked, saying nothing would change mind of "the juror." Sounds like lone holdout.
#SlagerTrial #WalterScott

Tweet​


The Jury was given three options. Murder, Manslaughter and Not Guilty.

He should be found not guilty if it was argued correctly.
Click to expand...

LOL! Just brilliant. Everyone should be found not guilty 'if it's argued correctly'.

Whew.
 
poweRob said:
Mental gymnastics. Its not as fun to watch as real gymnastics.
Click to expand...
Can you bs, the only mental gymnastics are on the side ignoring the totality of the evidence.
 
Excon said:
It is pretty clear that what I said was that the decision to shoot was made when Scoot was facing him.
Click to expand...

Does that even make a difference? Just because he decided to shoot Scott when he was actually a threat doesn't somehow excuse him continuing to shoot when Scott is running away and more than a dozen feet from him.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! Just brilliant. Everyone should be found not guilty 'if it's argued correctly'.

Whew.
Click to expand...
Your reply is stupid to the n[SUP]th[/SUP] degree.

The evidence is there to show he is not guilty of any crime. Improperly arguing it would result in a conviction of one type or another.
 
Excon said:
1. He had resisted arrest, attacked the Officer, took his tazer and tazed the him.
2. At the moment he decided to fire, Scott was a threat.
The Officer was already in the process responding (drawing his firearm to shoot him) to the threat Scott made himself to be while facing the Officer when he turned and ran.
This all happened is a matter of moments and would require more time for the brain to register what was happening to be able to stop what was already decided upon.
Click to expand...

It's easy to win fantasy-land court cases when you make up facts not found in evidence.

What fun!
 
Excon said:
Your reply is stupid to the n[SUP]th[/SUP] degree.
Click to expand...

Ah, then it perfectly suits what I was replying to.
The evidence is there to show he is not guilty of any crime. Improperly arguing it would result in a conviction of one type or another.
Click to expand...

Yet another brilliant legal analysis.
 
Henrin said:
Does that even make a difference? Just because he decided to shoot Scott when he was actually a threat doesn't somehow excuse him continuing to shoot when Scott is running away and more than a dozen feet from him.
Click to expand...
You need to put yourself in the Officer's shoes not seeing the taser being thrown. Based on Scott's behavior, he would have remained a threat to others regardless if he turned and ran.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
It's easy to win fantasy-land court cases when you make up facts not found in evidence.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual.
Clearly you know not of what you speak as nothing was made up.



Tanngrisnir said:
Ah, then it perfectly suits what I was replying to.

Yet another brilliant legal analysis.
Click to expand...
Oh look. Another stupid reply which fails to refute anything said.
Figures
 
Excon said:
Wrong as usual.
Clearly you know not of what you speak as nothing was made up.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence or testimony that Scott tazed the officer.

At the time he fired Scott was not an immanent threat.

Game over. You lose. Again.
Oh look. Another stupid reply which fails to refute anything said.
Figures
Click to expand...

You've haven't offered anything rational or fact-based to refute.

It's your M.O. I never expect anything less from you.
 
Excon said:
You need to put yourself in the Officer's shoes not seeing the taser being thrown. Based on Scott's behavior, he would have remained a threat to others regardless if he turned and ran.
Click to expand...

No, running away with the taser, he would have remained a potential (key word) threat to others armed with a largely non lethal weapon.

Simply put, we don't execute people in the United States because they are simply potential threats. That goes doubly so when the potential threat involves having a non lethal weapon, and not say, a dirty bomb.
 
Was this the guy who moved the weapon after he'd already killed the suspect?
 
Tweet

Andrew Knapp- 2 Dec 2016
1 holdout is for not guilty. 11 others for guilty. Judge awaiting last deadlock declaration before any mistrial.
#SlagerTrial #WalterScott

Tweet​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom