Was there any malicious intent?   That's going to be hard to prove.   He's a cop, there's a struggle for his taser, he pulls his sidearm with only a split second to think.   At best, you could claim the 8 shots were malicious but the time between raised firearm and shot 8 is just a couple of seconds.   Various experts take the stand and testify that, in the heat of the moment, no one would know how many times they pulled the trigger.

When he walks, the conspiracy theorists in the tin foil hats can claim the DA pressed for murder because he knew he couldn't convict.

Oh, that's right.  White cop shoots black man.  Obviously RACIST!!!!  Therefore, it was malicious and premeditated. 

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2015 5:09:00 PM (view original):

"To prove 'conscious intent' the jury has to beyond a reasonable doubt know what slager was thinking"

Not true.

Intent can be evident in actions.

No one ever knows what anyone else is thinking. But a video showing someone raising a gun and shooting it at someone else shows the intent to cause death or great bodily harm.

True but 'conscious' means that the cop was fully aware of his actions (a clear mind) and its 'conscious intent' that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Are you certain that the cop was not jacked up on adrenaline, or thinking about how he could have been killed by a criminal going after his taser, or that he wasn't thinking his almost born child was going to be fatherless? If a person is in a highly emotional state then the are not 'consciously' aware of what they are doing. That's pretty much the description of manslaughter in the 1st degree where someone was provoked to kill someone else.

Again, you'e misunderstanding the law.

Conscious intent just means that the suspect was aware that their actions could cause harm. There is no way that a trained police officer doesn't know that shooting someone can cause harm.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2015 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2015 5:09:00 PM (view original):

"To prove 'conscious intent' the jury has to beyond a reasonable doubt know what slager was thinking"

Not true.

Intent can be evident in actions.

No one ever knows what anyone else is thinking. But a video showing someone raising a gun and shooting it at someone else shows the intent to cause death or great bodily harm.

True but 'conscious' means that the cop was fully aware of his actions (a clear mind) and its 'conscious intent' that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Are you certain that the cop was not jacked up on adrenaline, or thinking about how he could have been killed by a criminal going after his taser, or that he wasn't thinking his almost born child was going to be fatherless? If a person is in a highly emotional state then the are not 'consciously' aware of what they are doing. That's pretty much the description of manslaughter in the 1st degree where someone was provoked to kill someone else.

Again, you'e misunderstanding the law.

Conscious intent just means that the suspect was aware that their actions could cause harm. There is no way that a trained police officer doesn't know that shooting someone can cause harm.

I'm not misunderstanding it.

Murder is typically premeditated. The person had 'conscious intent' to kill another human being meaning they maybe bought the gun a few days prior to shooting the individual, maybe bought shovels, etc to dispose of the body etc. That's why its 30 years to life in south Carolina.

Manslaughter is when a person kills someone in the heat of the moment - I.e. they caught their wife in bed with another man and after a tussle that man and/or the wife is dead.

Involuntary manslaughter is reckless endangerment. Think DUI where the person had no intentions what so ever to kill the guy but because he acted recklessly someone did die.

For ****'s sake.   If "conscious intent" was the pre-requisite for a murder charge, every ******* cop who shoots and kills someone would be charged with murder by law.   They'd be found not guilty if the shooting was justified but, by law, they'd have to be charged.   Because, as BL points out, a trained officer knows damn good and well that shooting someone will cause harm.

Goddammit.

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2015 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2015 5:09:00 PM (view original):

"To prove 'conscious intent' the jury has to beyond a reasonable doubt know what slager was thinking"

Not true.

Intent can be evident in actions.

No one ever knows what anyone else is thinking. But a video showing someone raising a gun and shooting it at someone else shows the intent to cause death or great bodily harm.

True but 'conscious' means that the cop was fully aware of his actions (a clear mind) and its 'conscious intent' that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Are you certain that the cop was not jacked up on adrenaline, or thinking about how he could have been killed by a criminal going after his taser, or that he wasn't thinking his almost born child was going to be fatherless? If a person is in a highly emotional state then the are not 'consciously' aware of what they are doing. That's pretty much the description of manslaughter in the 1st degree where someone was provoked to kill someone else.

Again, you'e misunderstanding the law.

Conscious intent just means that the suspect was aware that their actions could cause harm. There is no way that a trained police officer doesn't know that shooting someone can cause harm.

I'm not misunderstanding it.

Murder is typically premeditated. The person had 'conscious intent' to kill another human being meaning they maybe bought the gun a few days prior to shooting the individual, maybe bought shovels, etc to dispose of the body etc. That's why its 30 years to life in south Carolina.

Manslaughter is when a person kills someone in the heat of the moment - I.e. they caught their wife in bed with another man and after a tussle that man and/or the wife is dead.

Involuntary manslaughter is reckless endangerment. Think DUI where the person had no intentions what so ever to kill the guy but because he acted recklessly someone did die.

Murder does not require premeditation. Slager is being charged with murder because his intent to cause harm was clear. Scott was running away. He was no threat to Slager. Slager knew that shooting at Scott could kill him and Slager did it anyway.

That's murder. This case is as unambiguous as it gets because of the video evidence.

Here's the SC Law:

SECTION 16-3-10. "Murder" defined.

"Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.



Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, about "conscious intent".    Quit making up your own laws, BL.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 6:12:00 PM (view original):
Here's the SC Law:

SECTION 16-3-10. "Murder" defined.

"Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.



Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, about "conscious intent".    Quit making up your own laws, BL.

Can someone post the definition of 'malice aforethought'?

I just did.   Without the editing that BL decided to do.

Also, way to quote the part you needed.

malice aforethought n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 6:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 6:12:00 PM (view original):
Here's the SC Law:

SECTION 16-3-10. "Murder" defined.

"Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.



Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, about "conscious intent".    Quit making up your own laws, BL.

Can someone post the definition of 'malice aforethought'?

http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/malice-aforethought/

Malice aforethought is the the deliberate intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Malice aforethought is an element that must be proved in the crime of first degree murder. This description of the perpetrator's state of mind basically means that he or she had an intent to inflict injury without legal justification or excuse (legal justification included such defenses as self-defense, while excuse includes mental illness and duress).

Malice aforethought is comprised of any one of the following three elements: (1) an intent to kill; (2) an intent to inflict grievous bodily injury; or (3) an intent to act in a manner that creates a plain and strong likelihood that death or grievous harm will follow. Of these three prongs of malice, the first two prongs require a specific intent on the part of the defendant, measured subjectively, while the third prong only requires a general intent, measured both subjectively and objectively. Accordingly, malice aforethought may exist without an actual intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm, if there is proof of the "third prong" of malice. This simply means that the perpetrator knew of circumstances that a reasonably prudent person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood of death or grievous bodily harm resulting from the perpetrator's act. The law can infer malice from circumstantial evidence, such as from the intentional use of a deadly weapon.

Sooo....1)  Did Slager intend to cause death or great bodily harm in that split second before he fired?    2)  Was he evil or depraved?

Posted by mchales_army on 4/13/2015 6:19:00 PM (view original):
previously in mind :  premeditated, deliberate <with malice aforethought

Thank you.


BL - you see that - 'premeditated'

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 6:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 4/13/2015 6:19:00 PM (view original):
previously in mind :  premeditated, deliberate <with malice aforethought

Thank you.


BL - you see that - 'premeditated'

The legal definition of malice aforethought does not require premeditation. See my post above.