Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 6:21:00 PM (view original):
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 moy23 on 4/13/2015 6:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 6:21:00 PM (view original):
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?

No and no.... Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 2:59:00 PM (view original):
This would seem like a gimme:

SECTION 16-3-60. Involuntary manslaughter; "criminal negligence" defined.

With regard to the crime of involuntary manslaughter, criminal negligence is defined as the reckless disregard of the safety of others. A person charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter may be convicted only upon a showing of criminal negligence as defined in this section. A person convicted of involuntary manslaughter must be imprisoned not more than five years.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 6:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 6:21:00 PM (view original):
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?

No and no.... Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Seems like "murder" is going to be tough to prove.     A police officer struggles for control of his taser.   He loses control of it and, in a split second decision because that's all the time he has, pulls his firearm and shoots. 

By SC Law, Invol MS was a gimme with the video.    Up to 5 years in prison.   DA decided to go big or go home.   I think he's going home.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 6:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 6:21:00 PM (view original):
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?

No and no.... Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Seems like "murder" is going to be tough to prove.     A police officer struggles for control of his taser.   He loses control of it and, in a split second decision because that's all the time he has, pulls his firearm and shoots. 

By SC Law, Invol MS was a gimme with the video.    Up to 5 years in prison.   DA decided to go big or go home.   I think he's going home.

Posted by mchales_army on 4/13/2015 6:34:00 PM (view original):
Definitions be damned!
The public will DEMAND murder charges. 
If they don't get it, there will be rioting over the systematic racism in our justice system. 

Someone has to pay the price for all of the cases that didn't get an indictment, and it looks like Slager will be the goat.

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 6:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 6:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 6:21:00 PM (view original):
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?

No and no.... Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Seems like "murder" is going to be tough to prove.     A police officer struggles for control of his taser.   He loses control of it and, in a split second decision because that's all the time he has, pulls his firearm and shoots. 

By SC Law, Invol MS was a gimme with the video.    Up to 5 years in prison.   DA decided to go big or go home.   I think he's going home.

I agree with all of that. BL is in for a surprise.

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

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.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2015 6:40:00 PM (view original):

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

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.

FYI

LOL.   BL, why do cops carry guns?   Do you think they receive any training on when/where to use them?   Do you think, when a cop fires his gun, that he knows he could kill or injure the target?   Do you think, because he knows that he could kill or injure the target, that the very act of firing his gun is malicious?

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 7:33:00 PM (view original):

LOL.   BL, why do cops carry guns?   Do you think they receive any training on when/where to use them?   Do you think, when a cop fires his gun, that he knows he could kill or injure the target?   Do you think, because he knows that he could kill or injure the target, that the very act of firing his gun is malicious?

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2015 6:40:00 PM (view original):

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

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.

FYI

I did read that. Now factor in this was a cop who was doing his job protecting people (not an average Joe toting a gun around for show and tell), a cop who in the dash cam video did nothing to show any sort of aggression towards Scott before he bolted from his car. The cop then did his job again and chased down the man resisting arrest, a struggle ensues, the perp grabs the cops taser before turning around and running. That's when the cop shoots him in the back. Adrenaline still pumping as he was heard saying on the recording.

What the cop did was reckless... And that's manslaughter.