Here are the choices in South Carolina.... That's it unless you were to skip these and find ticky tacky misdemeanor gun laws which no one here thinks is appropriate.


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

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

SECTION 16-3-50. Manslaughter.

A person convicted of manslaughter, or the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, must be imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years.

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.




Despite what BL seems to think MALICE legally means 'evil intent'. MALICE AFORETHOUGHT means premeditated or deliberate 'evil intent'. Aforethought literally means 'thought of previously or planned beforehand'.

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 10:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 4/15/2015 9:42:00 AM (view original):
First degree murder. A deliberate, premeditated killing is generally considered a first degree murder. Where the defendant planned the killing (as in a poisoning), she will usually be charged with first degree murder. The Los Angeles district attorney charged O. J. Simpson with two first degree murder counts in the deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and another person. The district attorney brought the first degree murder charges based on crime scene evidence, including a bloody glove, and on evidence that Simpson allegedly spied on his wife prior to the killings. Such evidence could have indicated a plan or premeditation to commit the crimes.

Second degree murder. In the widely-reported shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the prosecutor in Seminole County, Florida, charged neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman with second degree murder. The reason that the prosecutor charged Zimmerman with second degree murder is that Zimmerman shot Martin and there is no evidence that the killing was premeditated. To win a conviction of Zimmerman on the charge, the prosecutor will have to prove to the jury that Zimmerman intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on Martin.

Felony murder. Let’s assume by way of example that Bonnie and Clyde rob a bank. Clyde shoots and kills the guard during a confrontation. Clyde is charged with first degree murder and Bonnie is charged with felony murder because the guard died during Bonnie’s participation as an accomplice in committing the dangerous felony of armed robbery. Now let’s assume instead that Bonnie waits behind the wheel of the getaway car while Clyde robs the bank. After the robbery, Clyde jumps into the car and Bonnie speeds off, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian. Both Bonnie and Clyde are charged with felony murder, again because they accidentally killed the pedestrian while committing a dangerous felony.

Aggravating circumstances. Murder committed under certain circumstances, such as by laying in wait, or murder targeting a person in a particular position, such as a police officer, judge, or firefighter, can lead to a more severe sentence, including the death penalty.

South Carolina does not have second degree murder, or third degree (which some states have) as far as I can tell. They seem to lump it in with voluntary manslaughter.

They do not "lump it in with manslaughter." South Carolina treats all murder as one charge, premeditated or not.

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Here are the choices in South Carolina.... That's it unless you were to skip these and find ticky tacky misdemeanor gun laws which no one here thinks is appropriate.


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

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

SECTION 16-3-50. Manslaughter.

A person convicted of manslaughter, or the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, must be imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years.

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.




Despite what BL seems to think MALICE legally means 'evil intent'. MALICE AFORETHOUGHT means premeditated or deliberate 'evil intent'. Aforethought literally means 'thought of previously or planned beforehand'.

The legal definition of malice aforethought is:

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.

Slager shooting at Scott is implied malice. He intended to harm Scott.

I know how Backwardsass SC works. But quit saying murder is premeditated with very few exceptions. That's just not true. There's tons if exceptions.

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):
Murder is premeditated, with very few exceptions. BL isnt necessarily wrong that what slager did could be considered murder its just that its a loooooong shot to prove in court. They need to get a 'cop' who already gets leniency pegged on very rare murder 'exceptions', not norms. Murder typically is the charge for premeditated events like say taking a bomb to a marathon, going into the workplace or a school with a machine gun, or pulling a Scott Peterson. I still can't find a case where an on-duty cop was convicted of murder. That's how rare it is.

And again, premeditation is NOT REQUIRED for a crime to be murder.

GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/15/2015 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 4/15/2015 9:39:00 AM (view original):
Why would you believe anything the cop says in this case? He drops the taser by the body and lies about CPR on the police report.

The assisting BLACK cop lied about the CPR.

Whoever lied, they lied. No one should believe anything they say.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):
Murder is premeditated, with very few exceptions. BL isnt necessarily wrong that what slager did could be considered murder its just that its a loooooong shot to prove in court. They need to get a 'cop' who already gets leniency pegged on very rare murder 'exceptions', not norms. Murder typically is the charge for premeditated events like say taking a bomb to a marathon, going into the workplace or a school with a machine gun, or pulling a Scott Peterson. I still can't find a case where an on-duty cop was convicted of murder. That's how rare it is.

And again, premeditation is NOT REQUIRED for a crime to be murder.

Agreed. Its also a looooooooong shot to convict for murder without premeditation. And an even looooooooooooooonger shot to convict a on-duty cop for murder.

Its such a long shot I'd like you to find me links to 3 cases where a person, any person, was convicted of 'murder' where it was not premeditated. Any 3 cases.

You'll then see its a hard way to win a murder case without premeditation.

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Here are the choices in South Carolina.... That's it unless you were to skip these and find ticky tacky misdemeanor gun laws which no one here thinks is appropriate.


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

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

SECTION 16-3-50. Manslaughter.

A person convicted of manslaughter, or the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, must be imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years.

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.




Despite what BL seems to think MALICE legally means 'evil intent'. MALICE AFORETHOUGHT means premeditated or deliberate 'evil intent'. Aforethought literally means 'thought of previously or planned beforehand'.

The legal definition of malice aforethought is:

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.

Are you sure this is the ONLY legal definition?

I can also find the following...

From http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1198

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.

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malice+aforethought

Malice Aforethought
A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse. A malicious design to injure. An intent, at the time of a killing, willfully to take the life of a human being, or an intent willfully to act in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to human life; but malice aforethought does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite or hatred towards the individual killed.


But if we do use yours.... Is being attacked while doing your job 'legal excuse' and if it isn't then prongs 1 & 2 require 'specific' intent to cause harm or death.... Is shooting a man in the butt the mark of a man 'specifically' trying to harm or kill someone or could it be contrived as an officer trying to stop/slow down a fleeing suspect that just grabbed his taser?

Point is once again you are trying to pin a case on the outliers of the law, the technicalities, the very hard stuff to prove as a prosecutor (and the easy stuff for defense to win a case on - think OJ Simpson). To win a case you are better arguing from a point of strength which would be slager may or may not have intended to kill Scott... Either way it was illegal... Thus its manslaughter based on any number of these cases in the past we can bring up for example.

Is being attacked while doing your job 'legal excuse'

Scott was running away. You can't claim self defense if the other person is running away. You know this.

 Is shooting a man in the butt the mark of a man 'specifically' trying to harm or kill someone

Are you arguing that Slager wasn't trying to hurt Scott by shooting at him eight times?

Slager's intent was evident. He aimed his gun at Scott and fired eight times knowing, better than most people, exactly what would happen.

I see your disconnect. Slager probably felt like the shooting was justifiable when he pulled to the trigger. To you, that eliminates malice. He wasn't trying to do anything wrong.

The thing is, if his actions weren't justifiable (was Slager's fear "objectively reasonable"), then he killed Scott with malice aforethought because he intended to shoot Scott.

Posted by The Taint on 4/15/2015 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/15/2015 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 4/15/2015 9:39:00 AM (view original):
Why would you believe anything the cop says in this case? He drops the taser by the body and lies about CPR on the police report.

The assisting BLACK cop lied about the CPR.

Whoever lied, they lied. No one should believe anything they say.

Ever lie when you ****** up?    Honestly, I have no idea why he didn't attempt CPR.   But he knows he should have and he said he did.   Of course, that has NOTHING to do with Slager. 

Again, Slager was an on-duty cop who was assaulted.   Cops can legally discharge their firearm while on duty if justified.    The only argument one can make is that it wasn't justified.    Good luck with that.    A man stopped for a simple traffic violation flees then attacks the police officer.   WHO THE **** RUNS FROM A $50 TRAFFIC TICKET???     So what does the cop base his split-second decision on?

BL - we all saw the video and if slagers intent was EVIDENT.... Then what specifically was his intent?

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 12:53:00 PM (view original):
BL - we all saw the video and if slagers intent was EVIDENT.... Then what specifically was his intent?

Slager's intent was to shoot Scott.