Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 12:54:00 PM (view original):

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.

Agreed. So then why did slager intend to shoot Scott?

LOL.   Aren't cops authorized to fire on fleeing suspects that they believe are a danger to the officer himself or the community in general?

Isn't it reasonable to think that a man who went from minor traffic violation to resisting arrest to assaulting a police officer in a matter of seconds is dangerous?

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/15/2015 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Isn't it reasonable to think that a man who went from minor traffic violation to resisting arrest to assaulting a police officer in a matter of seconds is dangerous?

Bear with me mike- I'm going to attempt to walk him away from the video (one piece of evidence) and towards the 30,000' view of the case involving all the evidence so far.

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 12:54:00 PM (view original):

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.

Agreed. So then why did slager intend to shoot Scott?

Does why matter?

Let's say Slager thought Scott was a danger to Slager as he was running away.

Does that absolve Slager?

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/15/2015 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Isn't it reasonable to think that a man who went from minor traffic violation to resisting arrest to assaulting a police officer in a matter of seconds is dangerous?

Bear with me mike- I'm going to attempt to walk him away from the video (one piece of evidence) and towards the 30,000' view of the case involving all the evidence so far.

I know.   But he's being so stupid that I can't bear to watch it.

"BUT HE SHOT HIM!!   HE WAS OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO SHOOT HIM!!!  A TRAINED OFFICER KNOWS THAT COULD CAUSE GRAVE BODILY DAMAGE OR KILL HIM!!!   IT'S MURDER!!!!"


Such a ******* idiot.

To elaborate, it's just so easy to conclude that a police officer, fresh from a chase and assault, used his firearm to subdue a fleeing and apparently dangerous suspect.  

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 12:54:00 PM (view original):

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.

Agreed. So then why did slager intend to shoot Scott?

Does why matter?

Let's say Slager thought Scott was a danger to Slager as he was running away.

Does that absolve Slager?

It matters because thats the distinction between the different charges. If as you said - Slager thought Scott was a danger to slager himself, even as he was running away.... Then you just proved its involuntary manslaughter. There was no malicious intent, only intent to protect himself. It would suggest slager was in the wrong fpr thinking this way and that he recklessly killed a man because of it. Thats not murder, again that's involuntarily manslaughter. It would be the equivalent of the 73 year old Oklahoma cop that was just charged with manslaughter for thinking his gun was a taser. Intent.

Ill ask another question... Do you believe a 'tussle' was taking place (as eye witness 2 claims) right before the video starts?

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 12:54:00 PM (view original):

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.

Agreed. So then why did slager intend to shoot Scott?

Does why matter?

Let's say Slager thought Scott was a danger to Slager as he was running away.

Does that absolve Slager?

It matters because thats the distinction between the different charges. If as you said - Slager thought Scott was a danger to slager himself, even as he was running away.... Then you just proved its involuntary manslaughter. There was no malicious intent, only intent to protect himself. It would suggest slager was in the wrong fpr thinking this way and that he recklessly killed a man because of it. Thats not murder, again that's involuntarily manslaughter. It would be the equivalent of the 73 year old Oklahoma cop that was just charged with manslaughter for thinking his gun was a taser. Intent.

Ill ask another question... Do you believe a 'tussle' was taking place (as eye witness 2 claims) right before the video starts?

Again, you're viewing malice aforethought incorrectly. This is from a definition you listed:

but malice aforethought does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite or hatred towards the individual killed. 

Slager's fear must be objectively reasonable to be valid. If it isn't objectively reasonable, then the shooting is not legally justifiable. If the shooting is not legally justifiable, then we are left with Slager intentionally shooting Scott (malice aforethought) and killing him. Which is murder in South Carolina, not manslaughter.

The prosecution is going to have to prove "state of mind" of Slager.   Good luck with that.

1.  Suspect fled from a minor traffic stop
2.  Suspect had some sort of altercation with cop
3.  Suspect broke free and ran again

All this happened in a matter of seconds.   No one can prove what Slager was thinking.   Reasonable people can easily understand why he'd think Scott was dangerous.   And why he had to subdue him right then as opposed to impounding his car and visiting his residence.   Because the police had that in hand.

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 2:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 12:54:00 PM (view original):

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.

Agreed. So then why did slager intend to shoot Scott?

Does why matter?

Let's say Slager thought Scott was a danger to Slager as he was running away.

Does that absolve Slager?

It matters because thats the distinction between the different charges. If as you said - Slager thought Scott was a danger to slager himself, even as he was running away.... Then you just proved its involuntary manslaughter. There was no malicious intent, only intent to protect himself. It would suggest slager was in the wrong fpr thinking this way and that he recklessly killed a man because of it. Thats not murder, again that's involuntarily manslaughter. It would be the equivalent of the 73 year old Oklahoma cop that was just charged with manslaughter for thinking his gun was a taser. Intent.

Ill ask another question... Do you believe a 'tussle' was taking place (as eye witness 2 claims) right before the video starts?

Again, you're viewing malice aforethought incorrectly. This is from a definition you listed:

but malice aforethought does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite or hatred towards the individual killed. 

Slager's fear must be objectively reasonable to be valid. If it isn't objectively reasonable, then the shooting is not legally justifiable. If the shooting is not legally justifiable, then we are left with Slager intentionally shooting Scott (malice aforethought) and killing him. Which is murder in South Carolina, not manslaughter.

So as the defense attorney I put a few cops on the stand that have been attacked by a person resisting arrest. I ask then if they feared for their life. They say yes and you now have reason to believe slager feared for his life as well. If you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't fear for his life you lost your own murder case.

That's not the way it works. Slager's actions in this specific case have to be objectively reasonable.

Do you think Slager was in danger as Scott was running away?

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/15/2015 1:25:00 PM (view original):
The prosecution is going to have to prove "state of mind" of Slager.   Good luck with that.

1.  Suspect fled from a minor traffic stop
2.  Suspect had some sort of altercation with cop
3.  Suspect broke free and ran again

All this happened in a matter of seconds.   No one can prove what Slager was thinking.   Reasonable people can easily understand why he'd think Scott was dangerous.   And why he had to subdue him right then as opposed to impounding his car and visiting his residence.   Because the police had that in hand.

Good rule of thumb: don't act like you're guilty of something around the cops if you're not actually guilty of something.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/15/2015 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/15/2015 1:25:00 PM (view original):
The prosecution is going to have to prove "state of mind" of Slager.   Good luck with that.

1.  Suspect fled from a minor traffic stop
2.  Suspect had some sort of altercation with cop
3.  Suspect broke free and ran again

All this happened in a matter of seconds.   No one can prove what Slager was thinking.   Reasonable people can easily understand why he'd think Scott was dangerous.   And why he had to subdue him right then as opposed to impounding his car and visiting his residence.   Because the police had that in hand.

Good rule of thumb: don't act like you're guilty of something around the cops if you're not actually guilty of something.

Good rule of thumb: don't murder people.