Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 3:17:00 PM (view original):
So you think he shot Scott by mistake?

From slagers perspective, yes, a mistake. Me personally, I think he shot Scott while under duress. I think he was reckless. I don't know if he intended to kill him or if he thought he was shooting until Scott fell down. Its not like he walked up to scott on the ground and put one last bullet into him to finish him off. His shots were all over the place from Scotts butt, back, head, and even 3 misses from such a short distance with such a big dude. A trained shooter with conscious intent would probably do a better job had he not been under duress, or jacked on adrenaline.

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 3:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 3:17:00 PM (view original):
So you think he shot Scott by mistake?

From slagers perspective, yes, a mistake. Me personally, I think he shot Scott while under duress. I think he was reckless. I don't know if he intended to kill him or if he thought he was shooting until Scott fell down. Its not like he walked up to scott on the ground and put one last bullet into him to finish him off. His shots were all over the place from Scotts butt, back, head, and even 3 misses from such a short distance with such a big dude. A trained shooter with conscious intent would probably do a better job had he not been under duress, or jacked on adrenaline.

If he truly shot at Scott on accident, then yes, it's manslaughter. But I don't think that is the case. Slager drew his gun, aimed, and fired eight times. Based on the video, it seems like the intent was to shoot Scott.

Voluntary Manslaughter is the INTENT to shoot someone, even kill them... But its a lesser degree of murder because it was provoked. In this case by a guy resisting arrest.

Involuntary Manslaughter is where there was no intent, just reckless behavior (I.e a drunk driver killing someone)

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.

Posted by moy23 on 4/15/2015 5:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/15/2015 5:04:00 PM (view original):
Like you said before:

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

Do you realize the tiny pigeon hole you are putting yourself in?

OK malice aforethought which most sites say typically it means premeditated but you are going to argue the long shot odds that say its not 'always' premeditated. Malice typically means evil intent but as you point out its not 'always' necessary. Another long shot. Your odds to PROVE this are very poor because you are boxing yourself in.

That's why I've said it COULD be murder but that's probably 1 in 100 odds. Its like a parlay bet where you need a lot to happen just right.


With manslaughter - doesn't matter if slager had malice or not, doesn't matter if he intended to shoot Scott or not. It only matters that he did shoot Scott when it was unnecessary to do so.

The odds must be some 90% to convict for manslaughter.

Does that make any sense to you?

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.
...
Some jurisdictions still use the term malice aforethought to define intentional murder, but many have changed or elaborated on the term in order to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind. California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187 [West 1996]). It also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188 of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express malice exists "when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." Malice may be implied by a judge or jury "when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."