Posted by moy23 on 4/12/2015 11:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/12/2015 11:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/12/2015 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/12/2015 7:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/12/2015 11:11:00 AM (view original):
Donte Hamilton - grabs a cops billy club - gets killed
Michael Brown - punches a cop through the cops window - gets killed
Eric Garner - resists arrest while shouting you're not taking me in - gets killed
Walter Scott - runs from a cop during a traffic stop - gets killed

None of these nice guys cooperated with the police. Its not a question of do they deserve to be shot. No one deserves that. Its more the issue that these guys undoubtedly provoked the incident which resulted in their deaths. If people are too blind to see that then shame on them.

I am curious why Walter Scott ran in the first place but I've stopped following the case since the white cop shoots black criminal is a tired, played out narrative, with no leg to stand on.

Nope. The burden falls on the cops to enforce the law without unnecessarily killing people.

Does it? Three of the four cops were not even indicted, never mind stood trial.

That's the problem with you... You are all theory. Theoretically it would be real nice if cops could enforce the law without 'unnecessarily' killing people... But in reality they are dealing with people that have multiple convictions, who will punch them in their car, grab for their billy clubs, and/or fight back in a scuffle when the officer catches up to them and tries to bring them down. I mean - Theoretically it would be nice if cops didn't get shot in the face for doing their job but reality (like 2 weeks ago in Boston) suggests that getting shot in the face is a real possibility for them when making a routine traffic stop.

And Walter Scott suggests that being murdered by a cop is a possibility. The burden falls on the government to not murder civilians. It's not on the civilians to avoid being murdered but the government.

Theoretically Walter Scott was murdered by a cop... In reality the case hasn't even gone to trial yet. They are still collecting all the facts.

He won't be convicted of murder. 

He was a bad, stupid cop.   You get bad, stupid workers in every field.    The difference is most fields don't allow you to carry a gun or give you the discretion to use it.   Which is why you should co-operate with cops.

Well, he has been charged with murder. And the killing is on video. And I haven't heard anyone offer up theories as to how the shooting could be justifiable. I'd bet Slager goes to prison for murder.

The "people" will demand a murder conviction.   I just don't think they get it.   Obviously the taser was out.   Not really sure who pulled it but Slager seemed to be reaching for his gun when the video started.   Scott grabs taser, Slager feels he has to defend himself?   That's what I'd argue.   Once weapons are pulled, the thinking gets unclear. 

Keep in mind we've watched the video more than once and probably in slow motion.  It happened quickly and I'm sure it was reaction not premeditation.   After he shoots him, he yells "Get your hands behind your back!"   Who the **** yells that at a man they think they killed?

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 2:24:00 PM (view original):
The "people" will demand a murder conviction.   I just don't think they get it.   Obviously the taser was out.   Not really sure who pulled it but Slager seemed to be reaching for his gun when the video started.   Scott grabs taser, Slager feels he has to defend himself?   That's what I'd argue.   Once weapons are pulled, the thinking gets unclear. 

Keep in mind we've watched the video more than once and probably in slow motion.  It happened quickly and I'm sure it was reaction not premeditation.   After he shoots him, he yells "Get your hands behind your back!"   Who the **** yells that at a man they think they killed?

I'm not arguing that it was premeditated, I'm arguing it was murder. Murder doesn't require premeditation.

I certainly didn't read all this but here you go:   http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

The highlight:

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

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





I just don't think this can be proven in this case.    If what you say is true, that they can't be charged, or convicted of another crime in SC, I don't think they get anything.    

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 2:47:00 PM (view original):
I certainly didn't read all this but here you go:   http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

The highlight:

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

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





I just don't think this can be proven in this case.    If what you say is true, that they can't be charged, or convicted of another crime in SC, I don't think they get anything.    

Malice aforethought is first degree murder. I think the appropriate (and actual) charge in this case is second degree murder.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2015 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 2:47:00 PM (view original):
I certainly didn't read all this but here you go:   http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

The highlight:

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

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





I just don't think this can be proven in this case.    If what you say is true, that they can't be charged, or convicted of another crime in SC, I don't think they get anything.    

Malice aforethought is first degree murder. I think the appropriate (and actual) charge in this case is second degree murder.

I can't find anything that states South Carolina actually has a law for murder in the 2nd degree.... Nor do I see any articles saying slager was charged with 2nd degree murder. What's your source?

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2015 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 2:47:00 PM (view original):
I certainly didn't read all this but here you go:   http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

The highlight:

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

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





I just don't think this can be proven in this case.    If what you say is true, that they can't be charged, or convicted of another crime in SC, I don't think they get anything.    

Malice aforethought is first degree murder. I think the appropriate (and actual) charge in this case is second degree murder.

I can't find anything that states South Carolina actually has a law for murder in the 2nd degree.... Nor do I see any articles saying slager was charged with 2nd degree murder. What's your source?

I think you're right and I'm wrong. It doesn't look like there are different degrees of murder in SC. It also looks like "malice aforethought" is included in the usual definition of both first and second degree murder:

Instead, there are three typical situations that can constitute second degree murder: A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with malice aforethought - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html#sthash.2RTNuT29.dpuf

"Malice aforethought" is just "the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person..."

Which shouldn't be hard to prove in this case since we have video of Slager shooting Scott as Scott was running away.

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

Posted by moy23 on 4/13/2015 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2015 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2015 2:47:00 PM (view original):
I certainly didn't read all this but here you go:   http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

The highlight:

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

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





I just don't think this can be proven in this case.    If what you say is true, that they can't be charged, or convicted of another crime in SC, I don't think they get anything.    

Malice aforethought is first degree murder. I think the appropriate (and actual) charge in this case is second degree murder.

I can't find anything that states South Carolina actually has a law for murder in the 2nd degree.... Nor do I see any articles saying slager was charged with 2nd degree murder. What's your source?

I think you're right and I'm wrong. It doesn't look like there are different degrees of murder in SC. It also looks like "malice aforethought" is included in the usual definition of both first and second degree murder:

Instead, there are three typical situations that can constitute second degree murder: A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with malice aforethought - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html#sthash.2RTNuT29.dpuf

"Malice aforethought" is just "the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person..."

Which shouldn't be hard to prove in this case since we have video of Slager shooting Scott as Scott was running away.

There enlies the problem though.... With manslaughter, we've seen the video and the cop was without doubt 'reckless'. To prove 'conscious intent' the jury has to beyond a reasonable doubt know what slager was thinking. That's how slager gets off the hook potentially with a murder charge. Involuntary manslaughter would be the sure bet but the sentencing is less severe than a murder charge.

"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.

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.