SC officer charged with murder in man's death. Video catches him plant evidence.

[17 squirrel]

Not sure if you realized it or not, but unless your mother has a OEM "tan," you kinda just proved my point.

I could care less about your point and,
Aparantly you didn't realize I was laughing at you about the PC comment you made.

 

[chipbennett]

It was flat out murder and that was what he was charged with. The word is quite appropriate.

We don't always (often?) agree, but we certainly do here.

There was nothing "reckless" or "negligent" about the officer's actions. He used deadly force, without justification, with the intent to kill - and then tried to alter the crime scene to provide ex post facto evidence of justification.

 

[chipbennett]

Most of the legitimate "African-Americans" I know personally have been white. I hate that word.

I would say that it's somewhat fewer than half for me: a wonderful family from South Africa, naturalized US citizens, and lily white.

 

[chipbennett]

Maybe I'm missing something, but any physical confrontation that occurred previous to the officer shooting an unarmed guy, running away, in the back, has very little (and likely no) bearing on how this should be viewed.

Yes. This is a different conversation, if the officer had shot him while the two were struggling on the ground, with Scott reaching for the officer's TASER. But that's not what happened. The guy escaped the officer's clutches, ambled off, and the officer quite calmly took aim, fired seven shots at an even pace, then an eighth and final shot. Then just as calmly called in on his radio and walked over to Scott.

He wasn't in reasonable fear for his life, didn't appear to be under any stress/duress at all, and had no reason to believe that Scott posed an imminent threat to him or to anyone else.

 

[T.Lex]

He used deadly force, (1) without justification, (2) with the intent to kill - and then tried to alter the crime scene to provide ex post facto evidence of justification.

With regard to (1), is there ANYTHING that might have happened before the filming that would change your conclusion? A punch to the face with the victim saying, "I'd kill you before I'd go to jail." or "I'm going to kill that witch that wants child support."

With regard to (2), are you basing this conclusion on the fact that he shot the guy? Kinda a "results make the intent" type of thing? If he intended to kill, why didn't he put one in the guy's brain to make sure? How many of the shots actually hit?

Yeah, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit on this. If we're talking about the non-legal definition of murder, ok. No biggie. Even if we're arguing about whether the perceived facts right now fit the legal definition, ok. No problem. But if we're talking about what a jury will do, there is a SIGNIFICANT amount of gray area.

Even without the questions I asked above, the officer can claim "sudden heat" of the confrontation and his concern about the safety of the public after this crazy guy just started fighting with him to get at least 1 juror to reject murder in favor of something less.

 

[chipbennett]

With regard to (1), is there ANYTHING that might have happened before the filming that would change your conclusion? A punch to the face with the victim saying, "I'd kill you before I'd go to jail." or "I'm going to kill that witch that wants child support."

No, because the use of deadly force didn't happen at the time of such a threat - and running away is an implicit indication of retreat from a physical confrontation.

With regard to (2), are you basing this conclusion on the fact that he shot the guy? Kinda a "results make the intent" type of thing? If he intended to kill, why didn't he put one in the guy's brain to make sure? How many of the shots actually hit?

It's a bit tautological, but shooting a gun at someone is explicit use of deadly force with implicit intent to kill. There would have to be VERY compelling evidence of probable cause that Scott represented a threat of some sort, for the officer to claim that he was merely shooting to "stop the threat".

Yeah, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit on this. If we're talking about the non-legal definition of murder, ok. No biggie. Even if we're arguing about whether the perceived facts right now fit the legal definition, ok. No problem. But if we're talking about what a jury will do, there is a SIGNIFICANT amount of gray area.

Even without the questions I asked above, the officer can claim "sudden heat" of the confrontation and his concern about the safety of the public after this crazy guy just started fighting with him to get at least 1 juror to reject murder in favor of something less.

Look at how calm the officer is through the entire shooting. He was not acting in the "heat of the moment". And his action, immediately after the shooting, to place the TASER next to the body (right after he said over the radio, "he had my TASER"), clearly shows that he was acting with a clear mind (and a guilty conscience).

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Hahahahahahahahaha.....Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahaha.

You do make your own fun.

 

[T.Lex]

(Skipping the other stuff, because it isn't as interesting to me, overall.)

Look at how calm the officer is through the entire shooting. He was not acting in the "heat of the moment". And his action, immediately after the shooting, to place the TASER next to the body (right after he said over the radio, "he had my TASER"), clearly shows that he was acting with a clear mind (and a guilty conscience).

Defense attorney to jury: What you see there is the result of his training. They train to keep a level head in stressful situations. Based on what had just occurred, this officer took the steps he believed necessary in the heat of that moment. Anything else is Monday-morning quarterbacking.

Or something like that.

By the way, the BBC has an article up, although it is a few hours old so they don't know the videographer has been identified.
South Carolina shooting: What the video shows - BBC News

I just want to draw attention to this nugget of information:

Mr Slager's lawyer at the time, David Aylor, released a statement on Monday saying the officer felt threatened and that Mr Scott had tried to grab the stun gun.
...
When the video emerged, Mr Aylor resigned as Mr Slager's lawyer....

He was likely heard to mutter under his breath, "The Union ain't payin' me enough for this crap."

 

[Kutnupe14]

I could care less about your point and,
Aparantly you didn't realize I was laughing at you about the PC comment you made.

No problem, laugh away. I think others got my point even if you did not.

 

[Woobie]

I could care less about your point and,
Aparantly you didn't realize I was laughing at you about the PC comment you made.

Fail.

 

[phylodog]

Id like to know if the other officer there told investigators about the taser being placed by Scott prior to the video being released.

Hard to tell if the other officer saw it. It appears he was trying to render aid to the victim, may not have noticed the Taser. I'll not be quick to condemn the other officer.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hard to tell if the other officer saw it. It appears he was trying to render aid to the victim, may not have noticed the Taser. I'll not be quick to condemn the other officer.

Yeah, I was wondering if he noticed it as well.

 

[phylodog]

It's a bit tautological, but shooting a gun at someone is explicit use of deadly force with implicit intent to kill. There would have to be VERY compelling evidence of probable cause that Scott represented a threat of some sort, for the officer to claim that he was merely shooting to "stop the threat".

You and I are on the same sheet of music about this situation but I disagree with the portion of your statement that I put in italics. Deadly force is that which is likely to cause death. The intent is to stop the threat either from inflicting death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another person or (in rare circumstances) to prevent the escape of someone if certain criteria are met. I have spoken with well over 100 officers who have been involved in shootings and not one of them intended to kill the person they shot at. It may seem like splitting hairs but to those who have experienced it, it is a critical point.

 

[T.Lex]

You and I are on the same sheet of music about this situation but I disagree with the portion of your statement that I put in italics.

(I know you're new around here, but the

-tag puts the entire block in italics. I recommend bold.)

 

[chipbennett]

You and I are on the same sheet of music about this situation but I disagree with the portion of your statement that I put in italics. Deadly force is that which is likely to cause death. The intent is to stop the threat either from inflicting death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another person or (in rare circumstances) to prevent the escape of someone if certain criteria are met. I have spoken with well over 100 officers who have been involved in shootings and not one of them intended to kill the person they shot at. It may seem like splitting hairs but to those who have experienced it, it is a critical point.

I agree with you completely.

I'm thinking of the various reasons to shoot: shoot to kill, shoot to wound, shoot to stop a threat, shoot to scare ("warning" shot) - are there more?

I don't see any of those applying in this instance, except for "shoot to kill".

 

[D-Ric902]

I agree with you completely.

I'm thinking of the various reasons to shoot: shoot to kill, shoot to wound, shoot to stop a threat, shoot to scare ("warning" shot) - are there more?

I don't see any of those applying in this instance, except for "shoot to kill".

only one reason to shoot. Your life or the life of an innocent is in dire peril.
no other.

shooting a fleeing felon is a very specific and difficult standard

 

[AA&E]

COLUMBIA, SC: 2015 trial looks likely for ex-trooper | South Carolina | The Island Packet

Looks like the trial hasn't happened yet.

That guy is lucky to be alive. We need to instill in all police that life has value. I've seen two videos in this thread where two different officers demonstrated a lack of this belief.

 

[chipbennett]

CNN dutifully playing the drum:

Ferguson to South Carolina 2 police killings, 2 outcomes - CNN.com

They left out the most critical difference: The shooting in Ferguson was completely justified, and the shooting in North Charleston was completely unjustified.

(If one were the cynical sort, one might think that an august journalistic outfit like CNN were intentionally trying to obfuscate that particular point.)

 

[AA&E]

Here's slow-motion and stabilized GIF of the cop moving the taser near the victim

That is pretty damning...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

That is pretty damning...

I can see it now, "I went back to grab it so some 5 year old kid didn't run up and play with it. I just wanted it nearby while I was checking on the perp."