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

[DragonGunner]

I thought the SC officer did go to jail, and is being charged with murder?

Yes, I brought this up awhile back….seems there may be a hearing to decide officially what the charges will be for court. I had said I didn't have a problem with the death penalty, Kutnupe said he did, and stated that it most likely would be manslaughter, and no death penalty for manslaughter. I see what Kutnupe is saying. In murder you have it all planned out to kill someone, manslaughter there was no plan to kill the person. So did the officer pull the victim over in order to kill him…? And some will agree he did not, and it may go down that way to manslaughter. However drawing down on the victim and shooting 8 times and then manipulating the scene show that at some point the officer decided (planned) to murder him…..? Some will say thats a stretch and I think I would agree, but I'm not a law expert by a mile.

 

[jsharmon7]

I hadn't been following the drama portion of this thread, my apologies. Based only on the video I saw, it's a bad shoot and hopefully the system works as it should. Although the officer knew better and made an intentional choice, this does highlight the need to understand use of deadly force. I know of a guy who decided to shoot at someone after a very minor incident. He thought he was completely justified.

 

[SMiller]

Yes, I brought this up awhile back….seems there may be a hearing to decide officially what the charges will be for court. I had said I didn't have a problem with the death penalty, Kutnupe said he did, and stated that it most likely would be manslaughter, and no death penalty for manslaughter. I see what Kutnupe is saying. In murder you have it all planned out to kill someone, manslaughter there was no plan to kill the person. So did the officer pull the victim over in order to kill him…? And some will agree he did not, and it may go down that way to manslaughter. However drawing down on the victim and shooting 8 times and then manipulating the scene show that at some point the officer decided (planned) to murder him…..? Some will say thats a stretch and I think I would agree, but I'm not a law expert by a mile.

I don't think it matters what leads up to the murder. When a person unholsters a weapon and fires 8 times into someone's back you would have to think that's murder.

 

[jbombelli]

I don't think it matters what leads up to the murder. When a person unholsters a weapon and fires 8 times into someone's back you would have to think that's murder.

Not necessarily.

 

[Fargo]

Yes, I brought this up awhile back….seems there may be a hearing to decide officially what the charges will be for court. I had said I didn't have a problem with the death penalty, Kutnupe said he did, and stated that it most likely would be manslaughter, and no death penalty for manslaughter. I see what Kutnupe is saying. In murder you have it all planned out to kill someone, manslaughter there was no plan to kill the person. So did the officer pull the victim over in order to kill him…? And some will agree he did not, and it may go down that way to manslaughter. However drawing down on the victim and shooting 8 times and then manipulating the scene show that at some point the officer decided (planned) to murder him…..? Some will say thats a stretch and I think I would agree, but I'm not a law expert by a mile.

He doesn't have to have a preconceived plan, as I posted above "malice aforethought" and "premeditation" are NOT the same thing. I have never practiced in SC so I'm not going to try to explain it, but here is an excerpt from a SC case holding that obtaining/drawing/using a weapon is evidence of "malice aforethought" and in some cases causes an automatic inference of MA.

In this case, applying the any evidence standard and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find sufficient evidence supports the family court's denial of Appellant's motion for a directed verdict. Evidence in the record demonstrates Appellant retrieved a deadly weapon from his brother's closet, walked to another room, opened a window, and pointed the gun. Moreover, the record indicates it required six pounds of pressure to fire the gun and the recoil on the specific firearm in question was "negligible," inferring accidental discharge of the second shot was unlikely. Because the family court could infer malice from a defendant's use of a deadly weapon[2] or from the evidence that the discharge of the weapon was likely not accidental, this evidence was sufficient to overcome Appellant's motion for a directed verdict. See, e.g., Sellers v. State, 362 S.C. 182, 189, 607 S.E.2d 82, 85 (1981) (recognizing malice may be implied from the use of a deadly weapon). Accordingly, we find no error.[3]

SC Judicial Department

The below case on "Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill" (ABIK) gives the definition and it is NOT premeditation. In fact, in can include extreme recklessness rather than specific intent:

“Malice aforethought” is defined as “the requisite mental state for common-law murder” and it utilizes four possible mental states to encompass both specific and general intent to commit the crime. Black’s Law Dictionary 969 (7th ed. 1999). These four possibilities are intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, extremely reckless indifference to the value of human life (abandoned and malignant heart), and intent to commit a felony (felony murder rule).[3] Id. “General intent” is defined as “the state of mind required for the commission of certain common law crimes not requiring specific intent” and it “usually takes the form of recklessness . . . or negligence.” Black’s Law Dictionary 813 (7th ed. 1999).
Clearly, the above definitions illustrate that malice aforethought encompasses both the specific and general intent to commit murder. As ABIK encompasses each of the required elements of murder except for the death of the victim, it is axiomatic that malice aforethought be the mental state required to commit ABIK. Further, the South Carolina Supreme Court has stated “the required mental state for ABIK, like murder, is malice aforethought.” State v. Fennell, 340 S.C. 266, 275, 531 S.E.2d 512, 517 (2000).

SC Judicial Department

Based upon that definition, I'm hard pressed to see how a murder charge isn't the correct one under SC law; but again I do not and have not ever practiced there so take that for what it is worth.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I sure hope he doesnt get caught up in the moment and decide to shoot someone in the back 8 times as when you don't have a badge it is called murder and you go to jail, caught up in the moment or not...

Often, it isn't. I've already posted the link where the guy shot and killed another guy over an argument about a dog and got 10 years of house arrest. No badge involved there. Often its a manslaughter or battery with a deadly weapon charge. I file a lot of shootings. I get *very* few attempt murders. Number of shots is only one factor. Motive, if it was planned, etc. matters. As an example, the last case I got attempted murder on the suspect shot and hit. The victim fled. The suspect chased him down and shot again. The chasing him down, combined with threats earlier in the day, was the relevant fact that turned it into attempt murder. Threats showed some level of planning. Chasing down after injury helps show intent is to kill, not wound.

This is like when a celebrity gets a plea deal and everyone jumps on that he got special treatment, not realizing that everyone with a similar criminal history under similar circumstances would probably have gotten that same plea. The general public generally doesn't know what the base line is, and thus doesn't know if a decision is "special treatment" or not.

I don't know if they'll get murder on this guy or not. I think I could make the case for it under Indiana law based on the immediate staging of the scene. I don't *know* that I could get the prosecutor to agree with me. Obviously the prosecutor agreed on this one, and I'm sure they have more information and understand their state's law better than me so I figure the prosecutor has a good reason to do so.

 

[D-Ric902]

Often, it isn't. I've already posted the link where the guy shot and killed another guy over an argument about a dog and got 10 years of house arrest. No badge involved there. Often its a manslaughter or battery with a deadly weapon charge. I file a lot of shootings. I get *very* few attempt murders. Number of shots is only one factor. Motive, if it was planned, etc. matters. As an example, the last case I got attempted murder on the suspect shot and hit. The victim fled. The suspect chased him down and shot again. The chasing him down, combined with threats earlier in the day, was the relevant fact that turned it into attempt murder. Threats showed some level of planning. Chasing down after injury helps show intent is to kill, not wound.

This is like when a celebrity gets a plea deal and everyone jumps on that he got special treatment, not realizing that everyone with a similar criminal history under similar circumstances would probably have gotten that same plea. The general public generally doesn't know what the base line is, and thus doesn't know if a decision is "special treatment" or not.

I don't know if they'll get murder on this guy or not. I think I could make the case for it under Indiana law based on the immediate staging of the scene. I don't *know* that I could get the prosecutor to agree with me. Obviously the prosecutor agreed on this one, and I'm sure they have more information and understand their state's law better than me so I figure the prosecutor has a good reason to do so.

how about tampering with a crime scene?
evidence tampering maybe?
I think the murder charge is a placeholder for the final charges

 

[BehindBlueI's]

how about tampering with a crime scene?
evidence tampering maybe?
I think the murder charge is a placeholder for the final charges

I'd have to look it up, but I don't think Indiana has a evidence tampering charge. I believe Obstruction of Justice has the relevant codes if you alter or destroy evidence. NO idea about SC law.

 

[printcraft]

.........I think the murder charge is a placeholder for the final charges

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He was arrested and charged VERY quickly......... which I believe was a move to head off the "burn this ***** down" crowd.
Can you imagine what would be going on if he were just suspended pending investigation by internal affairs?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He was arrested and charged VERY quickly......... which I believe was a move to head off the "burn this ***** down" crowd.
Can you imagine what would be going on if he were just suspended pending investigation by internal affairs?

Sometimes a simple case is just that. Simple.

Filing a murder charge is disappointingly mundane. If its a complex case that requires forensics, multiple interviews, time lines, etc. it can take awhile. If its one suspect/one victim/one witness with video, I can probably get it filed that day.

I screened an attempt (only because the ER docs brought the guy back) and was in and out in 45 minutes recently. Most of my robberies take more time than that.

 

[D-Ric902]

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He was arrested and charged VERY quickly......... which I believe was a move to head off the "burn this ***** down" crowd.
Can you imagine what would be going on if he were just suspended pending investigation by internal affairs?

The INGO hive mind
Great minds think alike and tend toward the same places

 

[printcraft]

I'm not talking about THIS particular case...... but...........
I'm just saying with the current media environment surrounding all of this the potential to get thrown under the bus has gone up dramatically.

 

[public servant]

I haven't read much of the thread yet...maybe later. I found this interesting though, once you get past the webpage name:

More Developments | Charleston Thug Life

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I haven't read much of the thread yet...maybe later. I found this interesting though, once you get past the webpage name:

More Developments | Charleston Thug Life

That is good info. The fact he picks the Taser back up and holsters it after dropping it near the body definitely alters the "tampering with evidence" portion of the narrative.

 

[rockola1971]

That is good info. The fact he picks the Taser back up and holsters it after dropping it near the body definitely alters the "tampering with evidence" portion of the narrative.

Still waiting for a remotely logical reason as to why another man would shoot another man in the back many feet away that is running away. Im pretty sure thats called an execution. I dont care what happen before in a "struggle". If the deceased DID NOT have a weapon then....he didnt pick one up in the next 40ft before he was executed.

If was on the jury, Slager would get the needle if it were up to me. There is NOTHING than can be said, no possibility of any "new evidence" changine the fact that this man was murdered. I challenge you or anyone else to offer up a explanation that would (Legally) justify Slager executing this man like he did.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Still waiting for a remotely logical reason as to why another man would shoot another man in the back many feet away that is running away. Im pretty sure thats called an execution. I dont care what happen before in a "struggle". If the deceased DID NOT have a weapon then....he didnt pick one up in the next 40ft before he was executed.

If was on the jury, Slager would get the needle if it were up to me. There is NOTHING than can be said, no possibility of any "new evidence" changine the fact that this man was murdered. I challenge you or anyone else to offer up a explanation that would (Legally) justify Slager executing this man like he did.

Have you read this thread or the article? I've said multiple times its a bad shoot. The article I'm commenting on says its a bad shoot. The narrative of the event has included that he tampered with evidence, though. That portion of the narrative may be incorrect. That still does not make it a good shoot. It is still a bad shoot. It is just a bad shoot without evidence tampering.

 

[public servant]

Have you read this thread or the article?

Clearly not.

 

[cobber]

Still waiting for a remotely logical reason as to why another man would shoot another man in the back many feet away that is running away. Im pretty sure thats called an execution. I dont care what happen before in a "struggle". If the deceased DID NOT have a weapon then....he didnt pick one up in the next 40ft before he was executed.

If was on the jury, Slager would get the needle if it were up to me. There is NOTHING than can be said, no possibility of any "new evidence" changine the fact that this man was murdered. I challenge you or anyone else to offer up a explanation that would (Legally) justify Slager executing this man like he did.

And yet how many INGOers would do the same thing (or have said so) if some guy was bolting from their house after a failed burglary, or trying to 'jack their car in the driveway?

For example:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ndiana-man-sentenced-shooting-intruder-4.html

 

[Kutnupe14]

I haven't read much of the thread yet...maybe later. I found this interesting though, once you get past the webpage name:

More Developments | Charleston Thug Life

Not sure what that article is trying to say exactly. That he didn't plant the taser, because he picked it up 30 seconds after he tossed it next to the body?

 

[phylodog]

Still waiting for a remotely logical reason as to why another man would shoot another man in the back many feet away that is running away. Im pretty sure thats called an execution. I dont care what happen before in a "struggle".

The law does not agree with you.

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.

I do not believe that he criteria were met to justify deadly force in this case, just pointing out that the suspect not having a weapon does not indicate murder.