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

[Kutnupe14]

SO FAR, it would appear the 'INGO evidence' (links to other blogs, reports, etc.) that the following scenario is emerging (in layman's terms):

* Initial contact, all appears normal.

* For unknown reasons (to the LEO at the time) suspect bolts and runs.

* LEO catches up to suspect, a relatively lengthy (1 minute IS 'lengthy') struggle ensues, over a span of some distance, now escalating 'suspect' to 'perpetrator'.

* Perpetrator gains possession of LEO's Taser, now becoming an 'armed & dangerous perpetrator'.

* Armed & dangerous perpetrator uses Taser against LEO, at least one shot (Taser may be two-shot model).

* Armed & dangerous perpetrator, having shot LEO at least once with Taser, attempts to flee.

* LEO believes armed & dangerous perpetrator to still be in possession of working Taser, making him an 'armed & dangerous perpetrator willing to shoot a cop (or by reasonable and prudent theory, anyone else he confronts)'.

* LEO shoots fleeing armed & dangerous perpetrator to (LEO believes) prevent perpetrators escape with LEO's Taser (now perpetrator's weapon).

Other, as yet unknown, factors may come forward, but at this point 'murder' appears null & void. IANAL to be sure, but that scenario appears to be plausible based on 'evidence' others have put forth in this thread.

Would a LEO be justified in using lethal force to stop a fleeing armed & dangerous perpetrator, that has already shot that LEO, in order to prevent the escape of said armed & dangerous perpetrator? That appears to be the (current) question.

As an aside: Commentary on shooting an armed & dangerous perpetrator 'in the leg' or other such nonsense is too ridiculous to justify a response. Those who believe such Hollywood nonsense have likely never been in an armed combat scenario and should seriously reconsider whether they should carry a firearm themselves.

I don't see where this has been proven, and we all heard the officer indicate his use of the taser. I'd be interested to know this officer's department's taser policy. I personally cannot use a taser on a subject that's running away, unless the subject has been violent or is considered dangerous. It's has gotten to the point now, that the taser is nothing more than an extra weight on my hip due to the specific circumstances where it can be employed.

 

[oldpink]

I don't see where this has been proven, and we all heard the officer indicate his use of the taser. I'd be interested to know this officer's department's taser policy. I personally cannot use a taser on a subject that's running away, unless the subject has been violent or is considered dangerous. It's has gotten to the point now, that the taser is nothing more than an extra weight on my hip due to the specific circumstances where it can be employed.

That policy sounds crazy to me.
The only reason I can think of why they made it is so that a fleeing perp doesn't hurt himself when tased from his own forward momentum, but it still sounds like a bad policy.
Unfortunately, bad policies usually come courtesy of the politicians.

 

[Denny347]

That policy sounds crazy to me.
The only reason I can think of why they made it is so that a fleeing perp doesn't hurt himself when tased from his own forward momentum, but it still sounds like a bad policy.
Unfortunately, bad policies usually come courtesy of the politicians.

That is our use of force policy as well, no Tasing of fleeing suspects. This could be on the recommendation of Taser Inc, I'm not sure.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, I am absolutely not convinced that the victim ever had control of the taser. In fact, it looked to me like the wires were spooling out from him as he [strike]ran[/strike] ambled away.

Now that I think about it, that funny gait of his could be the result of having just been tased, at least briefly.

 

[chipbennett]

SO FAR, it would appear the 'INGO evidence' (links to other blogs, reports, etc.) that the following scenario is emerging (in layman's terms):

* Initial contact, all appears normal.

* For unknown reasons (to the LEO at the time) suspect bolts and runs.

* LEO catches up to suspect, a relatively lengthy (1 minute IS 'lengthy') struggle ensues, over a span of some distance, now escalating 'suspect' to 'perpetrator'.

What justified Slager's initial use of force (TASER) against a fleeing Scott? Scott was not suspected of a felony, violent crime, etc. At best, by fleeing a traffic-stop detention, he committed a misdemeanor.

* Perpetrator gains possession of LEO's Taser, now becoming an 'armed & dangerous perpetrator'.

Pure speculation at this point.

* Armed & dangerous perpetrator uses Taser against LEO, at least one shot (Taser may be two-shot model).

Also pure speculation at this point.

And, FYI, Slager fired the TASER once, and it appears that the back-up cartridge was used subsequently (it was present in the butt of the TASER in the dash cam video of the initial traffic stop, but NOT present in the butt of the TASER in the post-shooting video).

* Armed & dangerous perpetrator, having shot LEO at least once with Taser, attempts to flee.

If Scott was "armed", he was armed only with a contact weapon (TASER used with stun-drive technique), and was running *away* from Slager, and therefore not an immediate or serious threat. And Scott was fleeing (after resisting) what may not have been a lawful use of force by Scott in the first place.

* LEO believes armed & dangerous perpetrator to still be in possession of working Taser, making him an 'armed & dangerous perpetrator willing to shoot a cop (or by reasonable and prudent theory, anyone else he confronts)'.

The TASER was no longer a projectile weapon, so Scott, even if he had it, could not "shoot" anyone. And there is no evidence that he intended any harm to anyone else. All we know he did was resist/flee officer Slager.

* LEO shoots fleeing armed & dangerous perpetrator to (LEO believes) prevent perpetrators escape with LEO's Taser (now perpetrator's weapon).

And I can't help but wonder: if Slager sincerely thought that Scott had the TASER, how is it that Slager knew exactly where to walk to retrieve the TASER after the shooting? He didn't look around for it; he walked right to it. I do not believe that it is reasonable that Slager actually believed Scott had the TASER at the time he shot him.

Other, as yet unknown, factors may come forward, but at this point 'murder' appears null & void. IANAL to be sure, but that scenario appears to be plausible based on 'evidence' others have put forth in this thread.

I think murder is moot under any circumstances. It is simple manslaughter.

 

[mrjarrell]

The now excop, Slager, has finally been indicted for murder. No trial date has been set.

http://news.vice.com/article/cop-who-fatally-shot-fleeing-unarmed-man-in-the-back-is-charged-with-murder

 

[Kutnupe14]

The now excop, Slager, has finally been indicted for murder. No trial date has been set.

http://news.vice.com/article/cop-who-fatally-shot-fleeing-unarmed-man-in-the-back-is-charged-with-murder

IBTHEYCHARGEDHIMTOAPPEASETHEPUBLIC

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Judge declares mistrial in case of ex-North Charleston officer charged in murder of Walter Scott

Judge says the 22 hours jury deliberated was "the longest I've ever been involved in."

 

[HoughMade]

Judge declares mistrial in case of ex-North Charleston officer charged in murder of Walter Scott

Judge says the 22 hours jury deliberated was "the longest I've ever been involved in."

I've seen longer than that in civil med mal cases.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, that's really not that long.

According to this article, he's actually had a lot of trial experience:
Prominent black judge tapped to preside over Walter Scott case | MSNBC

Newman, 63, was elected to the Third Circuit in 2000, served as Third Circuit Solicitor for 17 years and as a private attorney for 24 years.

Not saying mistrial is inappropriate, it may be. Just that I agree with the hasselHough that 22 hours of deliberation isn't necessarily the standard.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Questions from jury: "Is the idea of self defense applied the same to a police officer as to an ordinary person?" "What is meant by imminent danger?" "Why was voluntary manslaughter offered in addition to murder?"

Defense wanted judge to tell jury provocation & heat of passion must both exist. Without one, "manslaughter is off the table."


Slager is still facing federal civil rights charges for death of Scott. That trial was expected some time early 2017

 

[T.Lex]

Those questions probably played a bigger role than the duration of the deliberations.

To me, those suggest a jury that can't even agree on the most basic issues of the case. And asking why a prosecutor did or didn't do something is REALLY difficult to answer.

IMHO.

 

[HoughMade]

Yeah, that's really not that long.

According to this article, he's actually had a lot of trial experience:
Prominent black judge tapped to preside over Walter Scott case | MSNBC


Not saying mistrial is inappropriate, it may be. Just that I agree with the hasselHough that 22 hours of deliberation isn't necessarily the standard.

The questions may have had something to do with it (Most frequent Judge response to jury question: "You are to decide the case based upon the evidence presented and the instructions I gave to you), or the jury may have used some magic words like "hopelessly deadlocked, or the South Carolina lay-person equivalent.

The length of deliberations here shouldn't have been an issue.

HasselHough....trying to teach me better satirical naming skills with the Socratic method?

 

[T.Lex]

HasselHough....trying to teach me better satirical naming skills with the Socratic method?

Well... what do you think?

 

[SEIndSAM]

Now that a mistrial has been called, what if his retrial is timed the same as the federal trial???? Feds take priority???

Mistrial declared in black motorist's shooting

 

[HoughMade]

Now that a mistrial has been called, what if his retrial is timed the same as the federal trial???? Feds take priority???

Mistrial declared in black motorist's shooting

I'm sure that the feds want to go after his state criminal trial. In any event, I'm sure that they will not be scheduled simultaneously.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm sure that the feds want to go after his state criminal trial. In any event, I'm sure that they will not be scheduled simultaneously.

I'm not so sure.

My impression of federal/state pursuit of the same episode is that the feds don't really give a flying flip about the state proceedings. Granted, my experience is limited. And ancient (by contemporary standards). So, I'm open to being corrected.

Having said that, the trials won't happen at the same time.

 

[Spear Dane]

So Slager and Tensing both got mis-trials. Slagers MT makes me wonder if the jury saw the same video I did. He very clearly screwed up, I don't care if Scott had his taser or not. A taser is not a lethal weapon, it doesn't merit shooting someone in the back over it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So Slager and Tensing both got mis-trials. Slagers MT makes me wonder if the jury saw the same video I did. He very clearly screwed up, I don't care if Scott had his taser or not. A taser is not a lethal weapon, it doesn't merit shooting someone in the back over it.

In the Scott trial, only one of the jurors prevented conviction. He apparently wouldn't convict for murder OR manslaughter. The jury's makeup I believe is 10 white, 1 latino, and 1 black.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm not so sure.

My impression of federal/state pursuit of the same episode is that the feds don't really give a flying flip about the state proceedings. Granted, my experience is limited. And ancient (by contemporary standards). So, I'm open to being corrected.

Having said that, the trials won't happen at the same time.

Well, maybe I was depending a little too much on the feds being a tad lazy and wanting some issue preclusion as to any essential elements of the crime that comes with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" verdict...but I'll admit that I was shooting from the hip.