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

[ArcadiaGP]

At one point it looked like the officer saw the person recording, and started to panic. I feel like that's why he kept emphasizing the "Get your hands behind your back..." etc part.

I'd hate to be a bystander recording something like this, where the officer is nearly obviously in the wrong. What if he wanted to take your phone? I'd run my ass out of there and flee the scene ASAP.

 

[T.Lex]

The guy was evading a bench warrant for failure to pay child support.

Aw man, that's a wrinkle that will suck. It makes it plausible that he'd fight the cop without a "good reason."

I just don't see how a murder charge will stick.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I'd hate to be a bystander recording something like this, where the officer is nearly obviously in the wrong. What if he wanted to take your phone? I'd run my ass out of there and flee the scene ASAP.

My thoughts exactly. I'm not sure I'd be brave enough to stay put either.

 

[chipbennett]

Aw man, that's a wrinkle that will suck. It makes it plausible that he'd fight the cop without a "good reason."

I just don't see how a murder charge will stick.

Plausible evidence that he'd resist arrest? Certainly.

Plausible evidence that he represented an imminent threat, thereby justifying being shot in the back as a fleeing felon? Not a chance.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

South Carolina officer charged with murder - CNN.com

Citizens of SC - If you see a CNN truck within 4 miles of your home or business, please be sure that you are up on your insurance. Fire damage may be imminent.

 

[T.Lex]

Plausible evidence that he'd resist arrest? Certainly.

Plausible evidence that he represented an imminent threat, thereby justifying being shot in the back as a fleeing felon? Not a chance.

Totally agree. The "problem" is that if a jury thinks he resisted, it will mitigate how they treat the officer.

Think jury nullification.

 

[cobber]

At one point it looked like the officer saw the person recording, and started to panic. I feel like that's why he kept emphasizing the "Get your hands behind your back..." etc part.

I'd hate to be a bystander recording something like this, where the officer is nearly obviously in the wrong. What if he wanted to take your phone? I'd run my ass out of there and flee the scene ASAP.

Running didn't help the perp. Amazed the guy went closer and kept filming.


Darren Wilson is probably breathing a sigh of relief as this will move him out of the spotlight, maybe...

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Totally agree. The "problem" is that if a jury thinks he resisted, it will mitigate how they treat the officer.

Think jury nullification.

I just can't help thinking that, given the video, this officer might be given up as an offering of sorts. If he's vigorously prosecuted and severely punished, there might be a general feeling of justice being done that could ease tensions.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I just can't help thinking that, given the video, this officer might be given up as an offering of sorts. If he's vigorously prosecuted and severely punished, there might be a general feeling of justice being done that could ease tensions.

That's how I feel. People "need" a conviction.

 

[T.Lex]

I just can't help thinking that, given the video, this officer might be given up as an offering of sorts. If he's vigorously prosecuted and severely punished, there might be a general feeling of justice being done that could ease tensions.

Yeah, but that's a big risk. Could you imagine a jury trial, then an acquittal?

I could see that happening if the prosecutor went with "Murder or nothing" in the plea negotiations. Defense attorney might say, "Fine, all or nothing, no lesser-included instruction." If given a choice between murder or "letting a guilty man/officer go free" then the jury might just acquit.

Keep in mind, the jury will be instructed to look at only the facts of this case - not any of the outside influences. Plus, the cynic in me suspects that a jury in that venue will likely be at least 50% white.... soooo...

The defense only needs 1 out of 12 jurors to say "no" to murder to get a hung jury on that charge. If that's the only charge, then that's totally possible.

That's how I feel. People "need" a conviction.

So give them a conviction for something less than murder. Can still require prison time.

I'm just saying, the prosecutor needs to be careful not to get too far out in front of this one.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Yeah, but that's a big risk. Could you imagine a jury trial, then an acquittal?


I'm just saying, the prosecutor needs to be careful not to get too far out in front of this one.

I hadn't thought about it that way, but you're right.

 

[jamil]

And without a clear video, I just think it's worth considering whether the witnesses to this shooting might also fail to JIBE their accounts.

Unrelated?

I think that jive is too speculative to even bother. The witness accounts of the Brown shooting didn't jibe with the physical evidence, let alone with each other.

Something that might be worth the time to ponder, if there were no video in this shooting, would the press pick up the story with the same editorial disregard as with Brown? Or, would they double down on the same narrative before they even know the truth? This time the video removes the doubt. And they seem to be looking in every nook and cranny for a conservative boogie man to attack.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Something that might be worth the time to ponder, if there were no video in this shooting, would the press pick up the story with the same editorial disregard as with Brown? Or, would they double down on the same narrative before they even know the truth? This time the video removes the doubt. And they seem to be looking in every nook and cranny for a conservative boogie man to attack.

I guess it's safe to say that any interested party would have a tendency to exploit whatever ISN'T clear about an event and turn it to their favor, whether it would be the officer, the family of the man who was shot, the Police Dept, or the man's family. What the video does is to greatly lessen the number of things about the incident that aren't clear and thus take away the ability of anyone to exploit them.

Given that, I'm sure interested parties will double down on the things that they believe the video does prove and that support the cause or opinion that they already did have.

 

[searpinski]

This is what people thought Michael Brown was.

Exactly.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah, but that's a big risk. Could you imagine a jury trial, then an acquittal?

I could see that happening if the prosecutor went with "Murder or nothing" in the plea negotiations. Defense attorney might say, "Fine, all or nothing, no lesser-included instruction." If given a choice between murder or "letting a guilty man/officer go free" then the jury might just acquit.

Keep in mind, the jury will be instructed to look at only the facts of this case - not any of the outside influences. Plus, the cynic in me suspects that a jury in that venue will likely be at least 50% white.... soooo...

The defense only needs 1 out of 12 jurors to say "no" to murder to get a hung jury on that charge. If that's the only charge, then that's totally possible.



So give them a conviction for something less than murder. Can still require prison time.

I'm just saying, the prosecutor needs to be careful not to get too far out in front of this one.

With how that played out on video, if the officer is acquitted, it will be ugly in SC.

 

[T.Lex]

With how that played out on video, if the officer is acquitted, it will be ugly in SC.

I agree. Or, uglier. Honestly, even a hung jury would be problematic. Maybe worse, in that it would prolong the situation.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Protesters are out in force. I heard one interviewed on the radio. She was screaming that the authorities "have the video, they have the witnesses, they have the evidence...are we going to get a conviction or what"!?!?"

Holy cow! They arrested the cop, charged him with murder. Protesters want an instant conviction, I guess. I mean, what else are they supposed to do? WTF are they protesting?

 

[Alpo]

It seems to me that the more we see of these questionable practices by LEOs, the more they put the remainder of the force in jeopardy. It is one thing to not like or cooperate with "the Man". It is quite another to think that "the Man" is going to shoot you for no reason.

I'm not sure what future incident will set off a firestorm, but it will likely come if perceived irrational brutality is not curtailed. Good cops deserve better. Aholes should be weeded out.

 

[chipbennett]

Protesters are out in force. I heard one interviewed on the radio. She was screaming that the authorities "have the video, they have the witnesses, they have the evidence...are we going to get a conviction or what"!?!?"

Holy cow! They arrested the cop, charged him with murder. Protesters want an instant conviction, I guess. I mean, what else are they supposed to do? WTF are they protesting?

This was my initial reaction, as well. The perpetrator was fired from the police force, arrested, charged with murder, and is being held without bail. What more do they want? A public lynching without a trial?

 

[david890]

Right or wrong, like it or not, the law allows the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect if the officer believes the escape of that person poses a significant threat to public safety. That was not the case in this situation, this man was stopped for a traffic infraction and fled on foot. It was not self defense if the man is running away and traffic infractions do not rise to the required level of deadly force, not by a long shot.

I think you meant to write, "..and barely managed to trot away on foot."

If that cop was unable to run after and catch the suspect, he shouldn't have been on the job. Shiat, I've had 5 back surgeries and can hobble faster than that perp!