North Charleston Police Officer Arrested on Murder Charge For Shooting Fleeing Man in the Back

[pcosmar]

Anyone else wonder where those three "extra" rounds wound up?

always.

and always glad it is not me. yet.

[LibForestPaul]

What does his libido and limited income have to do with being shot EIGHT times in the BACK with a FORTY-FIVE CALIBER semi-auto FIREARM for LEGBAILING from his vehicle for a PETTY INFRACTION?

Are you not at all concerned that this officer stated numerous lies on his official report of the shooting incident and that his department only scrutinized him once the cellphone video broke major news cycles? Speaking to obstruction of justice, excessive force, failing to administer medical aid, conduct unbecoming, and failure to follow policy.

Exactly, the cop is nothing but a dirty scum criminal. As most are, when the light is shone upon them.

[osan]

and always glad it is not me. yet.

Meh... day's still young.

[Anti Federalist]

Jurors Unable to Agree in Trial of South Carolina Officer Who Shot Walter Scott

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/05...=h&st=1&at=dt0

By ALAN BLINDER

December 5, 2016


CHARLESTON, S.C. — The trial of Michael T. Slager, the North Charleston police officer whose videotaped killing of an unarmed black man staggered the nation as it was embroiled in debate about police misconduct and racial biases in law enforcement, ended in a mistrial on Monday.

Judge Clifton B. Newman’s decision to halt the proceedings came three days after jurors signaled that they were within one vote of returning a guilty verdict against Mr. Slager, who could have been convicted of either murder or voluntary manslaughter for the killing of Walter L. Scott. But jurors also sent conflicting messages on Friday about whether they could break their impasse, setting off a confused legal frenzy.

On Monday, though, the panel of 11 white people and a black man again sent word that it would not be able to reach a unanimous verdict about Mr. Slager’s conduct, prompting the mistrial ruling.

Judge Newman thanked the jurors for their efforts.

Prosecutors had signaled before the ruling that they expect to bring the case again, but there is a possibility that the indictment could be resolved through a plea agreement.

As prosecutors and Mr. Slager’s defense lawyers consider their options, they are certain to consider the feedback that emerged from a jury that appeared bitterly divided during deliberations that began on Wednesday. In a letter to Judge Newman on Friday, a single juror said he could not “in good conscience consider a guilty veridct.”

[Anti Federalist]

Mistrial declared Monday morning.

Jurors Unable to Agree in Trial of South Carolina Officer Who Shot Walter Scott

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/05...=h&st=1&at=dt0

By ALAN BLINDER

December 5, 2016


CHARLESTON, S.C. — The trial of Michael T. Slager, the North Charleston police officer whose videotaped killing of an unarmed black man staggered the nation as it was embroiled in debate about police misconduct and racial biases in law enforcement, ended in a mistrial on Monday.

Judge Clifton B. Newman’s decision to halt the proceedings came three days after jurors signaled that they were within one vote of returning a guilty verdict against Mr. Slager, who could have been convicted of either murder or voluntary manslaughter for the killing of Walter L. Scott. But jurors also sent conflicting messages on Friday about whether they could break their impasse, setting off a confused legal frenzy.

On Monday, though, the panel of 11 white people and a black man again sent word that it would not be able to reach a unanimous verdict about Mr. Slager’s conduct, prompting the mistrial ruling.

Judge Newman thanked the jurors for their efforts.

Prosecutors had signaled before the ruling that they expect to bring the case again, but there is a possibility that the indictment could be resolved through a plea agreement.

As prosecutors and Mr. Slager’s defense lawyers consider their options, they are certain to consider the feedback that emerged from a jury that appeared bitterly divided during deliberations that began on Wednesday. In a letter to Judge Newman on Friday, a single juror said he could not “in good conscience consider a guilty veridct.”

[RJB]

And that SOB planted evidence and lied on his report! I could see the defense attorney saying to the stacked jury, "So who are you going to believe this Honorable young officer or your own eyes? Video is deceptive!"

[Brian4Liberty]

who could have been convicted of either murder or voluntary manslaughter

Can see how they could not get the murder, but voluntary manslaughter should have been pretty straight forward.

With the mistrial, they will just have to do it over.

[pcosmar]

One juror refused to convict.

for no good reason.

[fisharmor]

One juror refused to convict.

for no good reason.

You have no idea what that juror was told, and by whom.
I don't put it out of the realm of possibility that he was paid a visit by a gang of interested parties.

See sig line.

[Anti Federalist]

One juror refused to convict.

for no good reason.

Yeah, that's the unfortunate downside to nullification - it can cut both ways.

One copsucker is all it took.

[Danke]

Yeah, that's the unfortunate downside to nullification - it can cut both ways.

One copsucker is all it took.

He didn't nullify the law, that is something different.

[Anti Federalist]

He didn't nullify the law, that is something different.

Sure it was, at least from what we have been told anyway.

Now, there is always the possibility that Fish is right and this person hung the jury because the goons in blue paid his family a visit.

Regardless, it was a classic example of jury nullification.

Juries have also refused to convict due to the perceived injustice of a law in general, or of the way the law is applied in particular cases

Several cases that were speculated to be instances of jury nullification included the prosecution of Washington D.C.’s former mayor, Marion Barry; the trial of Lorena Bobbitt; the prosecution of the police officers accused of beating Rodney King; the prosecution of two men charged with beating Reginald Denny in the resulting riots; the trial of the surviving Branch Davidian members; the trial of the Menendez brothers for the murder of their parents; and perhaps most famously, the O.J. Simpson murder trial.[19] In the days preceding Jack Kevorkian's trial for assisted suicide in Michigan, Kevorkian's lawyer, Geoffrey Fieger, told the press that he would urge the jury to disregard the law. Prosecutors prevailed upon the judge to enter a pretrial order banning any mention of nullification during the trial, but Fieger's statements had already been extensively reported in the media.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_n..._United_States

[Danke]

Sure it was, at least from what we have been told anyway.

Now, there is always the possibility that Fish is right and this person hung the jury because the goons in blue paid his family a visit.

Regardless, it was a classic example of jury nullification.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_n..._United_States

i'd have to reacquaint myself, but a hung jury is not nullifing a law.

[pcosmar]

You have no idea what that juror was told, and by whom.
I don't put it out of the realm of possibility that he was paid a visit by a gang of interested parties.

See sig line.

You have a good point. There may have been a reason.

there are so few good reasons. and so many that choose otherwise.

[Anti Federalist]

i'd have to reacquaint myself, but a hung jury is not nullifing a law.

Well no, you're right, it doesn't nullify the law, the law is still there.

But when a jury en bloc or a single juror(s) takes it upon themselves to acquit or refuse to convict due to their belief that the law is wrong or is being unjustly applied, that is the textbook definition of jury nullification.

Barring some outside interference, I am convinced that is what happened.

[Anti Federalist]

a single juror said he could not “in good conscience consider a guilty verdict.”

[Danke]

a single juror said he could not “in good conscience consider a guilty verdict.”

But he didn't say the law use unjust. An example is drug laws, where jurors could say not to convict, not because the defendant didn't break the law, but the law itself is unjust, null and void.

[Anti Federalist]

But he didn't say the law use unjust. An example is drug laws, where jurors could say not to convict, not because the defendant didn't break the law, but the law itself is unjust, null and void.

Oh, I'm quite sure that good citizen finds that the law, while not being unjust, is being unjustly applied, to prosecute a brave officer who was only doing his job.

[SeanTX]

Another one gets away with murder -- he's pleaded guilty to a lesser federal charge, so he won't be re-tried for murder in state court :

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/us/mic...-federal-plea/

Ex-officer Michael Slager pleads guilty in shooting death of Walter Scott

By Holly Yan, Khushbu Shah and Martin Savidge, CNN

Updated 4:37 PM ET, Tue May 2, 2017

As part of a plea deal, 2 other federal charges and state charges will be dropped
Slager killed 50-year-old Walter Scott as Scott was running away

(CNN)In a plea deal with federal prosecutors, former South Carolina police officer Michael Slager admitted Tuesday to using excessive force in the shooting death of Walter Scott.
Slager shot Scott in the back as the unarmed man was running away from Slager after a traffic stop in April 2015. In a reversal from his previous account of events, Slager admitted in court Tuesday that he did not shoot Scott in self-defense and said that his use of force was unreasonable.
Scott's death sparked renewed "Black Lives Matter" protests after the 50-year-old became the latest in a series of unarmed black men killed by police.

Slager pleaded guilty in US District Court in South Carolina to a federal charge of deprivation of rights under the color of law. In exchange for the plea, state murder charges, as well as two other federal charges, will be dismissed.

snip

[Anti Federalist]

And mock trial yadda yadda yadda...

[SeanTX]

And mock trial yadda yadda yadda...

There's still a chance he could be sentenced up to life in prison on this one federal charge.

It probably won't happen, but it would be pretty funny (and ironic) if he did get a long sentence by going this route (another state trial would have been the usual hung jury/not guilty thing).

[phill4paul]

In a plea deal with prosecutors, former South Carolina police officer Michael Slager admitted to using excessive force in the 2015 shooting death of Walter Scott.

Slager shot Scott in the back as the unarmed man was running away from Slager after a traffic stop. In a reversal from his previous account, Slager admitted in court Tuesday that he did not shoot Scott in self-defense and said that his use of force was unreasonable.

With his family and Scott's family present, Slager pleaded guilty Tuesday in US District Court in Charleston to a federal charge of deprivation of rights under the color of law. In exchange for the plea, state murder charges, as well as two other federal charges, will be dismissed.
The civil rights offense has a maximum penalty of life in prison. The plea agreement states that the government will ask the court to apply sentencing guidelines for second degree murder, which carries up to 25 years in prison. He was taken into custody after the hearing and will remain there until sentencing later this year.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/us/mic...lea/index.html

[sparebulb]

If Trump really loved America, he would pardon this brave officer.

The Texican

Predictive quoting.

[JK/SEA]

did he escape the death penalty by pleading guilty?...

regardless, looks like this cop is now off the streets.

[Danke]

ex-cop gets 20 years in prison for fatal shooting

[SeanTX]

ex-cop gets 20 years in prison for fatal shooting

He should have just gone for a re-trial in the state case and almost certainly would have gotten the customary "not guilty" verdict or hung jury (again).

With another hung jury the prosecution would have probably pretended to be disappointed, and then opted not to re-try.

Instead he thought he was taking the "easy" way out pleading in the federal case and probably got more time than he would have from the state.

About as close to "justice" as you can hope to get with a killer cop (look what happened in the Daniel Shaver murder -- cop found not guilty).