I do not see how the actions of this former officer fail to support a guilty verdict and conviction for murder. What am I missing? Link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ooting-michael-slager-police-officer-mistrial
Can't be missing anything. Police don't ever overreact, and the justice system always acts correctly. Just another case of a legal shooting.
I heard that defense presented evidence proving that Scott was on top of slager, Scott took slagers taser and used it on him, slagers was bloodied from taser, and that Scott fled with the taser, all ultimately resulting in Slager shooting him from behind to stop him. This is my recollection of Savage's portrayal of the scene.
Prosecution was really weak. Said something like he'd still be alive if not for the stupidity of running? That's a supportable position, but why would the prosecution say that, except to self-sabotage?
Hence mistrial. It's already been said the case will be tried again. People freaking out need to calm down.
Yes. Maybe I'm missing something. After 4 days, 11 jurors seem to support a guilty verdict, although I'm not clear on which charge. There is 1 hold-out who does not seem able to change his mind, you scrap it and try again. I don't understand the question, unless it is "how did that 1 dumbass not think this was at least manslaughter." And I don't understand this comment at all. There is nothing in the case or the article that has anything to do with this position.
This is my question. How could anyone argue that this wasn't not only manslaughter, but a straight-up cold-blooded murder? I have a CCP, and have no doubt in my mind that I would be charged and quickly found guilty of murder, had I committed the exact same act as this former officer, in this exact same situation. At the point that he is fleeing in the opposite direction, and as the video clearly and inarguably showed him to be doing, deadly force has ceased being justifiably defensible. And it's entirely reasonable - even inarguably so - to expect that someone who is as highly-trained as an officer of the law ought to be at least equally competent and accountable as a dumb-assed private citizen such as myself, and who knows better after only spending a single 8-hour stretch on a Saturday to get my CCP.
I don't know. The system that float is deriding requires the prosecution to convince all of a jury of peers that the crime has been committed. They got 11/12. Because it wasn't unanimous one way or another, there is the opportunity, and in this case a near certainty*, of a do-over. if it is as clear-cut as it seems, the prosecution should be able to convince 12 people of that fact. If the jury is just too stupid/racist/biased to do that, flush them and get another, which is what is happening here. That's not a bad system. It requires a very high standard of proof to take away a person's liberty. It isn't perfect, as it sometimes is too high to convict the guilty in a world with good defense lawyers and bad prosecutors and dumbass jurors, but I like the trade. *This is excluiding the possibility of a negotiated plea deal, which in the re-trial of an 11-1 hung jury is a real possibility.
I do not know whether the jury was a "a reflection of society." There are a judge, a defense attorney, the state attorney's office, and thousands of pages of rules designed to insure that a jury is selected that can render a fair and impartial verdict under the law. Do you have reason to believe that didn't happen?
Yea. Because there is a conflict of interest among parties choosing juries. Because judges can deny that pertinent material to a case be presented to a jury. At their discretion. Because jurors are people. And people are biased, opinionated and imperial. Always. But mostly, I can apply common sense and case history and know without a reasonable doubt that a non cop is charged with murder, and likely convicted, while a cop is charged with manslaughter, and likely not convicted. Because we have those cases. Yearly.
I don't think race is the defining characteristic of a person or a society. The note saying they couldn't in good conscience vote a cop guilty is what is disturbing. As if the man's profession puts him above the laws for the rest of us
That sort of thing also seems to go towards the prosecution failing in their duty to identify such attitudes in a juror and let him join in the jury. The juror's perspective seems something that a decent lawyer should be able to flesh out in jury selection.
I think you guys are reading far too much into the actions of one hold-out juror. I have much more faith than either of you that the people of South Carolina have the correct process in place for making the correct decision. It isn't the most important point, but that is not what I read in the article. The note said the juror could not "with good conscience consider a guilty verdict." It did not say they could not consider a cop guilty. I really don't think you read and understand all you think you read and understand.
And if it were a murder trial, double jeopardy would kick in, and he'd walk. But its manslaughter, because he's a special citizen. I'd actually rather it not even be re-tried. "Justice" was done, eventually? Yay? I got an idea, let's do fifteen iterations and just line defense attorney pockets all day.
