According to Savage, it is protocol for officers to use lethal force if their weapon has been taken from them. His argument is that Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, had the upper hand in the altercation, then fled with the weapon. For sake of argument, assuming this is all true - you have a violent man who's assaulted an officer and now has a weapon. Is it not reasonable to assume that he's an extreme danger to society if he escapes? I'm in no way advocating that Slager is innocent...just chiming in for discussion. Frankly, fives shots sounds excessive for a trained officer, particularly so if the assailant is running AWAY from the officer. Admittedly, my knowledge of the case is limited to a few articles and bits that I've heard on radio, and a couple of interviews with Savage....I have not watched the video of the shooting and have no desire to.
Believe this defense attorney has worked for free on this case. Ironically, he's also representing one of the Emanuel 9.
That's great. It's not meant to disparage defense attorneys, or at least not all of them. But instead, a system that can have that result, as a system in need of some changes.
Nothing about his is correct. Double jeopardy applies to any crime, not just murder. You cannot be tried for the same crime twice. As this was a mistrial, jeopardy does not attach. It is as if the first trial didn't happen. As I understand it, the officer was tried for murder with manslaughter as a lesser included. The difference is in mental state, which is one hell of a difficult thing to prove. I do not know why you think the charges would be different for a civilian. The charges, on first glance, look appropriate to me. Justice has not been served because this case is in the middle of the judicial process.
It's a non-lethal. Your best defense here is that there was a worry the tader could have been used to incapacitate the officer and take his lethal weapon. Dude. Was. Running. Away. That's not a danger. That's a radio call. Backup. Cordon off. Etc.
Ok, then I don't understand double jeopardy. Thanks for the clarification. My point on the difference being that because the police officer is in the official execution of his duties, his mental state is "business." Not so, with a civilian. Further, for a civilian to make a case of self defense, there should be a reasonable fear. It's hard to fear something running away. Thus civilian charged differently. If it is common to charge murder with manslaughter as a lesser, then I withdraw and apologize. If not, I think my point stands.
No, that the system can have trial after trial after trail after trial, all because the goal is to force 12 people to agree. The verdict is different than the resulting system. I think the verdict is wrong. I think retrying is a miscarriage of justice. See the difference? You may take the opinion that justice has not been done because it's still in the system. I take the oppinion that that is justice, and it should be finished, now. Unless guilty, in which case then appeals. But one shot at prosecution.
1. There isn't a verdict. 2. If the second trial results in a conviction for 2nd degree murder, are you still going to believe that justice has not been done? I think you are complaining that the better team got screwed because there was a rain-out and they are rescheduled for tomorrow.
1. That's the problem, in my opinion. The verdict should be "mistrial." That's my point. 2. Yes, and I will state now. I think that if there is a second trial, it is a miscarriage of justice. I will also state that if he is convicted, and then sentenced, and serves actual prison time, in general population, I will still think there was a miscarriage of justice. But I won't argue to free him. Because I'm biased.
It's common to include man with murder under certain circumstances. It is hard to prove knowledge and intent. Charging only murder is much riskier, as you have to prove to every member of the jury every element of the crime. Manslaughter doesn't have as many elements; a juror can say the killing was unlawful, but the officer was afraid for his life--even unreasonably--and shot. That does not meet the standard for murder, but it does for man. It's a judgement call, and I'm not a prosecutor nor close enough to the case to opine whether it was the right one, but I understand why they might have included it.
If I didn't paraphrase the not correctly, which believe you when you say I didn't, my bad. I'll look when I get home. I read the story quickly and in passing. I wasn't shocked or outraged. I was disturbed at the note and some of the prosecution's words.
I don't understand your position. If a guy commits a crime, is convicted, and serves sentence, I think justice is served. I don't really care that it took two trials of fact instead of one.
Then I also think that's a system problem. That's playing two balls and taking the better of the two.
Justice is a philosophical construct. If a guy commits a crime, is convicted, and doesn't serve a sentence... you don't think justice is served? Commuted sentences and probation aren't justice? So why can't the arrest, booking, holding, bail and trial not be "justice?"
I think we might have wandered from Walter Scott. Arrest, booking, holding, bail are not punishment. The philosophical ponderings of those states are, I'm sure, beyond me.
Picking a jury is a crap shoot. They don't like to talk. And if you press them they're often too self-conscious to be honest. Many are intimidated by being under the microscope and just want to leave. The irony is, the more they talk, the more likely they are to be striken by one side or the other. Usually the best you can do is look for the ones that respond positively to you and focus on them as you audience.
I don't think of justice as punishment. I think of it as fairness. I don't consider a second trial fair. I think both sides thought it was finished, so they sent it to the jury to decide. Jury said they couldn't come to a unanimous decision. I think that's a decision. And I think that means the entire trial process has gone from start to finish, and that should be the end. I get that the current system doesn't agree with me.
And yet ... this is the system we have. We can see the flaws. Describe them. Articulate them. And then... we don't change it? Or even allow that it might be flawed?
