Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Part of the comprehension problem BL seems to have is that he thinks the law applies the discharge of a firearm the same way for a civilian walking down the street and a police officer during a crime.    It doesn't. 

Also, in a court of law, what happened doesn't matter nearly as much as what you can prove.    In this case, you're trying to prove intent of a police officer while attempting to apprehend a criminal after a struggle. 

1) Murder laws apply the same to everyone.

2) Intent is evident in actions. The struggle was over and Scott was running away.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Part of the comprehension problem BL seems to have is that he thinks the law applies the discharge of a firearm the same way for a civilian walking down the street and a police officer during a crime.    It doesn't. 

Also, in a court of law, what happened doesn't matter nearly as much as what you can prove.    In this case, you're trying to prove intent of a police officer while attempting to apprehend a criminal after a struggle. 

Yep

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Part of the comprehension problem BL seems to have is that he thinks the law applies the discharge of a firearm the same way for a civilian walking down the street and a police officer during a crime.    It doesn't. 

Also, in a court of law, what happened doesn't matter nearly as much as what you can prove.    In this case, you're trying to prove intent of a police officer while attempting to apprehend a criminal after a struggle. 

1) Murder laws apply the same to everyone.

2) Intent is evident in actions. The struggle was over and Scott was running away.

1) Nope. Police get much more leniency because of the risk their job entails, as they should. Go look at the statistics of cops charged with murder where the charge actually sticks.... I want to say its 12% of the cases. Its much higher for civilians charged with murder.

2) If you believe intent is evident 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in actions then how do you describe the middle east? Did Obama 'intentially' allow ISIS to thrive out there by withdrawing troops and drawing fake red lines in the sand? Because his actions suggest he did based on your statement.... Or maybe Obama made mistakes when he withdrew the troops and now we are seeing the results of those bad decisions (I.e. reckless endangerment). Point being there is gray area.... And gray area creates reasonable doubt... All it takes to get acquitted is reasonable doubt.

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Part of the comprehension problem BL seems to have is that he thinks the law applies the discharge of a firearm the same way for a civilian walking down the street and a police officer during a crime.    It doesn't. 

Also, in a court of law, what happened doesn't matter nearly as much as what you can prove.    In this case, you're trying to prove intent of a police officer while attempting to apprehend a criminal after a struggle. 

1) Murder laws apply the same to everyone.

2) Intent is evident in actions. The struggle was over and Scott was running away.

1) Nope. Police get much more leniency because of the risk their job entails, as they should. Go look at the statistics of cops charged with murder where the charge actually sticks.... I want to say its 12% of the cases. Its much higher for civilians charged with murder.

2) If you believe intent is evident 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in actions then how do you describe the middle east? Did Obama 'intentially' allow ISIS to thrive out there by withdrawing troops and drawing fake red lines in the sand? Because his actions suggest he did based on your statement.... Or maybe Obama made mistakes when he withdrew the troops and now we are seeing the results of those bad decisions (I.e. reckless endangerment). Point being there is gray area.... And gray area creates reasonable doubt... All it takes to get acquitted is reasonable doubt.

1) a legally justifiable shooting isn't murder.

2) there isn't mich grey area in the Scott shooting. It's on video.

1.   Murder laws do apply the same to everyone.  What doesn't apply the same is the use of a firearm.   I shoot a guy in the back after a struggle and I'm in deep ****.  An officer shoots a man who just committed an assault on said officer in the back and there are some gray areas.   And those gray areas are why he's not going to be convicted of murder by a jury.

2.  Intent is evident.   A struggle, involving a taser, occurs.   A fraction of a second later, the officer pulls his firearm and discharges it at a fleeing criminal.   Was it his intent to kill the suspect or was he simply overzealous, in the heat of the moment, in attempting to apprehend said suspect?    I'm guessing the latter will be proven. 

Did you watch the video? The struggle was over and Scott was running away. Slager didn't start firing until Scot was 15 feet away from him.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Part of the comprehension problem BL seems to have is that he thinks the law applies the discharge of a firearm the same way for a civilian walking down the street and a police officer during a crime.    It doesn't. 

Also, in a court of law, what happened doesn't matter nearly as much as what you can prove.    In this case, you're trying to prove intent of a police officer while attempting to apprehend a criminal after a struggle. 

1) Murder laws apply the same to everyone.

2) Intent is evident in actions. The struggle was over and Scott was running away.

1) Nope. Police get much more leniency because of the risk their job entails, as they should. Go look at the statistics of cops charged with murder where the charge actually sticks.... I want to say its 12% of the cases. Its much higher for civilians charged with murder.

2) If you believe intent is evident 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in actions then how do you describe the middle east? Did Obama 'intentially' allow ISIS to thrive out there by withdrawing troops and drawing fake red lines in the sand? Because his actions suggest he did based on your statement.... Or maybe Obama made mistakes when he withdrew the troops and now we are seeing the results of those bad decisions (I.e. reckless endangerment). Point being there is gray area.... And gray area creates reasonable doubt... All it takes to get acquitted is reasonable doubt.

1) a legally justifiable shooting isn't murder.

2) there isn't mich grey area in the Scott shooting. It's on video.

We haven't even touched on 'when' a cop can shoot someone...

1) when they feel they are in danger
2) when they feel a fleeing suspect is a threat to others.


A case can be made that a guy arrested 10 times (including assault and carrying a bludgeoning weapon) who tried to attack an officer and take his taser is a threat to others.

There are so many angles that leave 'reasonable doubt' or even 'justafiable' that can be played out in court. Scott will be vilified and has a horrible arrest history, and was on video fleeing. The cop will have his national guard time and 5 years on the force serving the community flaunted for good will.

You seem to think the video will be the ONLY piece of evidence. It will not be.

This is kind of funny.   The national organization saying the local organization needs to be realistic.


NORTH CHARLESTON (WCSC) - The organization that has headed the demonstrations against Walter Scott's death, Black Lives Matter, has a new list of demands for the city of North Charleston. That list includes the immediate removal of the North Charleston Police Chief and also the reallocation of at least half of the department's funds to community based programs. Monday night, national members from Black Lives Matter said the local chapter needs more guidance.

"You got to know when to pull back," said Jay Johnson with Black Lives Matter.

Johnson is a national organizer with Black Lives Matter. The organization started as a hash tag on twitter as #blacklivesmatter, after the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman incident in 2012. The local chapter in Charleston has had a loud voice in the Walter Scott demonstrations. National members want to help guide local members here in Charleston.

"To come down and let them know you they're responding out of emotion. Let us show you how to channel that energy constructively," said Johnson.

Johnson doesn't agree with some of the local groups demands. He believes the group needs direction. He's concerned that some of their requests are unrealistic and unreasonable, such as asking for a citizens review board with subpoena powers. That would mean the group could demand someone to testify, or produce documents. If not, they could go to jail.

"That power doesn't exist anywhere in the United States in any organization," said Johnson.

Meanwhile, local members are pleased to meet with national members to gather more insight on how to operate.

"Anybody who would like to assist in this work is free to help us," said Muhiyidin D'Baha, a member with the Charleston Chapter of Black Lives Matter.  

Another group that come to speak today was Black Lawyers for Justice.

"Mr. Barack Obama, things are different. They are getting worse," said Malik Z. Shabazz, with Black Lawyers for Justice.

Organizers are advocating for a national special prosecutor that deals with police misconduct cases. They also say everyone should wear body cameras, not just police and that protests should continue in the Lowcountry. 

"It may be a crime to block a highway, it may be a crime to disturb a restaurant, it may be a crime to do those things that shake's peoples comfort. It's time to shake it," said Shabazz.

 

Black Lawyers for Justice plan to have a town hall meeting on Sunday to discuss a possible investigation into the North Charleston Police Department. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter plans to meet with the mayor this week. 

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Part of the comprehension problem BL seems to have is that he thinks the law applies the discharge of a firearm the same way for a civilian walking down the street and a police officer during a crime.    It doesn't. 

Also, in a court of law, what happened doesn't matter nearly as much as what you can prove.    In this case, you're trying to prove intent of a police officer while attempting to apprehend a criminal after a struggle. 

1) Murder laws apply the same to everyone.

2) Intent is evident in actions. The struggle was over and Scott was running away.

1) Nope. Police get much more leniency because of the risk their job entails, as they should. Go look at the statistics of cops charged with murder where the charge actually sticks.... I want to say its 12% of the cases. Its much higher for civilians charged with murder.

2) If you believe intent is evident 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in actions then how do you describe the middle east? Did Obama 'intentially' allow ISIS to thrive out there by withdrawing troops and drawing fake red lines in the sand? Because his actions suggest he did based on your statement.... Or maybe Obama made mistakes when he withdrew the troops and now we are seeing the results of those bad decisions (I.e. reckless endangerment). Point being there is gray area.... And gray area creates reasonable doubt... All it takes to get acquitted is reasonable doubt.

1) a legally justifiable shooting isn't murder.

2) there isn't mich grey area in the Scott shooting. It's on video.

We haven't even touched on 'when' a cop can shoot someone...

1) when they feel they are in danger
2) when they feel a fleeing suspect is a threat to others.


A case can be made that a guy arrested 10 times (including assault and carrying a bludgeoning weapon) who tried to attack an officer and take his taser is a threat to others.

There are so many angles that leave 'reasonable doubt' that can be played out in court. Scott will be vilified and has a horrible arrest history, and was on video fleeing. The cop will have his national guard time and 5 years on the force serving the community flaunted for good will.

You seem to think the video will be the ONLY piece of evidence. It will not be.

Both of those criteria have to be objectively reasonable. I don't think either one applies in this case.

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Part of the comprehension problem BL seems to have is that he thinks the law applies the discharge of a firearm the same way for a civilian walking down the street and a police officer during a crime.    It doesn't. 

Also, in a court of law, what happened doesn't matter nearly as much as what you can prove.    In this case, you're trying to prove intent of a police officer while attempting to apprehend a criminal after a struggle. 

1) Murder laws apply the same to everyone.

2) Intent is evident in actions. The struggle was over and Scott was running away.

1) Nope. Police get much more leniency because of the risk their job entails, as they should. Go look at the statistics of cops charged with murder where the charge actually sticks.... I want to say its 12% of the cases. Its much higher for civilians charged with murder.

2) If you believe intent is evident 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in actions then how do you describe the middle east? Did Obama 'intentially' allow ISIS to thrive out there by withdrawing troops and drawing fake red lines in the sand? Because his actions suggest he did based on your statement.... Or maybe Obama made mistakes when he withdrew the troops and now we are seeing the results of those bad decisions (I.e. reckless endangerment). Point being there is gray area.... And gray area creates reasonable doubt... All it takes to get acquitted is reasonable doubt.

1) a legally justifiable shooting isn't murder.

2) there isn't mich grey area in the Scott shooting. It's on video.

We haven't even touched on 'when' a cop can shoot someone...

1) when they feel they are in danger
2) when they feel a fleeing suspect is a threat to others.


A case can be made that a guy arrested 10 times (including assault and carrying a bludgeoning weapon) who tried to attack an officer and take his taser is a threat to others.

There are so many angles that leave 'reasonable doubt' or even 'justafiable' that can be played out in court. Scott will be vilified and has a horrible arrest history, and was on video fleeing. The cop will have his national guard time and 5 years on the force serving the community flaunted for good will.

You seem to think the video will be the ONLY piece of evidence. It will not be.

I think what BL is failing to understand is the actual moment.

A routine traffic stop.   Suddenly you have a fleeing suspect.   No one knows why.  I'm assuming Slager didn't know why.  He catches him and there's a struggle over the taser.   The suspect breaks free and the officer, who had been reaching for his firearm during the taser struggle, fires.    The entire incident was probably less than 30 seconds.   Less than 2 seconds between the suspect breaking loose and the officer firing his gun. 

It's all reaction to the moment.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Part of the comprehension problem BL seems to have is that he thinks the law applies the discharge of a firearm the same way for a civilian walking down the street and a police officer during a crime.    It doesn't. 

Also, in a court of law, what happened doesn't matter nearly as much as what you can prove.    In this case, you're trying to prove intent of a police officer while attempting to apprehend a criminal after a struggle. 

1) Murder laws apply the same to everyone.

2) Intent is evident in actions. The struggle was over and Scott was running away.

1) Nope. Police get much more leniency because of the risk their job entails, as they should. Go look at the statistics of cops charged with murder where the charge actually sticks.... I want to say its 12% of the cases. Its much higher for civilians charged with murder.

2) If you believe intent is evident 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in actions then how do you describe the middle east? Did Obama 'intentially' allow ISIS to thrive out there by withdrawing troops and drawing fake red lines in the sand? Because his actions suggest he did based on your statement.... Or maybe Obama made mistakes when he withdrew the troops and now we are seeing the results of those bad decisions (I.e. reckless endangerment). Point being there is gray area.... And gray area creates reasonable doubt... All it takes to get acquitted is reasonable doubt.

1) a legally justifiable shooting isn't murder.

2) there isn't mich grey area in the Scott shooting. It's on video.

We haven't even touched on 'when' a cop can shoot someone...

1) when they feel they are in danger
2) when they feel a fleeing suspect is a threat to others.


A case can be made that a guy arrested 10 times (including assault and carrying a bludgeoning weapon) who tried to attack an officer and take his taser is a threat to others.

There are so many angles that leave 'reasonable doubt' that can be played out in court. Scott will be vilified and has a horrible arrest history, and was on video fleeing. The cop will have his national guard time and 5 years on the force serving the community flaunted for good will.

You seem to think the video will be the ONLY piece of evidence. It will not be.

Both of those criteria have to be objectively reasonable. I don't think either one applies in this case.

That's funny - I don't think you're being objectively reasonable.

All Mike and I are saying is the cop was reckless and probably should do time for manslaughter - and that there is a risk he walks with a murder charge. You are hellbent on sentencing the guy to 30 years or even death because you saw a PORTION of a video.

Think about it.   You're pulled over for a broken tail light.   The cop returns to his car.   You flee.    He catches you and you fight him for his taser.   WTF is he supposed to think?    You're getting a $50 ticket and you run.   You leave a car that's registered to you behind.   They know who you are and where you live but you still run.   Over a $50 ticket?    Hell, you could be a wanted cop killer as far as the cop knows.

I think it's unfortunate that Slager will likely walk away with time served and no job.    He was definitely in the wrong.   Manslaughter is a gimme.   I think they're going to have a very tough time proving that he intended to kill Scott.    I think the DA was too aggressive.   Probably because of the other recent cases.    That's too bad.   Justice won't be served. 

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Part of the comprehension problem BL seems to have is that he thinks the law applies the discharge of a firearm the same way for a civilian walking down the street and a police officer during a crime.    It doesn't. 

Also, in a court of law, what happened doesn't matter nearly as much as what you can prove.    In this case, you're trying to prove intent of a police officer while attempting to apprehend a criminal after a struggle. 

1) Murder laws apply the same to everyone.

2) Intent is evident in actions. The struggle was over and Scott was running away.

1) Nope. Police get much more leniency because of the risk their job entails, as they should. Go look at the statistics of cops charged with murder where the charge actually sticks.... I want to say its 12% of the cases. Its much higher for civilians charged with murder.

2) If you believe intent is evident 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in actions then how do you describe the middle east? Did Obama 'intentially' allow ISIS to thrive out there by withdrawing troops and drawing fake red lines in the sand? Because his actions suggest he did based on your statement.... Or maybe Obama made mistakes when he withdrew the troops and now we are seeing the results of those bad decisions (I.e. reckless endangerment). Point being there is gray area.... And gray area creates reasonable doubt... All it takes to get acquitted is reasonable doubt.

1) a legally justifiable shooting isn't murder.

2) there isn't mich grey area in the Scott shooting. It's on video.

We haven't even touched on 'when' a cop can shoot someone...

1) when they feel they are in danger
2) when they feel a fleeing suspect is a threat to others.


A case can be made that a guy arrested 10 times (including assault and carrying a bludgeoning weapon) who tried to attack an officer and take his taser is a threat to others.

There are so many angles that leave 'reasonable doubt' that can be played out in court. Scott will be vilified and has a horrible arrest history, and was on video fleeing. The cop will have his national guard time and 5 years on the force serving the community flaunted for good will.

You seem to think the video will be the ONLY piece of evidence. It will not be.

Both of those criteria have to be objectively reasonable. I don't think either one applies in this case.

That's funny - I don't think you're being objectively reasonable.

All Mike and I are saying is the cop was reckless and probably should do time for manslaughter - and that there is a risk he walks with a murder charge. You are hellbent on sentencing the guy to 30 years or even death because you saw a PORTION of a video.

What more would you need to see? The suspect was running away. Deadly force isn't justifiable.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 9:54:00 AM (view original):
Think about it.   You're pulled over for a broken tail light.   The cop returns to his car.   You flee.    He catches you and you fight him for his taser.   WTF is he supposed to think?    You're getting a $50 ticket and you run.   You leave a car that's registered to you behind.   They know who you are and where you live but you still run.   Over a $50 ticket?    Hell, you could be a wanted cop killer as far as the cop knows.

He may or may not have run Scotts ID through the system... Add in the fact it would have shown the guy running has been arrested 10 times (including assault and carrying a bludgeoning weapon). More time will flush out what Slager knew at the time.