1233 users online (222 members and 1011 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 30 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 445
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubby View Post
    Very interesting article. Based on my understanding, it appears Slager will very likely walk. And basically it really doesn't matter whether Slager was tased or not. The struggle over the taser was enough justification for Slager to use deadly force. As the law is written, that is........

    The argument should then turn to changing the law...... Otherwise we might as well give PO's the ability to shoot to kill anyone they well feel like.


    .....and if Slager does get out of the charges does that mean he can appeal the decision to have him fired and get his job back?

    SMH, the law as written makes no sense.
    but where he shot his own self in the figurative foot, was moving/planting evidence and not rendering aid and then lying in the initial report. There's no taking any of that back or justifying it. Imo though, the 8 shots at a man whose back was turned would have gotten him in trouble, regardless of the other stuff. There's the law, but then there's logic, you know? moo

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,754
    Quote Originally Posted by dodie20 View Post
    I've been doing a lot of reading the last few days and unfortunately, I do think this is standard procedure. One article referred to it as ' decompressing'... so if they have a name for it, I'd guess it's the norm. smh, I could just imagine the reaction if us regular folks decided we wanted to go home and decompress after killing somebody. moo
    Cops routinely have to have physical confrontations while on the job. So they have certain legal protections built in, that you and I do not have. i think it is warranted. We pay them to carry weapons and protect the public. He pulled over someone for an infraction--totally legal action on his part--was extremely polite and on point--and the subject ran. They had a scuffle. ....then it went sideways.

    I think it was entirely fair for the officer to be given time to collect himself before he gave a formal statement. In fact, the same protection is given to ALL citizens. If you kill someone, you do NOT have to give a statement. You ask for a lawyer then wait to see if you are given bond, or not.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    74,835
    Quote Originally Posted by dodie20 View Post
    but where he shot his own self in the figurative foot, was moving/planting evidence and not rendering aid and then lying in the initial report. There's no taking any of that back or justifying it. Imo though, the 8 shots at a man whose back was turned would have gotten him in trouble, regardless of the other stuff. There's the law, but then there's logic, you know? moo
    That's a good point, so what would the prosecutors argue? That his going back to pick up the taser and then returning and dropping it next to Scott's body is proof he did not believe he was in danger?

    I'm not as confident as I was previously the charges will stick. Not that I would like to see them dropped, I don't. I simply think the way the law is written it's not as cut and dry as might have been.
    ~JMO~

    A grandfather is someone with silver in his hair and gold in his heart. ~Author Unknown


    Long Lost Love - Discovery ID - Disappeared - Bob Harrod Case

    You can now purchase Mr. Harrod's Disappeared episode through Amazon, iTunes or YouTube.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,729
    Seriously, I cannot imagine Slager wanting to resume his police duties in that town. Really ? He would have to be concerned every day about his own safety ; imo. Some people are not going to 'let that go' ; and I do mean ANYONE.

    Another item I am still waiting to see is the entire video clip of the altercation. If there is more, it needs to be seen . Maybe not by me... but by a jury.
    And just what was Slager placing by Mr. Scott ? No matter what transpired beforehand--- that looked pretty incriminating.

    This may have been discussed to death before ; but these are questions that aren't going away -- nor are they being answered , afaik.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    Cops routinely have to have physical confrontations while on the job. So they have certain legal protections built in, that you and I do not have. i think it is warranted. We pay them to carry weapons and protect the public. He pulled over someone for an infraction--totally legal action on his part--was extremely polite and on point--and the subject ran. They had a scuffle. ....then it went sideways.

    I think it was entirely fair for the officer to be given time to collect himself before he gave a formal statement. In fact, the same protection is given to ALL citizens. If you kill someone, you do NOT have to give a statement. You ask for a lawyer then wait to see if you are given bond, or not.
    we're not given the same protection. For one thing we're not allowed to go Home, relax and decompress. Here's a quote from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...2/son-deceased ' The officer, Sean Wallace, thought that the man was holding a gun. It turned out to be a spoon. Shortly after the shooting, Wallace received five hundred dollars from the Albuquerque police union, which routinely gave money to officers to help them “decompress” after a shooting, according to a statement issued by the union’s president and vice-president. ' We're not treated with these kid gloves, but then again, I wouldn't expect to be. But I wouldn't expect cops to be treated this way either. moo

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    36,301
    Liveleak videos of the shooting and Slager appearance before judge are okay to link so long as they are raw footage (unedited).
    Websleuths now on Facebook

    Welcome to all new members. Thank you for joining the conversation. Please take a moment to become familiar with the TOS and rules, etiquette and information.

    mni wiconi - Lakota for Water is Life.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,754
    Quote Originally Posted by dodie20 View Post
    we're not given the same protection. For one thing we're not allowed to go Home, relax and decompress. Here's a quote from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...2/son-deceased ' The officer, Sean Wallace, thought that the man was holding a gun. It turned out to be a spoon. Shortly after the shooting, Wallace received five hundred dollars from the Albuquerque police union, which routinely gave money to officers to help them “decompress” after a shooting, according to a statement issued by the union’s president and vice-president. ' We're not treated with these kid gloves, but then again, I wouldn't expect to be. But I wouldn't expect cops to be treated this way either. moo
    But you and I are not expected to be in high pressure, life and death struggles on a routine basis. You and I do not NEED the same legal protections. Why would someone want to be in a job where they are EXPECTED to have physical confrontations with civilians, yet not have legal protections when things are questioned and scrutinized?
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,332

    Regular folks not answering LEs questions?

    Quote Originally Posted by dodie20 View Post
    I've been doing a lot of reading the last few days and unfortunately, I do think this is standard procedure. One article referred to it as ' decompressing'... so if they have a name for it, I'd guess it's the norm. smh, I could just imagine the reaction if us regular folks decided we wanted to go home and decompress after killing somebody. moo
    bbm

    Not sure if ^poster is in US.
    In US we "regular folks" are generally not obligated to answer LE questions,
    because of our Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.*
    And there's also 6th Amendment Right to Counsel.**
    Constitutional rights former LEO Slager also has and is free to exercise.

    JM2cts.
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________________
    * FWIW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination
    "Black's Law Dictionary (USA):SELF-INCRIMINATION: Acts or declarations either as testimony at trial or prior to trial by which one implicates himself in a crime. The Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const. as well as provisions in many state constitutions and laws, prohibit the government from requiring a person to be a witness against himself involuntarily or to furnish evidence against himself."
    "Barron's Law Dictionary (USA):
    SELF-INCRIMINATION, PRIVILEGE AGAINST the constitutional right of a person to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself or herself which will subject him or her to an incrimination. This right under the Fifth Amendment (often called simply PLEADING THE FIFTH) is now applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 378 U.S. 1,8, and is applicable in any situation, civil or criminal where the state attempts to compel incriminating testimony."
    ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    3,930
    Quote Originally Posted by dodie20 View Post
    I've been doing a lot of reading the last few days and unfortunately, I do think this is standard procedure. One article referred to it as ' decompressing'... so if they have a name for it, I'd guess it's the norm. smh, I could just imagine the reaction if us regular folks decided we wanted to go home and decompress after killing somebody. moo
    The only "article" that I have seen that mentions it's standard procedure to allow the officer time to decompress prior to answering questions was not from MSM.

    SLED investigators actually arrived on scene to question Slager. Had he not mentioned wanting his attorney present, I suspect he would not have been given any "decompression" time considering they pushed pretty hard to get him to talk since they were suspicious of his actions based on evidence at the scene.
    SLED agents arrived at the scene at 10:29 a.m. April 4, about 51 minutes after Patrolman 1st Class Michael Slager fatally shot Scott in the back as Scott ran away. They later asked Slager to answer some questions.

    “When our investigators spoke with ... Slager at the scene, he said he was represented by an attorney,” SLED spokesman Thom Berry said Tuesday. “We stopped questioning him and contacted his attorney.”

    The agency has said that investigators developed early suspicions of Slager from evidence they found at the scene, but Berry for the first time Tuesday indicated the extent to which they pushed the officer to clarify his account.

    After Slager deflected their request, the agents got in touch with his lawyer, David Aylor, who said he would make the officer available for an interview three days later, on April 7, Berry said.
    The article goes on to discuss the interview and Slager's subsequent arrest. It also mentions Aylor's withdrawal as counsel and Slager's new attorney Andy Savage. It states Savage's past opinion regarding the original topic of this post, but did not identify it necessarily as standard procedure.

    Like many attorneys for officers involved in shootings, Savage has said in the past that the officers can better recall incidents after a few days of rest.
    http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...at-questioning

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    3,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubby View Post
    Very interesting article. Based on my understanding, it appears Slager will very likely walk. And basically it really doesn't matter whether Slager was tased or not. The struggle over the taser was enough justification for Slager to use deadly force. As the law is written, that is........

    The argument should then turn to changing the law...... Otherwise we might as well give PO's the ability to shoot to kill anyone they well feel like.


    .....and if Slager does get out of the charges does that mean he can appeal the decision to have him fired and get his job back?

    SMH, the law as written makes no sense.
    We have yet to see a shred of evidence that there was a struggle over the taser. All we have thus far is Slager's claim that Scott "grabbed" it.

    What we do have, though, is an eyewitness who has directly contradicted Slager's claim.


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    74,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Greater Than View Post
    We have yet to see a shred of evidence that there was a struggle over the taser. All we have thus far is Slager's claim that Scott "grabbed" it.

    What we do have, though, is an eyewitness who has directly contradicted Slager's claim.
    I am no Slager supporter. What he did disgusts me and I think he should be found guilty of murder. However, if you look at the MSM link in post #4, you will see how an LEO only needs to *believe* his life is in danger in order to be justified in using lethal force.

    Whether Scott "grabbed" the taser is, imo, a mute point. There was some kind of physical contact between the two during which the taser, two cartridges and Scott's baseball cap fell to the ground. It could have simply been Slager dropping the taser or bumping into Scott the wrong way causing them to drop. However, all he has to do is believe he was in danger.

    I don't like it, but if the legal info/analogy in the msm linked in post #4 is accurate it looks like Slager could walk. Sadly, my opinion and the repercussions Slager should face may not be in accordance with SC law.
    ~JMO~

    A grandfather is someone with silver in his hair and gold in his heart. ~Author Unknown


    Long Lost Love - Discovery ID - Disappeared - Bob Harrod Case

    You can now purchase Mr. Harrod's Disappeared episode through Amazon, iTunes or YouTube.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    9,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubby View Post
    I am no Slager supporter. What he did disgusts me and I think he should be found guilty of murder. However, if you look at the MSM link in post #4, you will see how an LEO only needs to *believe* his life is in danger in order to be justified in using lethal force.

    Whether Scott "grabbed" the taser is, imo, a mute point. There was some kind of physical contact between the two during which the taser, two cartridges and Scott's baseball cap fell to the ground. It could have simply been Slager dropping the taser or bumping into Scott the wrong way causing them to drop. However, all he has to do is believe he was in danger.

    I don't like it, but if the legal info/analogy in the msm linked in post #4 is accurate it looks like Slager could walk. Sadly, my opinion and the repercussions Slager should face may not be in accordance with SC law.
    I wonder if the jury will take Slagers word that he believed his life was in danger or will they look at all of the evidence and see if he had a legitimate reason to believe that his life or anyone else's were in danger when he fired his weapon. JMO.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    I wonder if the jury will take Slagers word that he believed his life was in danger or will they look at all of the evidence and see if he had a legitimate reason to believe that his life or anyone else's were in danger when he fired his weapon. JMO.
    there are other witnesses that said there was a "tussle", so they won't have to rely on Slager's word.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    6,064
    I agree, Cubby. I think it's unlikely Slager will be indicted for murder. A lesser charge, perhaps, but I think it's equally likely he might not be indicted at all. Presentation to the GJ will likely take several weeks. It's my opinion they won't indict for murder-- but that depends on how the process of GJ selection goes. I am interested in how the GJ selection will occur, since it seems there is not already a GJ seated.

    I would have more confidence in the GJ system if the GJ had been seated before the incident. As it stands now, there is an extraordinary amount of social and political pressure potential for undue influence on the GJ selection for me to have complete confidence in the process. There is much will and popular pressure for indictment and conviction-- it will take a very unbiased GJ to hear the case without allowing that to influence their decision. As they say-- a prosecutor can easily get a ham sandwich indicted.

    Question is, if not indicted, can a prosecutor press on with prosecution anyway?

    I believe there was an organized "rush" to get ahead of the potential social response to this case, to charge him, arrest him, and fire him, before the entire situation was thoughtfully examined. JMO.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    74,835
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowraiths View Post
    Does officer who shot Walter Scott have a defense? State law there - like in Missouri - is confusing

    The police killing of Walter Scott in South Carolina looks like an open and shut case of murder. But South Carolina, like Missouri and many other states, has confusing laws on police use of deadly force – laws that could provide Officer Michael Slager with a defense, experts say.

    Because of outdated and conflicting law, an officer sometimes can justify shooting an unarmed suspect who has fought with the officer and fled. In short, an officer sometimes can get away with what may look like murder on the video screen.


    St Louis Public Radio
    Carrying to the current page for snippets from the above link:

    <snip>

    It is true, experts say, that Garner determines the constitutional standard to be used in civil cases when a victim’s family claims a violation of civil rights and tries to collect damages.
    But the murder charge against Slager is criminal, not civil. Garner does not automatically determine the standard for a criminal case when an officer is charged with killing a fleeing felon

    <snip>

    In Sheppard v. State in 2004, the South Carolina Supreme Court wrote: “…a law enforcement officer may use whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a felon including deadly force, if necessary, to effect that arrest.”
    <snip>


    Other South Carolina Supreme Court decisions further confuse the situation.
    In a 1989 decision, the state supreme court said it would give the shooter in a self-defense situation the “right to act on appearances” that he was in danger, even if he wasn’t actually in danger.
    “A defendant must show that he believed he was in imminent danger, not that he was actually in such danger, because he had the right to act on appearances…” (emphasis added.)

    <snip>

    Slager also would be aided by another decision of the South Carolina courts that requires the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer didn’t believe he was in imminent danger. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt what was in an officer’s mind makes the prosecutor’s job doubly hard, say the experts.

    ~JMO~

    A grandfather is someone with silver in his hair and gold in his heart. ~Author Unknown


    Long Lost Love - Discovery ID - Disappeared - Bob Harrod Case

    You can now purchase Mr. Harrod's Disappeared episode through Amazon, iTunes or YouTube.

Page 2 of 30 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-10-2017, 09:41 AM
  2. Replies: 1266
    Last Post: 04-21-2015, 07:43 PM
  3. GUILTY MN - Officer Scott Patrick, 47, fatally shot, Mendota Heights, 30 July 2014
    By Indy Anna in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-04-2015, 07:25 PM
  4. GUILTY MD - Walter Rogers, 43, fatally shot as he slept, Laurel, 23 April 2004
    By Dark Knight in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 03:15 PM

Tags for this Thread