947 users online (168 members and 779 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 30 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 447
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    3,930
    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.
    He's going to have a very difficult time convincing a jury that he *believed* his life was in danger when said danger was running in the opposite direction of the person who allegedly feared for his life.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toronto CANADA
    Posts
    989
    Quote Originally Posted by Greater Than View Post
    He's going to have a very difficult time convincing a jury that he *believed* his life was in danger when said danger was running in the opposite direction of the person who allegedly feared for his life.
    Not necessarily. The first eyewitness claimed that both men were in a struggle "on the floor" (widely reported in the MSM) and in fact if you carefully analyze the witness video (posted to all the MSM sites) in the first few frames you can see that indeed the two men appear to be in a struggle on the ground.

    If forensic evidence can back up the claim made by officer Slager that Scott "grabbed (his) taser" I think that it would be very easy to convince a jury that the officer indeed was in genuine fear for his life (I know I sure would be under similar circumstances) and that under the circumstances the killing was legal.

    I agree the video of officer Slager shooting Scott in the back looks awful but it may very well turn out to be lawful.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Coos Bay, Oregon
    Posts
    3,541
    Quote Originally Posted by KEVINinTO View Post
    Not necessarily. The first eyewitness claimed that both men were in a struggle "on the floor" (widely reported in the MSM) and in fact if you carefully analyze the witness video (posted to all the MSM sites) in the first few frames you can see that indeed the two men appear to be in a struggle on the ground.

    If forensic evidence can back up the claim made by officer Slager that Scott "grabbed (his) taser" I think that it would be very easy to convince a jury that the officer indeed was in genuine fear for his life (I know I sure would be under similar circumstances) and that under the circumstances the killing was legal.

    I agree the video of officer Slager shooting Scott in the back looks awful but it may very well turn out to be lawful.
    How could that turn out lawful? How could he be in genuine fear for his life when the victim was running away? Forget about what happened before. How was he in fear for his life at the time he shot?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
    How could that turn out lawful? How could he be in genuine fear for his life when the victim was running away? Forget about what happened before. How was he in fear for his life at the time he shot?
    One need only live here a few years to think their life might be in danger, or that he would endanger another. Walk a mile in our moccasin...

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    6,064
    Quote Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
    How could that turn out lawful? How could he be in genuine fear for his life when the victim was running away? Forget about what happened before. How was he in fear for his life at the time he shot?
    BBM for focus.

    I think the most salient point is that no one can or should "forget about what happened before." The "before" was only seconds preceding the shooting. The victim was also a felony suspect at the moment of the shooting. The suspect's behavior escalated and became more erratic and violent as the entire situation unfolded. The officer could not have reasonably expected this suspect to be unarmed until that was proven, IMO. The victim/ suspect was considered dangerous to officers AND the general public at the time of the shooting, IMO. He wasn't "just" fleeing-- he was fleeing after a physical encounter with a police officer-- which I believe clearly fits the legal definition of assault on the officer. None of us knows why Mr. Scott was willing to do something like that. Especially over a simple traffic stop.

    I think the Grand Jury will have to evaluate the entire encounter, from beginning to end. Not just a few frames of the video taken out of context. The situation evolved in a very worrisome direction, IMO, directly due to the actions of Mr. Scott-- which is evident to me from the police cruiser dash video that precedes the bystander video.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    16,218
    Quote Originally Posted by perplexed1 View Post
    One need only live here a few years to think their life might be in danger, or that he would endanger another. Walk a mile in our moccasin...
    Exactly, you don't know what you don't know.
    It's my opinion if no link provided.


    Misspellings due to fat fingers

    Words matter.

    You don't know what you don't know.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    74,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Greater Than View Post
    He's going to have a very difficult time convincing a jury that he *believed* his life was in danger when said danger was running in the opposite direction of the person who allegedly feared for his life.
    Legally, the prosecution has the burden to prove he didn't believe his life was in danger. (see St. Louis public radio link upthread).
    IDK if Slager dropping the taser next to a deceased Scott will be enough to prove Scott did not believe he was in danger.
    ~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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Waiting
    Posts
    4,523
    I believe that this case, in addition to other recent cases that have involved police shooting deaths, should be addressed with mini GoPro cameras to be worn by the officers. They could loop around the back of the head, like a retainer brace, and the camera could serve as a birds-eye view of the officers experience. They could be turned on only when an officer was on duty or in pursuit, and would serve to show the facts of a situation so that there could be no dispute. Much in the same way a dash camera shows an officers traffic stop, the head camera, or similar micro camera in the badge, would serve as an observance of any meeting between the officer and a suspect. If there is a question, you go to the tape. In this particular case, it would allow us to see if there was a struggle for the tazer, and whether or not there was any threat posed to the officer, and he would not have been charged with murder. Just a thought about what seems to be an ever growing issue in our law enforcement field.




    It Was Ancient Aliens!

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    10
    Like the tasers, the body cameras are costly. Mayor Summey has said they will buy body cameras. One church has donated 25. My take on the taser is that he retrieved it from where it was dropped and brought it over to where Scott was because it is an expensive item, and one barb was attached to Scott. I didn't see it as planting, since the other officer was there, and Slager had even seen the guy with the phone, but I may be wrong.

    http://www.wfsb.com/story/28750186/b...ice-mayor-says

    http://www.timesunion.com/news/crime...ch-6195726.php
    Last edited by perplexed1; 04-23-2015 at 07:24 PM. Reason: clarifying who
    I may be wrong...but I just might be Right

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    3,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubby View Post
    Legally, the prosecution has the burden to prove he didn't believe his life was in danger. (see St. Louis public radio link upthread).
    IDK if Slager dropping the taser next to a deceased Scott will be enough to prove Scott did not believe he was in danger.
    The prosecution has plenty of proof that he didn't believe his life was in danger when he gunned Scott down.

    1. The video. Visual proof that the victim was running away from - not towards - the former officer when he drew his pistol and fired eight rounds.

    2. An eyewitness. An eyewitness account of the same as above.

    3. The autopsy. Medical proof that five of the eight shots hit his intended target with the cause of death being multiple gunshot wounds to the back.

    Firing eight times at someone's back as they are running away from you will never ever be legal self defense. You do not believe your life is in danger of a fleeing man. If Slager had shot him during the "tussle," IMO he would have a better defense, but that didn't happen. He shot, and shot, and shot, and shot, and shot, and shot, and shot, and shot at Scott from behind after the taser/tussle incident was over. That is murder all day long.


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    74,839
    What’s in the officer’s mind?
    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.)

    http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/...ouri-confusing
    ~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. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,397
    IF Slager gets off because he BELIEVED he was in danger, then a new precedent will be set. That precedent will be that LEO's can shoot anybody at anytime for any reason. They just have to utter the words "I believe that I was in danger".

    Personally I think any reasonable person who watches the shooting knows he was not in any kind of danger whatsoever. Unless it can be proven that Scott whispered in his ear that he was going to go run to find a weapon and come back and get him. JMO

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    4,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubby View Post
    What’s in the officer’s mind?
    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.)

    http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/...ouri-confusing
    I see your point. It IS the law, sadly. And I think this may be the case that will change that law. An officer's perception of "imminent danger" is, IMO, a bit of a shaky ground. There needs to be a more stringent criterion than "I was askeered".

    What's to stop any officer from gunning down anyone and saying "That baby looked at me and raised her pacifier and my blood ran cold-I was in fear for my life. So I shot her".

    I know that is a ridiculous example, but I think that a LEO being allowed to shot a fleeing man in the back because the LEO just says he was in fear of his life is RIDICULOUS.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    4,607
    Quote Originally Posted by CoolJ View Post
    IF Slager gets off because he BELIEVED he was in danger, then a new precedent will be set. That precedent will be that LEO's can shoot anybody at anytime for any reason. They just have to utter the words "I believe that I was in danger".

    Personally I think any reasonable person who watches the shooting knows he was not in any kind of danger whatsoever. Unless it can be proven that Scott whispered in his ear that he was going to go run to find a weapon and come back and get him. JMO
    You said it much better than I. I am really tired and just chugged a big ole double esspresso. So I'm a bit "blah blah blah"..

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    74,839
    Quote Originally Posted by EllieBee View Post
    I see your point. It IS the law, sadly. And I think this may be the case that will change that law. An officer's perception of "imminent danger" is, IMO, a bit of a shaky ground. There needs to be a more stringent criterion than "I was askeered".

    What's to stop any officer from gunning down anyone and saying "That baby looked at me and raised her pacifier and my blood ran cold-I was in fear for my life. So I shot her".

    I know that is a ridiculous example, but I think that a LEO being allowed to shot a fleeing man in the back because the LEO just says he was in fear of his life is RIDICULOUS.

    I too hope this is the case that changes the law. As the law is written, it is too much leeway. I'm anxious to see how it plays out. I want to hear Slager explain himself.
    ~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 3 of 30 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... 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