POLICE BRUTALITY CASES: WALTER SCOTT MURDER & MORE

[HairOfTheDog]

On the stand, Slager claimed his mind was spaghetti after initially struggling with Scott and he doesn't remember retrieving the taser and putting it by Scott's body. He said he was scared and neutralized the threat, as he was taught.



The jury has three verdict options:

1. Guilty of murder, which requires the jury to agree that Slager had malice toward Scott, carries a sentence of 30 years to life.

2. Guilty of manslaughter, which is killing someone in the heat of passion and carries a sentence of 2 to 30 years.

3. Acquittal, he's found not guilty and walks free.

I hope this jury doesn't hang and can reach a unanimous verdict.

Refs:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/delib...l-43927988
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/02/del...trial.html

[Duchess]

Slager claimed his mind was spaghetti after initially struggling with Scott and he doesn't remember retrieving the taser and putting it by Scott's body. He said he was scared and neutralized the threat, as he was taught.

There's too many, way too many, scared cops out there. They are in the wrong line of work and it's a damn shame they don't understand themselves enough to know that before they join. I know I'd be too scared to be a cop, how come they don't? One doesn't need a degree or even exceptional smarts to know that.

[HairOfTheDog]

Personally, I don't think Slager was scared when he unloaded his service revolver into the back of Walter Scott.

Scott was slowly running away. Slager already had Scott's car and his I.D. (and another cop was talking to Scott's friend who was in the car with him) -- Slager knew how to find Scott later. And, there were other cops in the area who could have quickly been summoned to help apprehend Scott. Still, Slager chose to shoot him down like a dog instead.

I think Slager shot unarmed Walter Scott because he was pissed and he felt entitled to do so. I think he knew it was wrong and that's why he planted the taser near Walter Scott's body and lied to police about how the shooting went down. He sure doesn't look scared when he casually retrieves the taser and plants it near Scott's body in the video.

Those are my opinions based on all the evidence I've seen and heard. I'm anxious to hear what the jury decides.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Nah, I don't buy it. The "Struggle" was nothing. The cop just lost his mind and decided to shoot the guy. The guy was an asshole, but thats not a license to kill him

[HairOfTheDog]

Ah man, I was afraid of this. There is one hold-out on the Slager jury who reportedly can't vote 'guilty' (presumably on the lesser charge of manslaughter even).

The judge told the jury to go back and try again to reach a unanimous verdict. I hope they do.

It seems so difficult for juries to convict cops, even with clear video evidence to support the prosecutor's charges and weak 'self defense' claims by the accused. (The outrageous acquittals of the officers in the Kelly Thomas case sadden me to this day.)

Convicting Slager of at least manslaughter should be a no brainer, in my opinion. But if the jury deadlocks, a mistrial will be called and Slager will be retried by the State of South Carolina. I don't know if that would happen before or after his federal trial for civil rights violations.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Well the is about some Bullshit

Mistrial Declared In Murder Trial of South Carolina Cop Who Killed a Fleeing, Unarmed Suspect

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016...-verdict-1

Update (12/5/2016): Judge Clifton Newman has declared a mistrial in the murder trial of former police officer Michael Slager after the jury indicated for the third time that it could not reach a unanimous decision on the charges against him. Jurors sent the judge a list of questions about the law Monday morning hoping that further instruction would help them reach an agreement. They had indicated that several jurors had changed their stance on Slager's status since Friday, when they reported they were 11-1 for conviction. (They did not make clear whether the charge they were deadlocked on was murder, or the lesser option of manslaughter.)

After considering the responses to their questions from prosecution and defense attorneys on Monday, the jurors again indicated that they could not reach a unanimous decision, and Newman finally declared a mistrial. However, Slager may yet face a federal trial for allegedly violating Walter Scott's civil rights. Prosecutor Scarlett Wilson may also opt to retry Slager locally.

It appears likely that Judge Clifton Newman will be compelled to declare a mistrial in the racially charged South Carolina murder trial of former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager, who fatally shot an unarmed man who had fled from an April 2015 traffic stop. Late Friday afternoon, a lone juror sent a letter to the judge saying that he or she could not, in good conscience, vote to convict Slager of murder or manslaughter. The judge sent word asking the jurors to clarify whether that meant they were hopelessly deadlocked. The jurors responded that they were, but the prosecutor requested that the jurors receive further instruction, if need be, and the jurors expressed a willingness to deliberate further. In the meantime, the judge has sent jurors home for the weekend.

A viral bystander video showed Slager, who is white, shooting 50-year-old Walter Scott, who is black, multiple times from behind. Posted online soon after the incident, the video thrust the Charleston area into the national debate on race and the use of deadly force by police.

Many observers have made note of the racial imbalance of the jury: 11 white, 1 black.
What the video didn't show is the preceding tussle during which, Slager testified, Scott had defied his orders and tried to grab the Taser he was deploying. After Scott broke free and ran away, Slager took aim and fired. Slager said he was in a state of "total fear" and believed Scott remained a threat to him, even though he was running away.

Earlier on Friday, the jurors told Newman they were deadlocked in their attempt to reach a verdict, and the judge—who had given them the option of a lesser verdict of manslaughter—sent them back to try again. Over two days of deliberations, the jury twice asked the judge for assistance. They asked for transcripts of Slager's courtroom testimony and that of the officer who interviewed Slager after the shooting. They also asked Newman to clarify the legal distinction between "fear" and "passion." The judge responded that they would have to make that determination themselves.

Many observers have taken note of the racial imbalance of the jury: six white men, five white women, and one black man. No matter which way it goes, the verdict has to be unanimous. A jury foreman's note that accompanied the letter from the holdout juror noted there was only one juror who "had issues" with convicting the officer.

A hung jury would probably be good news for Slager and his defense team. The prosecutor, 9^th Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, would have to decide whether to pursue a new trial and on what charge. She announced in court that she would first want to interview jurors to gather insights before making further decisions on resolving the case. It's also possible Slager could head off a second trial by pleading to a lesser charge in exchange for a short prison stint—a manslaughter sentence in South Carolina ranges from two to thirty years without parole. But involuntary manslaughter, for instance, carries a maximum sentence of five years.

[HairOfTheDog]

Man, Slager shot a man in the back from a fair distance 5 times. He planted his taser near the body and then lied to investigators about shooting the man at close-range during a struggle, before he knew there's was video of the incident......and still, the jury can't agree that it was not self-defense and at least convict of manslaughter.

You never know what you're gonna get with a jury, especially with a cop who claims self-defense on trial.

I hope Slager is retried or takes a plea deal and at least spends a few years behind bars.

Thank for posting the update, Six.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Yea I hope they re-trial too, hang this asshole

[Duchess]

Man, Slager shot a man in the back from a fair distance 5 times. He planted his taser near the body and then lied to investigators about shooting the man at close-range during a struggle, before he knew there's was video of the incident......and still, the jury can't agree that it was not self-defense and at least convict of manslaughter.

I have next to no faith in juries any more.

I used to think the idea of a professional jury was ridiculous and a very bad idea but with each new case that ends in a similar fashion as this one I find myself more open to it.

[Carsman]

Seems justice was not served here! Words lie, the video didn't!

[HairOfTheDog]

This tragedy makes me sad. More and more, I'd be hesitant to call 911 unless I was sure it was a matter of life or death. Too many innocent people get shot by officers responding to 911 calls, in my opinion.

Francisco Serna, the 73-year-old man with dementia who was killed by California police this week, was carrying a crucifix, not a gun, police said Wednesday.



A Bakersfield officer fired seven shots at Serna early Monday shortly after midnight when a neighbor pointed him out, police said. Serna (pictured above with his wife) died at the scene.

Bakersfield Police Chief Lyle Martin said Tuesday that officers had been told that a man was roaming the neighborhood, armed with a revolver and acting bizarrely.

When the neighbor blurted out "That's him!" they turned around to see Serna approaching with his hands in his pockets. Martin said Serna failed to comply with officers' orders to stop and show his hands. The officer who fired the seven shots, Regan Selman, is on administrative leave pending an investigation, along with six other responding officers.

Police confirmed to NBC affiliate KGET on Wednesday that a crucifix was later found on Serna's body — not a gun.

Serna's daughter Laura told NBC News this week that her father was diagnosed with dementia in July and that his health had taken a recent turn for the worse. "My dad was murdered, I believe, for no reason," Laura Serna said.

Martin called the shooting a "tragedy" but said only 20 to 30 seconds elapsed "from the subject saying 'That's him!' to shots fired." "They're being told he had a handgun and 'that's him,'" Martin said. "It's kind of tough to address that in 20 seconds."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fran...ng-n696221
=====================================

I know the responding officer in this case wasn't likely itching to kill someone. But, shooting an elderly man who was acting confused and never brandished a weapon, seven times, ain't right. That should not be what cops are trained to do when no one's life can reasonably be perceived to be in immediate danger, in my opinion.

RIP Francisco Serna.

[BigMark]

The dumb old bastard crossed the line.

[Duchess]

I don't think this is the first senior with dementia to be killed by cops. I have a very vague memory of reading about at least one more in here.

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't think this is the first senior with dementia to be killed by cops. I have a very vague memory of reading about at least one more in here.

Yeah, we covered the shooting death of 72-year-old Ronald Westbrook in another thread.



Poor man had advanced Alzheimer's and had sneaked out of the house to take his dogs for a walk in the wee hours.

A home renter saw him on his property and his fiancee called 911. Instead of waiting for the officers to arrive (who might have killed innocent Ronald anyway), the home renter went outside after a few minutes and shot Ronald dead in the dark. :(

I don't believe the home renter was charged. But, police say Ronald was a great guy who'd likely been lost for hours and was attracted to the light at that particular home because it was dark all around there. Ronald's disease had made him slow to react to verbal cues. He was unarmed.

Biggie, on the other hand, is just plain slow because he chooses to be -- I pity the fool.

[BigMark]

Don't crucify me!

[HairOfTheDog]

Don't worry, Biggie.

I pity your ignorance.

But, Jesus wouldn't like it if I crucified the truly pitiful; you have your own cross to bear.

[BigMark]

Nobody can grieve for every injustice for the world and stay sane.

[HairOfTheDog]

Nobody said otherwise, Biggie, but thanks for sharing those pearls of wisdom.

The fact that you don't grieve for every injustice in the world has nothing to do with the fact that you're (most likely) sane.

But, blaming unarmed people with Alzheimer's and dementia for being shot multiple times by people who didn't bother to assess the situation is just one example of why I pity you, fool.

[BigMark]

I'm not blaming the victims, i'm being an insensitive clod and apparently failed comedian.

[HairOfTheDog]

No worries, I'm mostly just messing with you, Biggie.

But, it does sincerely bother me when children, disabled people, and elderly persons with cognitive impairment are shot to death due to lack of judgment/assessment on the part of the shooter.