- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: RIOT ALERT: Jury unwilling to convict Slager in Walter Scott shooting
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:11 pm to joshnorris14
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:11 pm to joshnorris14
I'm trying to be fair to the jury - what evidence could they POSSIBLY be considering?
Relatively undisputed:
1. Stop was for a broken taillight.
2. Scott did have a warrant, I believe.
3. Scott ran.
4. Scott fought with Slager for possession/control of the Taser.
SO - on my most generous day, I can see all of the above adding up to manslaughter.
But, I can also see the case for murder - at least using the Louisiana standard (premeditation not required, just specific intent).
What I'm having trouble with is a finding the shooting is justified. From the undisputed evidence AND the video - I simply don't believe Slager was in fear for his life.
AND he knew he fricked up because he attempted to plant the taser near the body.
Relatively undisputed:
1. Stop was for a broken taillight.
2. Scott did have a warrant, I believe.
3. Scott ran.
4. Scott fought with Slager for possession/control of the Taser.
SO - on my most generous day, I can see all of the above adding up to manslaughter.
But, I can also see the case for murder - at least using the Louisiana standard (premeditation not required, just specific intent).
What I'm having trouble with is a finding the shooting is justified. From the undisputed evidence AND the video - I simply don't believe Slager was in fear for his life.
AND he knew he fricked up because he attempted to plant the taser near the body.
0
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:16 pm to joshnorris14
Cops +1
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:18 pm to LSUwag
quote:
Cops +1
This shouldn't be a right vs. left issue.
The guy was running away and was shot in the back multiple times.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:20 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
The guy was running away and was shot in the back multiple times.
Yeah. Pretty bad.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:27 pm to joshnorris14
This cop should be in jail for the following:
Murder
Planting evidence
Probably perjury, because he has to have lied his arse off defending his actions
Murder
Planting evidence
Probably perjury, because he has to have lied his arse off defending his actions
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:29 pm to HailToTheChiz
I don't think running away matters. I thought cops were given wide latitude to aprrehend a suspect if they've committed a felony even using deadly force.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:30 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
I agreed with you until recently. A Canadian citizen slowed down & enhanced the video attempting to prove the cop dropped a weapon near the body. Instead, his video convinced him that the cop was actually picking up/tossing down so,whine else. Maybe the taser? Icr - watched it several months ago. Anyway, he ended up contacting the defense to provide his video.
To me the cop shooting the unarmed guy in the back is the issue. The guy didn't have a firearm and was not posing a threat as he was fleeing. What he should have done was call in backup and follow Scott until that backup arrived (dude was 50 and out of shape, he wasn't going to be running far).
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:30 pm to joshnorris14
I went through this on a murder jury with one, lone holdout. It was a clear cut, first degree murder and because the murderer would likely have received the death penalty, one old fart on the jury refused to budge. It was 11 - 1 to convict on Murder 1. The judge sent us back three times before the rest of the jury relented and came back with a conviction for second degree murder. It was either that, or a mistrial. We opted to get it over with the best we could.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:30 pm to C
quote:
I don't think running away matters. I thought cops were given wide latitude to aprrehend a suspect if they've committed a felony even using deadly force.
They cannot use deadly force to capture a fleeing felon, unless they can articulate a specific reason why they are a danger to the general public. It is an unconstitutional seizure under the 4A. The cop didn't meat this, and didn't even argue it at trial. He argued he was in fear for his life.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:32 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
I agreed with you until recently. A Canadian citizen slowed down & enhanced the video attempting to prove the cop dropped a weapon near the body. Instead, his video convinced him that the cop was actually picking up/tossing down so,whine else. Maybe the taser? Icr - watched it several months ago. Anyway, he ended up contacting the defense to provide his video.
Link? Because that is the first I have heard of this (though I really didn't follow it too close)
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:32 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
Soros funded riots?
No. That guy needs to be charged with Sedition.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:34 pm to TigernMS12
Thanks for the info.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:34 pm to Bard
Is sedition even something you can be charged for in this country still?
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:36 pm to joshnorris14
From CNN article:
quote:
Earlier, one juror wrote to the judge that he cannot convict Slager in the death of Walter Scott and his mind cannot be changed
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:37 pm to LordSaintly
OK so it's a hung jury.
So there can be another trial.
So there can be another trial.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:40 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Is sedition even something you can be charged for in this country still?
Technically, yes. Practically, no. Some asshat liberal lawyer would argue that Sedition is in direct conflict with someone's First Amendment rights and the courts would agree if for no other reason than it's just too big a beehive to stir up.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:40 pm to BigJim
quote:
So there can be another trial.
There can be, although it will probably be awhile. A poster on the OT pointed out that he is also under federal indictment for civil rights violations and obstruction charges. If I had to guess, the Feds will want their shot next.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:43 pm to joshnorris14
Pretty surprising, figured this was a slam dunk + on video.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:44 pm to joshnorris14
#greatestcountryforsome
#godpleasehelp
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:45 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
Pretty surprising, figured this was a slam dunk + on video.
Famous defense lawyer saying held true in this one. "It only takes one."
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News