Walter Scott Killing, Ex Cop may walk.

Lone Juror Says He Can't Convict Ex-Cop in Walter Scott Killing

A lone juror said Friday he can't convict a white former police officer who fatally shot a black man in South Carolina, and the jury said they want to continue deliberating. The juror in a letter to the court said "I cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict" against Michael Slager, a former patrolman who pulled over Walter Scott in North Charleston, and ended up shooting him as a bystander recorded the incident on video. The jury foreperson said in a separate note to the court that it was only one juror who was "having issues," Circuit Judge Clifton Newman said. The juror opposed to conviction said in the letter, "I cannot and will not change my mind," Newman said.
www.nbcnews.com...

Well there it is folks, I know we will have folks say yes Spider the system is not perfect but it's the only one we have and it's the bestest in the world, really?? this is the best we can do?? ..ok I'll give it a little more time before going off, as they are still deliberating.
If this plays out like I think it will, things may get really really ugly.
Oh and btw in another story an ex football player was shot to death in a road rage incident, the shooter was allowed to go home investigation is still on going .i'll leave it up to you guys to fill in the ethnic identity of the shooter and victim.

One lesson to take from this is do not attack an officer, steal his weapon, tase him and turn yourself into a dangerous fleeing felon.

The fleeing felon rule.
“Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.” Tennessee v. Garner

Yeah, I am trying not be angry but it's fuking hard.

Have you seen any of the evidence or heard any of the testimony presented in this case... besides the Youtube video?

Follow thread [ American Culture ]

---

The victim was shoot in the back numerous times, LEO went up to victim "alone" within a feet, LEO does have a tazer..

Intention of shoot was to kill the victim, second degree Murder.

Victim irrational fear.

--

Its second degree murder

a reply to: Spider879

The question is, precisely WHY does the juror have this difficulty, based on what exactly? Because I am finding it very difficult to believe that it has anything to do with the evidence presented.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Spider879

The question is, precisely WHY does the juror have this difficulty, based on what exactly? Because I am finding it very difficult to believe that it has anything to do with the evidence presented.

Agreed.
I don't see how anyone that has viewed the video of the shooting could condone the officer's actions.
In addition, the black cop that was there was complicit, in that he did not immediately arrest the shooter.
He watched the shooter move the Taser next to the body of the victim and drop it.

a reply to: Spider879

The evidence isnt as straight forward as that clip shows. Mr. Scott attacked the police officer and tried to take his weapon.

Again, the DA over charged initially due to the political pressure. Even the lesser manslaughter charge isnt all that strong on light of the actual facts.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Spider879

The evidence isnt as straight forward as that clip shows. Mr. Scott attacked the police officer and tried to take his weapon.

Again, the DA over charged initially due to the political pressure. Even the lesser manslaughter charge isnt all that strong on light of the actual facts.

I think the officer may have been justified in shooting the man when he pulled the Taser away from him, but that isn't what happened.
The officer showed signs of guilt in his own mind when he walked back and picked up the Tasker and dropped it next to the man's body. That, in the very least is tampering with evidence.
Even if the man had a Tasker in his hand, he was running away from the officer when he was shot in the back.... not presenting a threat.
Anyway, as much as we know better, a Tasker is presented to us by law enforcement as a non lethal weapon.

Punk Cop is guilty only a blind bootlicker would see other wise.If You shoot a Man in the back 20 feet away from you,you're an effing Coward..

Sounds to me like some POS managed to get himself seated by lying during selection. One jurists only function here was to see a murmurous cop walk.

There was no "justice" here. Not from the cop. Not from the judicial system.

a reply to: Spider879



I know from personal experience that the protection from being tried repeatedly for the same accusation is a myth.


The state will re-phrase the charge and keep having trials until a conviction is achieved.


The juror should be commended for not bowing to the pressure and using the facts of the case to make an informed decision. I just hope the juror is a minority and female to lessen the backlash after their name is leaked to the press.

a reply to: 200Plus

How do you figure that? He fought the officer.... had his taser..... could have landed it stole his gun and shot him. Once he realized oh snip I'm losing ground he tries to get distance. Moral of the story don't fight the police. It's their job, and they want to go home to their families. Comply and respect goes a long way.

Sometimes the criminal knows he's a useless POS and its suicide by cop to get some money for his family. It happened here and the family got 2.5 mill and were broke a couple of years later and wanted more money.

a reply to: Crumbles

He was shot multiple times in the back while running away. The cop is on camera dropping his taser next to the dead body. That's the only reason there was a trial to begin with.

Now a juror says "it doesn't matter what you show me, I can't find him guilty". I guarantee he/she didn't say anything like that during jury selection. Hence, they waited until they could create a deadlocked jury.

Why would they do that?

The cops only way of going home was shooting the guy in the back a few times and then dropping his taser by the body? Does that really build confidence in the police force?

When I was a kid I thought "a cop = safety", now it's becoming "a cop = I hope he's not in a bad mood and/or a control freak". That's the reality we live in.

They do not "keep us safe" they have power and guns and walk the streets above the little people.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Spider879

The question is, precisely WHY does the juror have this difficulty, based on what exactly? Because I am finding it very difficult to believe that it has anything to do with the evidence presented.

Agreed.
I don't see how anyone that has viewed the video of the shooting could condone the officer's actions.
In addition, the black cop that was there was complicit, in that he did not immediately arrest the shooter.
He watched the shooter move the Taser next to the body of the victim and drop it.

Can you show me the transcript of the cop's testimony? How about his "complicit" partner's? Anyone's?

If the cop thought the perp had his taser, while one of the barbs were in his leg, I'd acquit him too. Honestly how could you even gauge someone else's level of fear at any given moment... especially one like that?

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Crumbles

Now a juror says "it doesn't matter what you show me, I can't find him guilty". I guarantee he/she didn't say anything like that during jury selection. Hence, they waited until they could create a deadlocked jury.

Why would they do that?

This is called a strawman.

originally posted by: Bone75
Have you seen any of the evidence or heard any of the testimony presented in this case... besides the Youtube video?

Unless that guy running away was saying to the officer, " I'm running to go kill your mother" THERE IS NO WAY THIS ISNT MURDER!

The juror is a jack ass racist or the most stupid human being in the planet

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Bone75
Have you seen any of the evidence or heard any of the testimony presented in this case... besides the Youtube video?

Unless that guy running away was saying to the officer, " I'm running to go kill your mother" THERE IS NO WAY THIS ISNT MURDER!

Well did he?

a reply to: 200Plus

And he got what he deserved. Like I said moral of the story "comply with officers, and don't physically fights officers unless you want to pay the consequences". They're doing a job and being beaten by a criminal dictates action to the highest degree. Running just means he can hide in a corner pop out and hit you with a rock or pipe. Either way the office was in a lose lose. Better the criminal scum than the officer doing his job.