South Carolina police officer charged with murder

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**SlaveToDorkness**

I'm not sure about "in full view." He could easily still believe the guy still had the tazer and not realize it had been dropped until after. Looking down your sites tends to obscure your view of everything else, especially the ground around your feet.

**d-usa**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I'm not sure about "in full view." He could easily still believe the guy still had the tazer and not realize it had been dropped until after. Looking down your sites tends to obscure your view of everything else, especially the ground around your feet.

Well, he saw it well enough to casually pick it up as soon as he puts his gun back in his holster.

**RaptorusRex**

A small note that my father taught me when I was just a stripling with a .22: Police officers are trained to unload the entire clip.

Yeah.

**Xenomancers**

d-usa wrote:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I'm not sure about "in full view." He could easily still believe the guy still had the tazer and not realize it had been dropped until after. Looking down your sites tends to obscure your view of everything else, especially the ground around your feet.

Well, he saw it well enough to casually pick it up as soon as he puts his gun back in his holster.

Reasonable doubt. "It fell and I didn't see it." Perfectly reasonable . Short of mind-reading - or dosing him with sodium pentothal. I don't think we will ever know. Reasonable doubt is not overwritten by the fact that this was a white shooter and a black victim - which is the only reason this is getting attention.

Also I don't think it matters at that point whether he has the tazer or not - he has already proven he is able and willing to inflict harm to others. To me this means hes a threat to others. I'd really like to know how you rationalize against this.

**d-usa**

What is the time frame for summary execution powers for police against people who have previously been "violent"?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: I rationalize it by realizing that trusting a a cop who is a proven liar is a very stupid thing, and by realizing that people who were previously a threat are to be dealt with via the courts and not executed on sight.

**nkelsch**

Xenomancers wrote:

Also I don't think it matters at that point whether he has the tazer or not - he has already proven he is able and willing to inflict harm to others. To me this means hes a threat to others. I'd really like to know how you rationalize against this.

There is no evidence of this... Resisting unlawful arrest is not evidence of violence or a risk to others. Otherwise every person who attempts to run from the police or resist arrest could legally be executed by your POV because lethal force would be warranted in every case of resisting arrest. People like you are why victims get charged with assault for bleeding on an officer while being beaten to near death by them when they are offering zero resistance. It empowers police to lie and do whatever they want.

You still keep hanging your hat on "walker tazed the officer" when there is zero evidence of that outside the word of a lying cop who laughed about the incident while sitting next to the dead man's body while plotting how to beat the investigation and how to corroborate stories and have matching false police reports.

**SlaveToDorkness**

So arresting someone with outstanding warrants is unlawful now?

**nkelsch**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
So arresting someone with outstanding warrants is unlawful now?

At the time, Slager had no knowledge of warrants. Slager had ZERO idea why Walker was running and zero justification for initiating an arrest. (Outside the fact he was driving while black and Slager knew Walker was guilty, just not 'of what' yet.)

**angelofvengeance**

Xenomancers wrote:
I'd call it 1st degree manslaughter.

Ummm if he'd shot him just the once or twice, then maybe manslaughter. He didn't though. He shot him 8 TIMES . That to me says murder.

**Xenomancers**

d-usa wrote:
What is the time frame for summary execution powers for police against people who have previously been "violent"?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: I rationalize it by realizing that trusting a a cop who is a proven liar is a very stupid thing, and by realizing that people who were previously a threat are to be dealt with via the courts and not executed on sight.

Not asking you to trust him, you don't need to trust him at all - there is evidence of multiple struggles though and there is evidence that the tazer might have been used against the officer. If the tazer was used against the officer - do you agree this was a justified shooting, or no?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

angelofvengeance wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
I'd call it 1st degree manslaughter.

Ummm if he'd shot him just the once or twice, then maybe manslaughter. He didn't though. He shot him 8 TIMES . That to me says murder.

I can see how you could come to that conclussion - but as was pointed out by Christopher Walken and me early in this thread. He kept shooting till the man went down - that's actually what hes supposed to do. Gruesome yes, it's also what hes trained to do. Plus he missed 3 times of those 8 shots and 1 hit him in the ear.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:
So arresting someone with outstanding warrants is unlawful now?

At the time, Slager had no knowledge of warrants. Slager had ZERO idea why Walker was running and zero justification for initiating an arrest. (Outside the fact he was driving while black and Slager knew Walker was guilty, just not 'of what' yet.)

I think you'd be surprised what a cop can find out about you with their little computer lap top - they already know everything they need to know before they come to your window. In this case he didn't the car was registered to a different person I'm assuming - but he did get his licence and was in his car for about 2 minutes before he ran - I'm gonna say he most likely knew about the warrants or at least his arrest history with 2 violent offense on it. Again...none of this matters - evading the police is a serious enough offense to warrant an arrest. Resisting arrest makes it even more serious. Using a cops tazer on him makes it a felony.

**nkelsch**

Xenomancers wrote:

I think you'd be surprised what a cop can find out about you with their little computer lap top - they already know everything they need to know before they come to your window. In this case he didn't the car was registered to a different person I'm assuming - but he did get his licence and was in his car for about 2 minutes before he ran - I'm gonna say he most likely knew about the warrants or at least his arrest history with 2 violent offense on it. Again...none of this matters - evading the police is a serious enough offense to warrant an arrest. Resisting arrest makes it even more serious. Using a cops tazer on him makes it a felony.

Except... In this case... His laptop showed nothing... Why?

The plates were not his.
And Slager EXPLICITLY SAID TO DISPATCH "I have no idea why he is running" which means he had not yet successfully run gak on his little laptop. Which means he chased him, and shot him dead with zero evidence of an actual crime having been committed and zero legal reason to take him into custody. This is Slager's own words. He had no legal reason because he didn't even commit a traffic violation.

I like how you make up evidence, like saying he knew things he has been proven not to know, Claiming violent assault which hasn't been proven since resisting arrest is not felony assault, claiming Walker shot the officer with a Tazer when there is zero evidence of that outside the word of a lying officer...

Even if your lies were true, the second Walker 'broke off' he was unarmed and not escalating force, and was not an eminent risk to the community at large and was not commissioning a felony. The second broke off, the officer lost the justification to use lethal force. You can't pretend a violent person is going to start throat stabbing every 10-year old they come across like a wild animal. Even if you thought he had a already fired, single shot stun gun in his possession, by definition, that is a non-lethal weapon, and him 'fleeing' means the imminent threat is over. Dirty cop was mad and shot him for making him run and not respecting his authoritah.

No matter how many lies and fake evidence and hypothetical you make up, it never escalates to justifiable lethal force int his situation, and all the facts not only prove that, but show your hypothetical are impossible and false. There is a reason the local police chief immediately backed charges, because he knew this was a bad cop and a bad shooting.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Running away while at.a traffic stop will always warrant at least a cuffing, regardless of your race. Tryit next time if you don't beleive me.

**Xenomancers**

nkelsch wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

I think you'd be surprised what a cop can find out about you with their little computer lap top - they already know everything they need to know before they come to your window. In this case he didn't the car was registered to a different person I'm assuming - but he did get his licence and was in his car for about 2 minutes before he ran - I'm gonna say he most likely knew about the warrants or at least his arrest history with 2 violent offense on it. Again...none of this matters - evading the police is a serious enough offense to warrant an arrest. Resisting arrest makes it even more serious. Using a cops tazer on him makes it a felony.

Except... In this case... His laptop showed nothing... Why?

The plates were not his.
And Slager EXPLICITLY SAID TO DISPATCH "I have no idea why he is running" which means he had not yet successfully run gak on his little laptop. Which means he chased him, and shot him dead with zero evidence of an actual crime having been committed and zero legal reason to take him into custody. This is Slager's own words. He had no legal reason because he didn't even commit a traffic violation.

I like how you make up evidence, like saying he knew things he has been proven not to know, Claiming violent assault which hasn't been proven since resisting arrest is not felony assault, claiming Walker shot the officer with a Tazer when there is zero evidence of that outside the word of a lying officer...

Even if your lies were true, the second Walker 'broke off' he was unarmed and not escalating force, and was not an eminent risk to the community at large and was not commissioning a felony. The second broke off, the officer lost the justification to use lethal force. You can't pretend a violent person is going to start throat stabbing every 10-year old they come across like a wild animal. Even if you thought he had a already fired, single shot stun gun in his possession, by definition, that is a non-lethal weapon, and him 'fleeing' means the imminent threat is over. Dirty cop was mad and shot him for making him run and not respecting his authoritah.

No matter how many lies and fake evidence and hypothetical you make up, it never escalates to justifiable lethal force int his situation, and all the facts not only prove that, but show your hypothetical are impossible and false. There is a reason the local police chief immediately backed charges, because he knew this was a bad cop and a bad shooting.

woh chill out buddy. I'm not lying about anything - I think you made a good point about what he said to dispatch - I guess that means he didn't know about the warrant. Like I said though - that doesn't even matter. He already has justification to arrest him for evading him in the first place. Like others have said - try it sometime and see what happens. Next time you get a ticket for speeding - make a run for it. See what happens. Even if you are white you will get chased and tazed - race has nothing to do with it.

**cincydooley**

angelofvengeance wrote:

Ummm if he'd shot him just the once or twice, then maybe manslaughter. He didn't though. He shot him 8 TIMES . That to me says murder.

Number of shots has no bearing on anything based on this video.

But he still shot the guy in the back. That's a pretty big problem, right?

I believe cops should be able to defend themselves with lethal force if they're attacked and in danger.

I just can't reconcile a dude running away as that danger.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
it never escalates to justifiable lethal force int his situation, and all the facts not only prove that, but show your hypothetical are impossible and false. There is a reason the local police chief immediately backed charges, because he knew this was a bad cop and a bad shooting.

I don't quite agree with all of what you wrote, but I certainly agree with this.

I really hope this doesn't turn into another Casey Anthony.

**Jihadin**

Vehicle was pulled over for a tail light being out.

**whembly**

The SC Supreme Court seems to step in already and Judge Clifton Newman to this case:
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150414/PC16/150419630/1177/sc-supreme-court-judge-outside-charleston-area-to-handle-michael-slager-murder-case

S.C. Supreme Court: Judge outside Charleston area to handle Michael Slager murder case

The S.C. Supreme Court on Tuesday assigned a judge from outside the 9th Judicial Circuit to preside over every step of the criminal case against former North Charleston police officer Michael T. Slager.

Third Circuit Judge Clifton Newman of Kingstree “shall decide all matters pertaining to this case” and will “retain jurisdiction ... regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court,” Chief Justice Jean Toal wrote in the order.

The move came unexpectedly for 9th Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, who announced the news Tuesday night on her Facebook page. Wilson said she had been informed by email.

Though he is based outside the circuit where Slager is set to be prosecuted, Newman, like other judges, hears cases in Charleston from time to time.

“While I was unaware this was in the works,” Wilson said on Facebook, “it is not without precedent for the chief justice to assign judges to cases.”

But Slager’s attorney, Andy Savage of Charleston, said Toal’s “unprecedented but long overdue” decision would ensure that constitutional due process provisions will be followed and would be well-received by attorneys statewide.

The high court’s order gives Newman the authority to set hearings regardless of whether a term of court is scheduled.

“Judge Newman enjoys an excellent reputation as a jurist and we look forward to working under his guidance,” Savage said. “A more competent member of the judiciary could not be found.”

Slager faces a murder charge in the April 4 death of 50-year-old Walter L. Scott. A video showed the officer shooting Scott five times as Scott ran away.

Slager has said that he feared that Scott would use his own Taser against him.

The case has been tinged with questions about the role of race in policing. Slager is white. Scott was black.

Newman, the 63-year-old judge now handling the case, decided to pursue a career in law after playing an attorney in a high school play about the 1954 school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education, his state Judicial Department Web page says.

The Cleveland-Marshall College of Law graduate succeeded for 24 years as a private attorney before serving for 17 years as a prosecutor. The General Assembly elected him to the bench in 2000.

Wilson did not comment further, and she has not responded to some calls for her to relinquish the case to a prosecutor outside the 9th Circuit Solicitor’s Office, which prosecutes most of the North Charleston Police Department’s cases. Wilson has said in earlier statements that she plans to see the case through and diligently update the public on any developments.

On other legal blogs, many are opining that this is 100% damage control now. The SC Justice assigned essentially an outsider to insure judicial credibility because many believe that murder charges seemed over promised, which could lead to the collapse of their case.

Good call.

**easysauce**

nkelsch wrote:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:
So arresting someone with outstanding warrants is unlawful now?

At the time, Slager had no knowledge of warrants. Slager had ZERO idea why Walker was running and zero justification for initiating an arrest. (Outside the fact he was driving while black and Slager knew Walker was guilty, just not 'of what' yet.)

the officer pulled him over for traffic violati, not driving while black.

the suspect then ran which actually *is* justification to arrest him.

weather or not the actual shooting ends up being justified, if you are really going to try to argue that the cops shouldnt be stopping people for traffic violations chasing down people who run from them, Id say you have a very biased opinion that isnt in line with how these things work in reality.

as soon as the guy ran, the cop can safely assume he has priors, as people who are not criminals generally just take the traffic ticket instead of risk their life, and the officers life, with a chase/fight/resisting arrest.

**usernamesareannoying**

looks like a clean shoot to me.
how was the officer supposed to know that he wasn't running to just put some distance between the two of them so he could then turn and fire on him?
was he armed, not that I've seen but did the officer know that?

bottom line to me is if you get stopped by a cop don't run.

it sure does look like there are a bunch of people simply out to hang a cop.
white cop shoots a black man... kill whitey right?

Spoiler:

**MrDwhitey**

Man, Poe's Law is really going today.

**Jihadin**

usernamesareannoying wrote:
looks like a clean shoot to me.
how was the officer supposed to know that he wasn't running to just put some distance between the two of them so he could then turn and fire on him?
was he armed, not that I've seen but did the officer know that?

bottom line to me is if you get stopped by a cop don't run.

it sure does look like there are a bunch of people simply out to hang a cop.
white cop shoots a black man... kill whitey right?

Spoiler:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQyCkwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzGBw8jS3sMw&ei=xa0uVbuRDJCuogTs3oCoDg&usg=AFQjCNEOWoTIQJgPEr_4RxQKOoRyuIM8kw&bvm=bv.90790515,d.cGU

Leave the racial slant out of this.

**usernamesareannoying**

that's hilarious considering that's all that this is about.
if it was a white guy being shot you wouldn't have seen it.

Jihadin wrote:
usernamesareannoying wrote:
looks like a clean shoot to me.
how was the officer supposed to know that he wasn't running to just put some distance between the two of them so he could then turn and fire on him?
was he armed, not that I've seen but did the officer know that?

bottom line to me is if you get stopped by a cop don't run.

it sure does look like there are a bunch of people simply out to hang a cop.
white cop shoots a black man... kill whitey right?

Spoiler:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQyCkwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzGBw8jS3sMw&ei=xa0uVbuRDJCuogTs3oCoDg&usg=AFQjCNEOWoTIQJgPEr_4RxQKOoRyuIM8kw&bvm=bv.90790515,d.cGU

Leave the racial slant out of this.

**nkelsch**

usernamesareannoying wrote:
looks like a clean shoot to me.
how was the officer supposed to know that he wasn't running to just put some distance between the two of them so he could then turn and fire on him?
was he armed, not that I've seen but did the officer know that?

So every person is armed until proven otherwise? That means that a cop can execute anyone for any reason with that line of thought. That is not how the laws are written, so any police who think like that and follow that behavior to its logical conclusion will be arrested for murder. You don't get to assume 'All people who run are bad men, All bad men are violent and have guns, Violent men with guns make me scared for my life. I can shoot people who run'

**usernamesareannoying**

it's a big difference between a man that attacks you and runs verses a guy who just run. a big difference.

**nkelsch**

usernamesareannoying wrote:
it's a big difference between a man that attacks you and runs verses a guy who just run. a big difference.

And there is a big difference between someone who is resisting arrest and someone who attacks and officer. Remember, people get charged with assault for bleeding on an officer beating them to near death. Considering the eye witness said there was no struggle for the tazer, and Walker never had or fired the tazer, and the cop lied about his account which was proven to be wrong due to video evidence... It makes it hard to argue that 'Walker was probably armed and that was a good shoot because people who run have guns and he was trying to get space to shoot the cop'.

**usernamesareannoying**

Do you know this guy's intentions? No? Neither did the officer.

**nkelsch**

usernamesareannoying wrote:
Do you know this guy's intentions? No? Neither did the officer.

And the law doesn't allow the officer to 'assume' intentions and summarily execute him out of a perceived threat with no evidence of actual threat.

If your justification is to assume all bad people are armed so all actions can be interpreted as 'attempting to kill the officer' then an officer can kill any one at any time as long as he believes the person is armed with zero evidence. If 'running away' is the same as 'making distance to turn around and gun down the officer with a yet unseen, unconfirmed deadly weapon' then there is no such thing as a bad shoot ever when it comes to police.

**usernamesareannoying**

If he's a threat you're allowed to shoot a retreating suspect.

**Co'tor Shas**

But he obviously wasn't a threat, he was scared and running away.

**usernamesareannoying**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
But he obviously wasn't a threat, he was scared and running away.

says the guy watching it from his safe comfy home. Did the cop know it was obvious that he was scared and running away? What was he supposed to do, let him go? It's easy to judge after the fact.

**nkelsch**

usernamesareannoying wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
But he obviously wasn't a threat, he was scared and running away.
says the guy watching it from his safe comfy home. Did the cop know it was obvious that he was scared and running away? What was he supposed to do, let him go? It's easy to judge after the fact.

Again, your train of thought returns us to: "Cops can execute anyone at any time with no evidence of risk because anyone can be a threat potentially in the mind of the officer."