Ex-S.C. cop gets 20 years in prison for fatally shooting Walter Scott, an unarmed black man

originally posted by: Edumakated

Personally, I think it is a travesty of justice and politically motivated. Given all the Ls the SJW crowd has taken, they had to find someone guilty at some point.

So you're OK with cops shooting people fleeing in the back then lying to cover it up?

Says mountains about you.

if you believe in maintaining the prison system, it should have been life

a reply to: Liquesence

Is there a transcript of the cop's testimony available?

a reply to: Indrasweb

FWIW:

Generally speaking, going for anything on an officer's belt here in the US is going to escalate the situation to a potential lethal force encounter. Even going for the OC spray is more often than not going to be met with at least a drawn firearm, as the training (generally speaking) is that the officer can't afford to wait and see if you're going to pepper spray him or not. That's not to say the cop is going to always come up blasting, but it does mean he's most likely not going to politely ask for it back either.

If Scott was attempting to get control of Slager's Taser then Slager would've been absolutely justified in shooting him. The problem arose when Scott dropped the Taser (according to Slager) and ran away. There's a number of factors that make this, in my opinion, a bad shooting but I thought you might appreciate the bit about trying to disarm a cop as it's pretty relevant.

Sh*t for brains murderous cop. I would never waive my right to a jury trial.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Indrasweb

FWIW:

Generally speaking, going for anything on an officer's belt here in the US is going to escalate the situation to a potential lethal force encounter. Even going for the OC spray is more often than not going to be met with at least a drawn firearm, as the training (generally speaking) is that the officer can't afford to wait and see if you're going to pepper spray him or not. That's not to say the cop is going to always come up blasting, but it does mean he's most likely not going to politely ask for it back either.

If Scott was attempting to get control of Slager's Taser then Slager would've been absolutely justified in shooting him. The problem arose when Scott dropped the Taser (according to Slager) and ran away. There's a number of factors that make this, in my opinion, a bad shooting but I thought you might appreciate the bit about trying to disarm a cop as it's pretty relevant.

Rational people understand this which is why I stated earlier that I can see how it happened. The other thing is that all the people applauding the officer going to jail view this case as some sort of proof of black men being wantonly gunned down by police.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Thanks,

And yeah, that is of course relevant. It is a completely idiotic thing to do; to try to gain control of an officers equipment (weapon or not) and I do understand to some degree the situation the cops are in over there.

As I said, in an environment where even the most innocuous encounter can turn into a fight for your life the levels of stress and the stakes will always be sky high. Sustained exposure to that will inevitably have an impact on your perspective.
In any encounter you're going to be thinking about self-preservation/safety of yourself and your colleagues above all else.

As you say though, the moment the perpetrator ceased hostilities and began fleeing, and the officer opened fire, he became the victim.

a reply to: Edumakated

all the people applauding the officer going to jail view this case as some sort of proof of black men being wantonly gunned down by police.

That is a sweeping generalisation.

I do not subscribe to that narrative personally. In fact, the inclusion of "unarmed black man" in the title of the OP is something that I personally object to. I don't think it's relevant unless you're pushing an agenda.

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: Edumakated

all the people applauding the officer going to jail view this case as some sort of proof of black men being wantonly gunned down by police.

That is a sweeping generalisation.

I do not subscribe to that narrative personally. In fact, the inclusion of "unarmed black man" in the title of the OP is something that I personally object to. I don't think it's relevant unless you're pushing an agenda.

That is the underlying political reason the case even got coverage, video or not.

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: Edumakated

all the people applauding the officer going to jail view this case as some sort of proof of black men being wantonly gunned down by police.

the inclusion of "unarmed black man" in the title of the OP is something that I personally object to. I don't think it's relevant unless you're pushing an agenda.

It's the title of the article. I simply quoted it.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Sh*t for brains murderous cop. I would never waive my right to a jury trial.

He didn't. There was a state trial by jury, which resulted in a mistrial. He pleaded guilty in Federal court to violating Scott's civil rights (the violation was the killing), which the judge ruled was second degree murder.

The state retrial and federal trial were expected to take place this year, but instead, in May Michael Slager pleaded guilty to violating Walter Scott's civil rights in federal court, ending the federal case against him and also resolving the state charges that were pending after the mistrial.

U.S. District Judge David Norton ruled that Slager committed second-degree murder and obstruction of justice, when he shot and killed 50-year-old Scott in 2015. The second-degree murder ruling came with a recommended 19 to 24 year sentence.

ABC

NYT

a reply to: Liquesence

Yeah, I am aware of that.

Apologies, I didn't meant it as a criticism of you personally. I understand that T&C's require you to use the title of the article you're referring to (I believe).

I meant the 'pushing an agenda' comment as a reference to the original authors/publishers of the article. However, I didn't make that clear and it definitely reads as though I was commenting about you personally.

Sorry for the confusion.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Liquesence

Is there a transcript of the cop's testimony available?

I'm not sure the transcripts are publicly available yet, at least I can't find them after a preliminary search.

a reply to: Indrasweb



While there is a common issue there, I am trying to avoid this becoming a race debate, which is why I didn't frame the OP, or subsequent arguments, in such a way.

a reply to: Liquesence

I read that he pleaded guilty to violating civil rights, but that's so vague and broad...I guess I just don't understand how that is tantamount to pleading guilty to second degree murder.

Still don't.

a reply to: Edumakated

For me, its more that the man running had dropped the taser, couldn't outrun my grandmother even today with her being dead, and the officer chose to shoot the guy in the back instead of giving chase.

If the cop was going to shoot him, his chance to do passed when the guy dropped the taser and turned to run (or fast walk).

a reply to: Liquesence

And rightly so. There is no need to further fan the flames of racial disharmony.

The issue is one of justice and responsibility and that is of course where the discussion here should be focused.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The way the federal statute is written that Slager entered his guilty plea to leaves it vague as to how the sentencing can be carried out. It was up to the judge in this case to determine the appropriate charge level for sentencing, and that's where the judge landed on it.

I don't think anybody could reasonably argue that Slager stopped Scott with the intention of killing him, nor could one argue that Slager set out with the intent to kill him. But at the moment that Slager opened fire on Scott, Slager intended to kill him. That's the general concept of a second degree murder charge.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I'll have to read deeper on my own to make sense of it. Thanks for attempting to explain it to me though.

It's just unusual (for me) to hear about a mistrial in a state court, which prompts a guilty plea to a civil rights violation, then a federal judge taking up the case and issuing a verdict.

And that is just more strangeness to throw on to the pile of strange things about this case.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The guilty plea was to federal charges, so there's nothing odd about that. He entered his plea to the charge of deprivation of civil rights under color of law.

In that statute, it gives a penalty for if the deprivation came in the form of a killing. For the purpose of determining the number of years to give, the judge had to determine what level of homicide the killing fell in to in the US Code, not the state code.

Two different trials at two different levels of government with different sets of charges.