SC Officer Charged with Murder

[JediSkipdogg]

Just guessing here but, this LEO did not look like any kind of slouch..He looked very capable of running this guy down IMO...he was angry and had cause to be...

Here's a dumb thought....if I was that angry I would want to get even with the BG up front and personally.....and by killing him would take away some of that joy..dumb I know..

Subject had a deadly weapon. You meet deadly weapon with deadly weapon. The video is just one perspective/view. The prosecution has every legal right to decide to retry if they do not like the verdict of the jury, which is made up of the people picked at random.

Walter Scott had a weapon at the time he was shot?

Did the officer know the time he pulled the trigger the first time that he no longer had the weapon? We've all see reaction time. There's a reason no place teaches to shoot once, analyze, shoot, analyze. Tunnel vision also often develops in a self-defense situation. So from the time the suspect stole the taser to the time the first say 3 shots were fired the officer was in reaction mode to his taser being stolen.

If one hasn't seen a Grossman seminar and/or read his books, they are superb books on what happens in a self defense situation.

[carmen fovozzo]

What weapon are you speaking of ?

[Mustang380gal]

Scott grabbed the officer's taser.

[carmen fovozzo]

Did he ever have control of It? It seemed like the BG was shot with it.

[JediSkipdogg]

Did he ever have control of It? It seemed like the BG was shot with it.

From the video it is unknown. Therefore you have to go by officer testimony in court.

[Mustang380gal]

Did he ever have control of It? It seemed like the BG was shot with it.

From the video it is unknown. Therefore you have to go by officer testimony in court.

Also, Scott's fingerprints and DNA were found on it, so forensic evidence backs up the officer's testimony.

[Atilla]

The jury poll was 11-1. They'll retry at least once more.

[glocksmith]

A lot of overanalysis going on here. "Hair-splitting" if you will. I always need to remind myself that a guilty or not guilty verdict...doesn't necessarily mean that a defendant did or didn't do it. I mean, consider the fact that OJ didn't do it...and Hillary didn't do anything wrong either.

[Mustang380gal]

A lot of overanalysis going on here. "Hair-splitting" if you will. I always need to remind myself that a guilty or not guilty verdict...doesn't necessarily mean that a defendant did or didn't do it. I mean, consider the fact that OJ didn't do it...and Hillary didn't do anything wrong either.

It is not hairsplitting.

Any time a person dies at the hand of another, actively or passively, willful or accidental, it is homicide.

The question is then "Was this act justified?" The legal definitions of the types of homicide are how we determine that. Malice aforethought is one of the requirements of murder. I am not sure if Ohio law phrases it this way, but that is what I have read this week about the Slager case.

So you used the example of a baddy coming into my house earlier. IF baddy comes into my house, points a gun at my child, and I empty my 1911 into baddy's chest to protect my kid, that is justified because the law recognizes that I can defend myself or another. It would still be homicide, but it is justified.

If a guy is in my house, and we get into an argument over a sandwich, and I shoot him without provocation, that is not justified. It may be manslaughter, or it may be murder, depending on whether I planned to kill him, or whether the argument so inflamed me that I lost composure.

These are important distinctions that protect people who have to defend themselves violently. Otherwise, any use of force against another would put normal joes into prison, or on death row. Protecting one's person or one's child, or a stranger at Wal-Mart should not be a lifetime prison sentence, or a death sentence.

Police officers do not and should not lose the right to self-defense. That's basically what Slager comes down to. If police officers lose the right to self-defense, they will stop engaging. Baltimore is an example of that. The other consequence is that we will not have quality men and women signing on to be officers. Considering 2016 has the highest rate on on-duty deaths for officers in a long time, we may be finding out whether people are going to become police officers in the near future.

[carmen fovozzo]

In your situation of killing because of a sandwich...Are your sandwich's that bad..? Sorry..I couldn't resist..

If someone fights with me and takes my Maze and uses it on me and then runs away, can I now consider this self-defense and shoot that person as he is running away ? I'm trying to understand the difference in this situation between a LEO and a civilian...

[Mustang380gal]

In your situation of killing because of a sandwich...Are your sandwich's that bad..? Sorry..I couldn't resist..

If someone fights with me and takes my Maze and uses it on me and then runs away, can I now consider this self-defense and shoot that person as he is running away ? I'm trying to understand the difference in this situation between a LEO and a civilian...

There was an Akron U student stabbed in the heart over an Arby's sandwich last Saturday night.

Is mace considered in the same category as tasers?

[carmen fovozzo]

Not understanding what you are getting at.....what does the stabbing have to do with this ?

Don't know the difference between maze and taser.....

[Mustang380gal]

Not understanding what you are getting at.....what does the stabbing have to do with this ?

Don't know the difference between maze and taser.....

The stabbing was on my mind, since it sounded like such a dumb thing to die over. That's all.

[JediSkipdogg]

In your situation of killing because of a sandwich...Are your sandwich's that bad..? Sorry..I couldn't resist..

If someone fights with me and takes my Maze and uses it on me and then runs away, can I now consider this self-defense and shoot that person as he is running away ? I'm trying to understand the difference in this situation between a LEO and a civilian...

Numerous cases have been cleared as justified when the perp was shot in the back. Look at the Steve Roach case around the early 2000s in Cincinnati. A lot goes into a case and it's not cut and dry. Is the subject an imminent threat to yourself or others? I would say someone fleeing that keeps turning around can be. Sure, they may just be looking behind them, but why? If a perp is running at full speed, why do they care how close the person is behind them? They can't run any faster so they must be looking to come up with a second plan of attack to stay free. Many cases have been cleared on shooting fleeing people reaching for their waist bands. Well, what do most thugs have in common? First their pants won't stay up while they are running, but more importantly, most carry weapons there. The time to distinguish between the two may not be enough to play the safe side, so one has to stand behind their actions. And in many cases, their actions have been correct.

Remember, the jury is not a panel of police officers, generally in an officer case, those are the first ones excluded. So it's a panel of average people that have no bias either way towards law enforcement. If they don't think the elements met the case, then it's clear.

And also, there are ALOT of prosecutors caving to public demand and overcharging. The Tensing case in my opinion is a clear one. Deters went straight for murder without stopping at negligent homicide. Deters believed Tensing went to work that day with the mindset of killing someone, aka planned. Sorry, the jury disagreed. Would he have won Negligent Homicide? I would bet $1000 he could win that, but he didn't charge so. The elements of the crime MUST fit the elements of the charge. Miss one, sorry, charge won't stick.

[carmen fovozzo]

We shall see on the re-trial....