Do we know whether Slager has been charged with first or second degree murder?
ETA: It's first
ETA: It's first
Another black man shot dead in USA by police officer
14 of 25
Originally Posted by Anachrony:
“Then why didn't his victim get one, and why don't you care?”
“Then why didn't his victim get one, and why don't you care?”
That will be for the officer to answer to the court, and hoping justice is delivered correctly shouldn't be confused with not caring about the fate of the victim in all this.
Originally Posted by Pull2Open:
“If convicted, i don't think it'll be murder, too many loopholes. In particular, regardless of the 8 shots I'm sure a jury will believe that there was no intent to kill. He certainly needs locking up though unless there are factors not recorded on the film that mitigate.”
“If convicted, i don't think it'll be murder, too many loopholes. In particular, regardless of the 8 shots I'm sure a jury will believe that there was no intent to kill. He certainly needs locking up though unless there are factors not recorded on the film that mitigate.”
I'm not sure you can expect to fire a gun at someone's torso once, let alone eight times, and expect anything other than death. The officer knew, without a shadow of a doubt, what unloading a clip on someone would do.
Originally Posted by idlewilde:
“That will be for the officer to answer to the court, and hoping justice is delivered correctly shouldn't be confused with not caring about the fate of the victim in all this.”
“That will be for the officer to answer to the court, and hoping justice is delivered correctly shouldn't be confused with not caring about the fate of the victim in all this.”
Are you so naive as to believe that this would ever have been presented to a jury if there weren't a "trial by media" forcing their hands? The story put out by police was very different in the two days before the New York Times got involved.
The justice system doesn't operate in a vacuum, certainly not when it involves a police officer who the system relies on to investigate themselves for any wrongdoing. Public awareness shapes the outcome, and in the case of these severe conflicts of interest that always acquit the police officer, the scrutiny is a good thing.
Originally Posted by Anachrony:
“A decision based solely on the evidence gathered by his friends in the police and presented to the jury by his friend in the district attorney's office. We've seen the same scenario play out countless times before. As far as our justice system is concerned, police are saints who have never done any wrong.
It's not solely up to the jury. If the police and prosecutor don't feel like doing their jobs because they want to protect one of their own, then the jury never sees a reasonable case and their hands are tied. There are more people involved than the jurors, and those other people have vested interests in police not being prosecuted. Just because jurors have delivered a non-guilty verdict does not mean that the system has functioned and dispensed justice.
The justice system is not some perfect machine that will just keep running along dispensing perfect justice forever. It needs maintenance and monitoring to keep it functioning. Away from public scrutiny, corruption can and has festered. The only way to keep them honest and make sure they are doing their jobs are to make sure they understand that they won't have jobs if they don't do them.”
“A decision based solely on the evidence gathered by his friends in the police and presented to the jury by his friend in the district attorney's office. We've seen the same scenario play out countless times before. As far as our justice system is concerned, police are saints who have never done any wrong.
It's not solely up to the jury. If the police and prosecutor don't feel like doing their jobs because they want to protect one of their own, then the jury never sees a reasonable case and their hands are tied. There are more people involved than the jurors, and those other people have vested interests in police not being prosecuted. Just because jurors have delivered a non-guilty verdict does not mean that the system has functioned and dispensed justice.
The justice system is not some perfect machine that will just keep running along dispensing perfect justice forever. It needs maintenance and monitoring to keep it functioning. Away from public scrutiny, corruption can and has festered. The only way to keep them honest and make sure they are doing their jobs are to make sure they understand that they won't have jobs if they don't do them.”
The problem is people are so paranoid now days it's irrelevant what maitenaince is done people will still believe corruption. You have already stated that if the cop gets off with this then it is corrupt and will be riots. How can you make such a statement without hearing all the evidence? How can anyone have a fair trial if such statements are made?
They can't.
We all see trials we take an interest in and hope for a certain outcome however the minute we auggest removing all trials that are video based and just go by what is seen is insane.
On the subject that the victim never received a trial, nor does any murder victim, that does not mean anyone charged with murder must go straight to jail without a trial.
Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“The problem is people are so paranoid now days it's irrelevant what maitenaince is done people will still believe corruption. You have already stated that if the cop gets off with this then it is corrupt and will be riots. How can you make such a statement without hearing all the evidence? How can anyone have a fair trial if such statements are made?
They can't.
We all see trials we take an interest in and hope for a certain outcome however the minute we auggest removing all trials that are video based and just go by what is seen is insane.
On the subject that the victim never received a trial, nor does any murder victim, that does not mean anyone charged with murder must go straight to jail without a trial.”
“The problem is people are so paranoid now days it's irrelevant what maitenaince is done people will still believe corruption. You have already stated that if the cop gets off with this then it is corrupt and will be riots. How can you make such a statement without hearing all the evidence? How can anyone have a fair trial if such statements are made?
They can't.
We all see trials we take an interest in and hope for a certain outcome however the minute we auggest removing all trials that are video based and just go by what is seen is insane.
On the subject that the victim never received a trial, nor does any murder victim, that does not mean anyone charged with murder must go straight to jail without a trial.”
Do you think that if the event hadn't been filmed, there would be a trial?
Originally Posted by Pull2Open:
“If convicted, i don't think it'll be murder, too many loopholes. In particular, regardless of the 8 shots I'm sure a jury will believe that there was no intent to kill. He certainly needs locking up though unless there are factors not recorded on the film that mitigate.”
“If convicted, i don't think it'll be murder, too many loopholes. In particular, regardless of the 8 shots I'm sure a jury will believe that there was no intent to kill. He certainly needs locking up though unless there are factors not recorded on the film that mitigate.”
He could actually face the death penalty if convicted, as South Carolina is not one of those states which has abolished it.
Although there might be a plea bargain - who knows.
Originally Posted by lemoncurd:
“I'm not sure you can expect to fire a gun at someone's torso once, let alone eight times, and expect anything other than death. The officer knew, without a shadow of a doubt, what unloading a clip on someone would do.”
“I'm not sure you can expect to fire a gun at someone's torso once, let alone eight times, and expect anything other than death. The officer knew, without a shadow of a doubt, what unloading a clip on someone would do.”
They are trained to do that, 3 points that need to be ignored;
How many shots were fired
That he was handcuffed
That he didn't administer first aid
These are all present in every police shooting and is what they are trained to do, those will more than likely not be considered when the verdict comes in. For the record I personally think that's stupid, but that's America for you.
I do however agree with the original poster that he will be found guilty of manslaughter (or something similar) and not murder.
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Do you think that if the event hadn't been filmed, there would be a trial?”
“Do you think that if the event hadn't been filmed, there would be a trial?”
Unlikely no, hence why I'm thankful police don't carry guns in this country.
This is really worriying, and not just race relations wise, but general police conduct; it blows my mind that the officer planted the taser beside the victim and then lied. I wonder what happens when there is no video.
Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“They are trained to do that, 3 points that need to be ignored;
How many shots were fired
That he was handcuffed
That he didn't administer first aid
These are all present in every police shooting and is what they are trained to do, those will more than likely not be considered when the verdict comes in. For the record I personally think that's stupid, but that's America for you.
I do however agree with the original poster that he will be found guilty of manslaughter (or something similar) and not murder.”
“They are trained to do that, 3 points that need to be ignored;
How many shots were fired
That he was handcuffed
That he didn't administer first aid
These are all present in every police shooting and is what they are trained to do, those will more than likely not be considered when the verdict comes in. For the record I personally think that's stupid, but that's America for you.
I do however agree with the original poster that he will be found guilty of manslaughter (or something similar) and not murder.”
On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion?
link
Quote:
“Degrees of murder in the United States[edit]
States have adopted several different schemes for classifying murders by degree. The most common separates murder into two degrees, and treats voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as separate crimes that do not constitute murder.
First-degree murder is any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder is typically first-degree.[6] The definition of 1st-degree murder is similar under Canadian law.
Second-degree murder is an intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned in advance.[7]
Voluntary manslaughter (also referred to as third-degree murder), sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[8]
Involuntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter (see also vehicular homicide, causing death by dangerous driving, gross negligence manslaughter and causing death by criminal negligence for international equivalents). Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional", because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.[9]
The Model Penal Code classifies homicides differently, without degrees. Under it, murder is any killing committed purposefully and knowingly, manslaughter is any killing committed as a result of recklessness, and negligent homicide is any killing resulting from negligence.[10]”
“Degrees of murder in the United States[edit]
States have adopted several different schemes for classifying murders by degree. The most common separates murder into two degrees, and treats voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as separate crimes that do not constitute murder.
First-degree murder is any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder is typically first-degree.[6] The definition of 1st-degree murder is similar under Canadian law.
Second-degree murder is an intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned in advance.[7]
Voluntary manslaughter (also referred to as third-degree murder), sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[8]
Involuntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter (see also vehicular homicide, causing death by dangerous driving, gross negligence manslaughter and causing death by criminal negligence for international equivalents). Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional", because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.[9]
The Model Penal Code classifies homicides differently, without degrees. Under it, murder is any killing committed purposefully and knowingly, manslaughter is any killing committed as a result of recklessness, and negligent homicide is any killing resulting from negligence.[10]”
Slager has been charged with first degree murder. Why should it be downgraded to manslaughter?
Originally Posted by Anachrony:
“Then why didn't his victim get one, and why don't you care?”
“Then why didn't his victim get one, and why don't you care?”
Not really sure what point you're trying to make there.
Nobody who's murdered gets a "trial". That's kinda what makes it a murder.
I assume you'd want those 14,000 people to get some kind of opportunity to explain themselves, right?
Originally Posted by idlewilde:
“The "eight times" really is a non-issue people, and shouldn't be used to try and over-villify the shooting, justified or not.”
“The "eight times" really is a non-issue people, and shouldn't be used to try and over-villify the shooting, justified or not.”
Exactly.
The first shot was calculated murder. The other seven were just to ensure the blood drained more quickly.
Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“Unlikely no, hence why I'm thankful police don't carry guns in this country.”
“Unlikely no, hence why I'm thankful police don't carry guns in this country.”
Let me re-phrase that for you:-
"Exceedingly unlikely, hence why I'm thankful that some public spirited citizen did so"
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“He could actually face the death penalty if convicted, as South Carolina is not one of those states which has abolished it.
Although there might be a plea bargain - who knows.”
“He could actually face the death penalty if convicted, as South Carolina is not one of those states which has abolished it.
Although there might be a plea bargain - who knows.”
I think the DP in this case is almost certainly impossible. You need one of 12 aggravating circumstances in the state and I doubt this would fit even if a murder conviction is obtained.
And of course there is one almighty mitigating one. The state put the gun into the cop's hand.
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Slager has been charged with first degree murder. Why should it be downgraded to manslaughter?”
“Slager has been charged with first degree murder. Why should it be downgraded to manslaughter?”
Frequently is. Depending on how much of a fight the state is up for. Also depends in which direction voters are heading. State prosecutors are, of course, elected.
And a jury may be given that option.
Originally Posted by lemoncurd:
“Exactly.
The first shot was calculated murder. The other seven were just to ensure the blood drained more quickly.”
“Exactly.
The first shot was calculated murder. The other seven were just to ensure the blood drained more quickly.”
A very grim lol if you see what I mean.
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion?
link
Slager has been charged with first degree murder. Why should it be downgraded to manslaughter?”
“On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion?
link
Slager has been charged with first degree murder. Why should it be downgraded to manslaughter?”
Must say, I sometimes think these cases are deliberately conceived with a bias toward failure.
I mean, when a judge can impose a 30 year sentence for manslaughter (which, theoretically, should be something of a slam-dunk), what's the actual motivation to press for a murder conviction, especially 1st degree?
In a case like this the prosecution is going to have a hard time providing proof of intent which may be enough to convince a jury that he isn't guilty of the offence he's been charged with.
If, OTOH, they'd gone with a voluntary manslaughter charge, none of that would need to be proven.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“I think the DP in this case is almost certainly impossible. You need one of 12 aggravating circumstances in the state and I doubt this would fit even if a murder conviction is obtained.
And of course there is one almighty mitigating one. The state put the gun into the cop's hand.”
“I think the DP in this case is almost certainly impossible. You need one of 12 aggravating circumstances in the state and I doubt this would fit even if a murder conviction is obtained.
And of course there is one almighty mitigating one. The state put the gun into the cop's hand.”
Yes, you're right - the South Carolina law on murder can be seen here
It doesn't look as though Slager fits any of the aggravating circumstances.
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“Must say, I sometimes think these cases are deliberately conceived with a bias toward failure.
I mean, when a judge can impose a 30 year sentence for manslaughter (which, theoretically, should be something of a slam-dunk), what's the actual motivation to press for a murder conviction, especially 1st degree?
In a case like this the prosecution is going to have a hard time providing proof of intent which may be enough to convince a jury that he isn't guilty of the offence he's been charged with.
If, OTOH, they'd gone with a voluntary manslaughter charge, none of that would need to be proven.”
“Must say, I sometimes think these cases are deliberately conceived with a bias toward failure.
I mean, when a judge can impose a 30 year sentence for manslaughter (which, theoretically, should be something of a slam-dunk), what's the actual motivation to press for a murder conviction, especially 1st degree?
In a case like this the prosecution is going to have a hard time providing proof of intent which may be enough to convince a jury that he isn't guilty of the offence he's been charged with.
If, OTOH, they'd gone with a voluntary manslaughter charge, none of that would need to be proven.”
Couldn't have put it better myself, spot on.
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“Must say, I sometimes think these cases are deliberately conceived with a bias toward failure.
I mean, when a judge can impose a 30 year sentence for manslaughter (which, theoretically, should be something of a slam-dunk), what's the actual motivation to press for a murder conviction, especially 1st degree?
In a case like this the prosecution is going to have a hard time providing proof of intent which may be enough to convince a jury that he isn't guilty of the offence he's been charged with.
If, OTOH, they'd gone with a voluntary manslaughter charge, none of that would need to be proven.”
“Must say, I sometimes think these cases are deliberately conceived with a bias toward failure.
I mean, when a judge can impose a 30 year sentence for manslaughter (which, theoretically, should be something of a slam-dunk), what's the actual motivation to press for a murder conviction, especially 1st degree?
In a case like this the prosecution is going to have a hard time providing proof of intent which may be enough to convince a jury that he isn't guilty of the offence he's been charged with.
If, OTOH, they'd gone with a voluntary manslaughter charge, none of that would need to be proven.”
I'm not sure they can impose 30 years for manslaughter. I found this:-
Quote:
“Offense Mandatory sentencing[14]
Involuntary Manslaughter Fine or up to 8 years imprisonment[15]
Voluntary Manslaughter Fine or up to 15 years imprisonment[16]
Second degree murder Term of years to life[17]
First degree murder Life imprisonment or death sentence[18]”
“Offense Mandatory sentencing[14]
Involuntary Manslaughter Fine or up to 8 years imprisonment[15]
Voluntary Manslaughter Fine or up to 15 years imprisonment[16]
Second degree murder Term of years to life[17]
First degree murder Life imprisonment or death sentence[18]”
Anyway, I'm sure we'll all follow the case with interest when it comes to trial.
Slager is being held in protective custody.
link
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“I'm not sure they can impose 30 years for manslaughter. I found this:-
Anyway, I'm sure we'll all follow the case with interest when it comes to trial.
I'm assuming Slager hasn't been granted bail - does anybody know?”
“I'm not sure they can impose 30 years for manslaughter. I found this:-
Anyway, I'm sure we'll all follow the case with interest when it comes to trial.
I'm assuming Slager hasn't been granted bail - does anybody know?”
No idea what the law is in South Carolina (?) TBH.
I just recall somebody telling me that you can get 30 years for manslaughter in the USA so it's often a bit pointless going to the murder charge.
Course, there's always the risk that the judge will actually sentence him to 2 years or something, I suppose.
Still, that'd be better than a failed murder prosecution, followed by the subsequent civil suit where the cop sues for compo' due to lost earnings and damage to reputation etc.
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“No idea what the law is in South Carolina (?) TBH.
I just recall somebody telling me that you can get 30 years for manslaughter in the USA so it's often a bit pointless going to the murder charge.
Course, there's always the risk that the judge will actually sentence him to 2 years or something, I suppose.
Still, that'd be better than a failed murder prosecution, followed by the subsequent civil suit where the cop sues for compo' due to lost earnings and damage to reputation etc.”
“No idea what the law is in South Carolina (?) TBH.
I just recall somebody telling me that you can get 30 years for manslaughter in the USA so it's often a bit pointless going to the murder charge.
Course, there's always the risk that the judge will actually sentence him to 2 years or something, I suppose.
Still, that'd be better than a failed murder prosecution, followed by the subsequent civil suit where the cop sues for compo' due to lost earnings and damage to reputation etc.”
Well, we'll see in due course. I don't really think we can accurately predict precisely what course it will take, at this stage. No doubt there will be heavy pressure from both sides of the argument.
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“Not really sure what point you're trying to make there.”
“Not really sure what point you're trying to make there.”
Most murder victims are not killed by instruments of the justice system. The police officer is a government employee meant to uphold justice, but he decided on a summary, extra-judicial execution of a non-violent offender instead. This case is not just some random killing, it's the justice system itself gone haywire. The state has more culpability here than in a typical murder, yet a clear history of showing leniency in similar cases. If you care so much about preserving the proper forms of law and order, then you really need to care about law and order not being flouted by the people meant to administer it. The possibility of the state getting away with yet another murder of one of it's citizens should be far more concerning to you than the possibility that somehow this guy who did shoot and kill someone for no reason is "innocent" on a technicality but suffers poor public relations.
The point is that the poster's priorities are demented. He cares too much about blatant murderers who are caught dead to rights in plain sight and hiding behind government corruption, and not enough about innocent victims.
Without public scrutiny, this trial would never have happened, and without ongoing scrutiny it could fade away at any point in the process, like it has so many times before. Police have gotten away with countless killings like this one and hardly ever face any legal consequences. Some people are far too concerned about the media attention possibly making the trial unfair for the murderer, when the media attention is the only reason that there even is a fair trial. Given the circumstances and the context, they should far be more concerned about a lack of attention making it unfair for the victim.
Nobody ever said there won't be a trial. It's a strawman argument creating a false dichotomy between having a trial and media attention. We don't have to choose just one. Media attention and a fair trial can coexist, and in a case like this, a trial with media attention is the only way it will be fair. There will be a trial now, but only because of the media.
14 of 25
