South Carolina cop charged with murder in shooting

I wouldn't go with the death penalty in this case—even if the law allowed it—because it isn't like the cop pulled the guy over just to shoot him, mainly this wasn't exactly premeditated. His lawyers could argue it was in the heat of the moment. What I do want to see is charges for that second officer on the scene who was standing there when the cop dropped the taser by the body. Based on the newspaper's accounting of it (posted on the first page), the police were going with the narrative that the guy was going for the officer's taser probably because the weapon was by the body. That second cop either a) saw the taser had suddenly appeared after he checked the body or b) saw the taser be planted. Then he was complicit in the narrative he knew to be false.

 

There should also be an investigation as to why the two cops didn't even attempt CPR, leaving the guy face down with his hands cuffed behind his back.

Apparently it's protocol to handcuff suspects who have already been shot. Jesus.

Walter Scott shooting: Why did Michael Thomas Slager cuff the victim?

 

The guy who was shot is the real racist.

 

He shot the guy in the back after a scuffle. He's guilty as sin. But this wasn't a pre-meditated, first-degree murder. Most likely second-degree considering the officer probably has a heat-of-the-moment defense. But I would definitely say go for second-degree and go for the max on that.

 

Shot in the back
You're to blame
You give cops
A bad name

 

Heat of the moment seems a bad defense strategy seeing as the guy was, you know, running away from the officer, not toward him.

 

Heat of the moment as opposed to premeditated or at least absent the chance to fully consider his actions (even by his own doing). Basically, OT is saying first degree murder would be extremely hard to prove. Second degree would be easier because you don't really need to prove premeditation just that his actions were intended to cause the death of the individual (or at least he should have known his actions could easily lead to the death of the man).

 

If the jury doesn't come back with anything other than "we find this guy exceptionally guilty," something's wrong.

 

Must-see Court TV:
Slager: "At that point, I was fearing for my life."
Prosecutor: "But Mr. Scott was running away from you."
Slager: "Yes. It was terrifying."

 

Once you get past the belief that the video makes a verdict automatic, it isn't that difficult to see gray area. And we have history that a video doesn't make a verdict automatic.

They'll make a lot of hay in court by discussing the officer's version (a.k.a. the only known version) of the confrontation at the car, which began before the video started. Don't know if it will be enough to get him off, but I think this one will end up a lot closer than all logic suggests it should be.

 

I'm not going to watch the video (no matter how newsworthy, snuff films don't do much for me) but is there any chance that the guy who got shot was running toward something -- like, say, a kid or two -- that led the officer to believe he had to shoot him? I mean, unless there's a hint of something like that, I don't see how you could even piece together an argument to acquit.

 

Also curious as to what the cop went back and picked up. Was it his taser?