Another fatal police shootin
 

Here we go again. With the video there appears to be very little wriggle room for the officer.

On one hand I have sympathy for the officer. You are the law and should be obeyed if you tell someone to stop. By running away the fugitive is not only trying to escape but is also directly challenging the officers authority which can, human nature being what it is, make him become angry and over-react. I understand that.

But on the other hand, why fire to kill? Why not shoot for the legs or very least waist down. Why the head? If you can hit his head you can hit his legs.

As the article states the Supreme court has ruled that the law can shoot to kill a fleeing suspect only if he or she is a threat to the officer or those in the immediate area.

I think in SA our police are under similar legislation with a proviso that they have to fire a warning shot first.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us...=top-news&_r=1

Excessive force may well be viewed as a massive understatement...it certainly doesn't look good for the police officer.

No cop should ever attempt something like that. Guns are for killing, not incapacitating. Also most cops are trained to shoot the body not the head; hitting the legs of a running target at distance is a tough shot, and your risk having your rounds ricochet off the ground and possibly hitting someone else.

Frankly I hope they throw the book at this officer. He had absolutely no justification to shoot that man.

Warning shots are a bad idea written by stupid politicians. There is the strong risk you can injure someone else with a warning shot, even if you fire into the air (the bullet will eventually come back down). Also people are even more likely to flee in panic or shoot back when they hear shots.

Yes. And a few things strike one on viewing the video. One the fugitive is overweight while the officer appears in good shape. So why not holster your gun and chase him calling for back up. As it appears in the video another officer soon appeared in the direction to which the fugitive was running to.

Secondly, it appears it was a park like area with a fence running around it. Not much of a chance for an over weight guy clearing that in a hurry with a police officer on his tail. In fact, no built up area it seems, so little place to run and hide.

Do they have the death penalty in SC?
Well, doesn't matter, no cop would ever end there, even after such video footage.

I am the first to defend cops in the line of duty, it is a risky job, especially today and you'll never know. But... what the hell!?
He mowed him down like nothing, for nothing.

Good job officer! :/\\!!

why chase at all? its a traffic stop and there were no outstanding warrants against the victim.

The officer was not in danger so he cant claim self- defence.

Unless there are facts we don't know, it is a clear case of murder.

This is what disturbs me from the video as the officer claimed the suspect had his stun gun.

Right at the start you see something thrown behind the officer which I think is the is taser he used to try to incapicate the suspect who started to run off.
Then after the suspect is down after being shot the officer runs back to where they started out in the video picks up something and walks back dropping it next to the body of the suspect.

If that's the taser..... then it's very disturbing to what this officer was trying to achieve. :nope:

Murder is by its very nature disturbing no matter who did it or how they went about it. Based on the information we have so far it may be fair to say authorities are not circling the wagons around one of their own. Instead they are I think taking a step in the right direction by coming right out and charging the shooter with murder.

Quite right. The police, having charged the officer with murder have done the right thing. Not only is is the right action to take but it also cuts the ground out from any misfits hoping to get mileage out of this for their own dubious gains.


first degree murder
n. although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or with certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder are established by statute in each state and by the United States Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill."

So would I be correct in my thinking that he will face a first degree charge? His intent was surely to kill - you don't aim for a persons head and try claim you had no intention to kill them.

Did read an article saying bond was denied and if convicted the shooter could face the death penalty or a term of 30 years to life in prison.

I'd say it'd be very difficult to prove that the cop actually aimed for the victims head. That's an Annie Oakley type of shot that most people, including cops don't have the skill to pull off. He most likely just aimed for center mass and that's where one of the rounds happened to land.

I don't see how you could justify 1st degree murder, this does not fit the criteria of premeditated which requires advance planning.

More likely it is 2nd degree murder, namely intentional killing in the heat of the action. Note that murder does not require the person to deliberately want to kill, if you commit an act which you know can cause death (i.e. 8 shots to the back) and are indifferent to the consequences, that will also constitute murder. That is the common law definition anyway, I do not know what S.C. law provides.

If first degree murder is based solely on the premise of premeditated then yes you would be correct. But is it? I see there are different definitions of it in as many States. As per the quote I posted:

So my understanding would be the concept of "first degree" does appear to come with varying degrees of legal provisos. If "premeditation" is not an overriding condition but simply one of - then the officer is in serious trouble. If too, as the video seems to show, is that after killing the suspect he goes back to pick up the taser and then walks back to the body and drops it alongside - those actions, though after the incident are definitely premeditated to impact on outcome.

The question of "the intention to kill" is one that prosecutors and defence teams the world over fight over daily in the courts in order to secure conviction or release.

Firing 8 bullets at a man running away from you can that be considered intention to kill? Given the area that the bullets hit the deceased. Whether one is a marksman or not, a bullet only hits the persons head if you pointed your gun at it.

A case on the ultimate culpability in taking another human life through ones own deliberate actions is the recent case here in SA of Oscar Pistorious. The prosecutors wanted a murder verdict based on the argument that any reasonable person would have foreseen that firing 4 shots into an enclosed toilet door at someone you know was hiding behind could have resulted in death.

The judge handed down a verdict of culpable homicide (the illegal killing of a person with or without intention)

The prosecutors to the Oscar Pistorious case have won their appeal on the judges verdict and may now take it to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

If I was a member of the jury hearing Michael T. Slager's charge I do not think I would be able, given the evidence so far presented, not believe he fired his weapon with the intention to kill.

I found the S.C. Act:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

They don't have degrees of murder, just:

-murder;
-manslaughter;
-involontary manslaughter;

murder is defined as:

which basically brings it back to the English common law notion.

Technically, I would think "Manslaughter" fits the facts better:

unless they can prove mr. Slager deliberately wanted to kill mr. Scott.

Which they won't but... popping a barrage of bullets into ones back is a rather obvious intention - in my books.
He can hardly defend himself saying that he was unaware of a possible deadly outcome, being a cop trained with firearms.

He will get his 2-5 years and that's it, cause he's a cop and cops are good guys, aren't they.

He ended a life like it's nothing.
I struggle to understand things like that... baffles me. :nope: