Jurors Unable to Agree in Trial of South Carolina Officer Who Shot Walter Scott

Ever heard of voir dire?

 

How is it double jeopardy?

 

..............because there was one juror who has the same mind-set as you.

- - - Updated - - -

Really give me the time in the video when that happened.

 

When a mistrial occurs there's no double jeopardy. Slager can be tried again. Not only that Slager is facing federal charges, and still has that trial to go through.

 

There are certainly circumstances when the officer can use deadly force on a fleeing suspect even if that suspect is unarmed. Yes they do get to make that split decision on the scene, it's called color of law.

 

There's been no jury verdict yet, it can be retired which I think has already been filed.

 

Can you give us an example when a cop can shoot a fleeing unarmed man in the back and then try and plant evidence on him.

 

It appears he knocks the stun gun out of the officer's hand does it not?

The guy has been pulled over and tries to flee the scene which gives a reason to believe this guy knows if his license is run it's gonna turn up something. Then when confronted with the non-lethal force, the stun gun , either submit to the arrest or be stunned, he assaults the officer knocking away the non-lethal force. This ramps up the "why is this guying fleeing and now resisting arrest and now assaulting the office knocking the non-lethal force out of the officers hand leaving him with just his lethal force with a suspect he now has every reason to is in serious trouble, a fleeing criminal who has just committed a felony assault and is NOT going to be taken and this presents a dangerous situation for the public and other officers if he is not taken down.

So I still wonder what is the officer to do, and what responsibility for his demise is that of victim?

Why did the guy flee in the first place and then assault the office and flee again? Is the officer just supposed to let him go?

- - - Updated - - -

Tell you what, ask again but stop when you get to "back".

 

Mr. Scott knew if he ran the cop would not shoot.

 

Has it ever been determined why he ran, did he have outstandings? Had he in fact committed a crime he may have thought the officer was aware he was wanted for?

 

he was behind on his child support payments. I don't guess he won't about paying them anymore.

As far as color of law goes just because something is done with the "color of law" does not mean that the action was lawful.

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW


Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

 

Stupid is as stupid does....still have to wonder if didn't have other fears of the criminal justice system.

It was ask how they get to make those split second decisions and take actions a private citizen cannot, it was answered.

 

.............and he turns and runs away so that justifies the officer shooting him in the back and then planting the stun gun next to his dead body.

Assaulted the officer, wow.

You have only given your opinion, not one example of where the law justifies this officer shooting this man in the back several times when he clearly was not in any danger.

I wonder why you have not stated any case law to back up your assertions only your opinion which don't count in a Court of Law.

 

The good news is he is finally supporting his children.

 

Weak. Is that the best u can come up with.

 

Black people get removed from jury duty a heck of a lot more. There even have been mistrials because people admitted to pick the jury by race.

Neah... this trial proves white privilege. lol
You can't miss it.

 

Don't hit them with the truth, it hurts too bad.

 

Ask again stopping at the word "back".............

Yes WOW, stupid thing to do don't you think?

You are trying to claim that under no circumstance can a police officer shoot at a fleeing suspect. You already know that is patently false.

Again was he just supposed to let him run away?

 

It seems totally obvious that shooting 8 rounds at an unarmed person fleeing away, is giving your all to execute that person. So you can ask again and again what should the cop have done instead,... well the answer is: this no doubt aint it. Hence he got fired, and it's just totally a white privilege kangaroo court rivaling the best of banana republics that he aint in jail.

 

Sorry, you can't change what actually happened.

Yes, if he actually did it.

We are talking about this circumstance, with that said was this officer justified in killing Mr. Scott?

 

It is simply a matter of holding another trial. With 11 for guilty that is the obvious route to go. At this point the Justice Department isn't necessary and this wasn't a federal crime anyway for which there is no reason for the Justice Department to ever become involved.

The state can put him on trial over and over and over until there is an innocent or guilty verdict. This is not a federal issue.

 

Have any cases in the last decade? I agree that dismissal without cause should be removed as it is abused by attorneys, it goes much further than race and includes gender, education, religious belief and economic status. I know it's fun to be the eternal victim but the issue is systemic and you distract from the widespread abuse by screaming rassistsss.

Even the civil rights attorney said that many cases against police often end in mistrials and acquittals, not tied to race: " The fact that out of 12 people you would find one person so prejudiced in favor of police is saddening, not shocking, because I know that kind of prejudice in favor of police is out there.”

Mandatory jury duty is white privilege, wow thats a low bar.
Keep stroking those flames

The cop will be convicted - even though lethal force is authorized if you touch an officers weapon force should not be used if someone is not a direct danger to someone. I have seen no evidence that the shooting was racially motivated.

 

Timothy Foster death sentence got over turned this year due to a racist jury selection.

Since black people are removed from the jury far more often,.. like 3 times the rate, compared to white people... than you can complain all you want about "racssistss", but it just is.

Yeah I guess you need to see a nazi salut first. In the end, the statistics remain that unarmed black people are killed far more often than white people. It's just like black people are struck out of jury duty far more often than white people. Those statistics mean it is white privilege in your face. It's just exceptionally obvious that it is. Is this cop part of that? There is no reason to think this is not the case. How about that?

 

Just because someone is unarmed does not mean they posed no threat. If you go after an officers service weapon you should be prepared to die. Looking at violent crime statistics, especially murder, black men percapita outnumber all other races combined while representing 6.8 percent of the popukation.

According to FBI data, 40 percent of cop killers are blackA police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black than a cop killing an "unarmed" black person.

I'm not saying police are not hyper aware when dealing with a black man with his pants around his knees refusing to obey a lawful order - I'm saying they would be stupid not to be. Y'all killing them at every opportunity will surely help...

And your narrative about "white privilege" is absurd as your stats fail with Asians, it fails with American Indians, Indians, Hispanics, and all 50+ variations of Caucasians. It's more like "black repercussions" for actions committed disproportionately by the community.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because someone is unarmed does not mean they posed no threat. If you go after an officers service weapon you should be prepared to die. Looking at violent crime statistics, especially murder, black men percapita outnumber all other races combined while representing 6.8 percent of the popukation.

According to FBI data, 40 percent of cop killers are blackA police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black than a cop killing an "unarmed" black person.

I'm not saying police are not hyper aware when dealing with a black man with his pants around his knees refusing to obey a lawful order - I'm saying they would be stupid not to be. Y'all killing them at every opportunity will surely help...

And your narrative about "white privilege" is absurd as your stats fail with Asians, it fails with American Indians, Indians, Hispanics, and all 50+ variations of Caucasians. It's more like "black repercussions" for actions committed disproportionately by the community.

 

For this case, these statistics are totally worthless, buddy.
Everybody can see that there was a good distance between the black victim and the white cop. And the white cop just executed him in cold blood from behind. To than plan evidence next at the body. Takes a special person to still stand fully behind this crooked cop, parroting the version of what the cop claimed what happened.... eventhough video evidence shows the cop is flat out lying.

Oh right. Only the statistics where black people come out negative are right.
But when white people come out negative, proving white privilege is real, you call it BS.
Now that is white privilege right there as well. lol