Slager trial

[Hawkmoon]

If another trial is scheduled, if I were the police officer, I'd sue claiming my civil rights are being violated.

On what basis? A mistrial is not a finding of "Not Guilty" -- it's a non-trial, akin to a marriage that has been annulled is not a marriage. A second trial after a mistrial is not double jeopardy.

[roo_ster]

Not in the real world can he bail out. In fact that point was addressed in testimony. Again the prosecution brought it up

What do you imagine the consequences to be if a LEO decides he'd rather not:
1. Cite a driver for a traffic violation?
2. Chase a suspect seen to commit a felony whilst LEO is on patrol?
3. Follow an order to execute a completely lawful search warrant, but rather sit this one out?

We are not talking military police, enlisted or commissioned, but civilian LEOs.

Context:

And a non Leo is not dispatched to get someone. He does not have the option of passing on getting someone

How does Mr. Civilian LEO not have the option to do nothing?

Seems to me that the whole "Ferguson Effect" is based on LEOs deciding to do less (or nothing in many particular cases).  So what were the consequences to the LEOs who, since Ferguson, decided to pass on getting goblins like they did in the past?

=======================

In the Slager/Scott case, I am less and less inclined to think Slager should be convicted or even charged.  More data has that effect this time around.  Prosecutors need to show some scrote and tell the politicos to hang when the facts of the case are so skewed.  A lot harder nowadays to polish turd cases into political gold, what with the internet and all.

But Slager, like Zimmerman, had options.  He could have ignored the traffic violation and kept driving.  He could have let Scott go and disengaged when Scott decided to pull his BLdM card.  After Slager and Scott got into it hot & heavy, disengagement is less viable.

Of course, getting involved with miscreants is why his fellow citizens pay Slager, so I imagine that were Slager or another LEO to not engage often enough and flagrantly enough, the citizens of his gov't entity might decide to stop paying him and invite him to find employment elsewhere.  Might take a while, though, if the local LEO union is muscular.  That (firing) is the ultimate consequence for a LEO who sits on his hands.  Not a UCMJ court martial, not a battlefield summary execution, and not the Long Course at Ft Leavenworth.  

More interesting stuff
Foreman's felony charges dismissed during trial?
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/during-michael-slager-trial-prosecutors-dropped-north-charleston-police-charge/article_7474d824-bd47-11e6-adca-fb6eb1c2f525.html

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

For the love of Pete.  How is it that these prosecutors end up diddling a goat on Main Street at noontime on these cases?

I guess we ought to get smart and bet on Narrative Collapse in every case. 

The specter of Narrative Collapse hovers over all these kinds of incidents now. The Narrative favored and promoted by black race activists and Main Stream Media Goodwhites is of heartless white authority figures doing violence against helpless, harmless blacks. The MSM do everything they can to reinforce that narrative. That’s why the most-publicized photograph of Trayvon Martin, who was 17 years old when George Zimmerman shot him in 2012, was one taken when he was twelve years old.

In all too many case, that initial MSM Narrative collapses when all the details come in.

Ayup.

[230RN]

Without quoting roo_ster, I've been sitting on the side, smelling a Zimmermangate here. Overaggressive prosecutor?

Critical to me is whether or not the Officer knew of Scott's past when he stopped him on the tail light.  Is there a record of his conversation with the dispatcher?

So I await.  I also suspect Slater Slager (oops) could use a better defense attorney.

Terry

[makattak]

Without quoting roo_ster, I've been sitting on the side, smelling a Zimmermangate here. Overaggressive prosecutor?

Critical to me is whether or not the Officer knew of Scott's past when he stopped him on the tail light.  Is there a record of his conversation with the dispatcher?

So I await.  I also suspect Slater could use a better defense attorney.

Terry

Man,  the cops are so bad they got Slater involved,  too? The poor guy is on the other coast!

[Hawkmoon]

What do you imagine the consequences to be if a LEO decides he'd rather not:
1. Cite a driver for a traffic violation? Happens all the time. Generally no consequences.
2. Chase a suspect seen to commit a felony whilst LEO is on patrol? Has been known to happen. Consequences unknown (to me).
3. Follow an order to execute a completely lawful search warrant, but rather sit this one out? This would almost certainly result in disciplinary action.

[roo_ster]

What sort of disciplinary action?  Are we talking administrative punishment or will the leo be charged with a crime?

[Hawkmoon]

What sort of disciplinary action?  Are we talking administrative punishment or will the leo be charged with a crime?

That probably depends on a lot of factors, including the officer's prior disciplinary history, and whether or not refusing to serve a warrant is a crime in that particular state.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

A cop who got in a tussle then wimped out rather than keep after it would not be a street cop long. You are expected to get it done or get gone. Not allowed to call in an air strike either. Unless you are in philly


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

A cop who got in a tussle then wimped out rather than keep after it would not be a street cop long. You are expected to get it done or get gone. Not allowed to call in an air strike either. Unless you are in philly


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Citation needed.

I have known several "street" cops that were lazy sacks of sham rolled p in a soup sandwich.

Like every other profession you have good ones and shammers.

[De Selby]

A cop who got in a tussle then wimped out rather than keep after it would not be a street cop long. You are expected to get it done or get gone. Not allowed to call in an air strike either. Unless you are in philly


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Get it done does not mean take careful aim and now down the running man.

This thread is like an anti blm thread.  In the same way they get more worked up convinced every shooting is wrong when the victim is black, APS piles on to support the shooter.

It is racial politics at play, not sensible thought to the matter.

The idea that you can just be shot because you fought with a cop is crazy.  The founders would've hung the Boston massacre shooters if they'd taken aim at a running man and fired.

[dogmush]

"APS" does not pile on and support the shooter.  We had, in the initial thread and here, a mix of views.  I myself am not ready to call it a good shoot, but I'll admit I haven't read enough of the facts to tell either way.  It could go either way.

That said, this thread is a pretty good view of what this community, minus you and a couple others, tend to do when looking at shoots in the court.  Try and look at all the facts presented, research applicable laws (not what we'd like or how it "should" be) and do our best to apply those laws to the facts as presented after an investigation.  It's how, as a community, we knew Zimmerman would be acquitted despite making poor choices.  We actually have some pretty sharp legal minds on here that do a good job finding and sourcing the actual laws and how they are normally applied. (For some reason you, the lawyer, aren't one of them.)

Many of us here have vocally supported the idea that current use of force laws as applied to police in the US aren't ideal, and in many cases need some pretty big changes.  It doesn't make us racist to accurately predict how the law, as written, should be applied.  It doesn't even make the folks on here that support the law as written racist.  (It mike make them pro government stooges, but that's a different thread)

As is typical, you are the one playing racial politics, and accusing others of it.  I know I am not alone in being sick and tired of being accused of Racism by those that are exhbiting it themselves, but I'm going to be the one this time that calls you on it.

You owe this forum an apology. 

[Boomhauer]

Get it done does not mean take careful aim and now down the running man.

This thread is like an anti blm thread.  In the same way they get more worked up convinced every shooting is wrong when the victim is black, APS piles on to support the shooter.

It is racial politics at play, not sensible thought to the matter.

The idea that you can just be shot because you fought with a cop is crazy.  The founders would've hung the Boston massacre shooters if they'd taken aim at a running man and fired.

You are so full of *expletive deleted*ing *expletive deleted*it, per the normal.

I clearly remember little to no support for Slager here based on the initial reports. There still isn't a lot of support for him here at all, for the most part it's more of "well it looks like he possibly could have been in the law after all now that the facts are coming out. Then you call whites in the south a bunch of racists who are cheering on black people getting killed.

All you do on this forum is come here to pick fights and spout a bunch of goddamn bullshit like it's the gospel truth. And when somebody doesn't agree with you you then scream about it. When you post in non political threads you're like a normal person. When it turns to politics you turn into this guy

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Get it done does not mean take careful aim and now down the running man.

This thread is like an anti blm thread.  In the same way they get more worked up convinced every shooting is wrong when the victim is black, APS piles on to support the shooter.

It is racial politics at play, not sensible thought to the matter.

The idea that you can just be shot because you fought with a cop is crazy.  The founders would've hung the Boston massacre shooters if they'd taken aim at a running man and fired.

Denial is not a river in egypt
This case illustrates that you can, in fact get shot for refusing a lawful arrest with violence, and that taking a cops taser does not improve your position.
Heck a jury who looked at all the facts could not even convict for manslaughter


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Interesting source as well as perspective
It's a conspiracy
http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/12/felony-charge-dropped-for-jury-foreman-as-he-served-on-michael-slager-trial/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Jocassee]

Interesting source as well as perspective
It's a conspiracy
http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/12/felony-charge-dropped-for-jury-foreman-as-he-served-on-michael-slager-trial/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, justice is not likely to come forth, and after finding out that Montgomery had a felony charge against him mysteriously dropped during the trial, it appears that there may be more at play than the public is aware of.

This sentence is fascinating to me. It's like they know something really weird is up but they don't know what and they're afraid to ask.

I'm willing to entertain that it might be somethin', might be nuthin', but I wish the professional question-askers would at least ask some damn questions.

[Hawkmoon]

This thread is like an anti blm thread.  In the same way they get more worked up convinced every shooting is wrong when the victim is black, APS piles on to support the shooter.

It is racial politics at play, not sensible thought to the matter.

There are a lot of good reasons to be anti-BLM, but this thread isn't that. "APS piles on to support the shooter"? Where in this thread do you see "piling on"? What I see is a lot of discussion that goes both ways, and people wrestling with trying to balance what the very fuzzy and imcomplete video shows against other facts that seem to be leaking out over time.

Has it escaped your notice that the one black man on the jury (even after having the prosecution drop felony charges against him for no explicable reason) was NOT in favor of convicting the cop for murder? In other words, the prosecution couldn't even BUY the vote of the only black man on the jury. That should suggest to you that perhaps you are missing something in your rush to pronounce judgment.