Slager trial

[Jamisjockey]

What we think is not what matters.  It's the cops perception based on what he believes at that time that counts. And ironically the prosecution provided some of the best evidence to support slager.
His perception of Scott's threat to him is different than someone watching a video

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Just because the cop thinks he was a threat, running away and all, doesn't make it right.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

From one of them
2:10 p.m. On cross-examination, 9th Circuit Scarlett Wilson had defense expert Eugene Liscio, who re-created the Walter Scott scene through 3-D imaging, measure out the distances at which Michael Slager shot at Scott, starting at 18 feet.

"Let’s go to 37 feet," Wilson said, referring to an approximate distance Scott was when the last shot was fired.

Liscio stood in the gallery seating and Wilson near the jury box, both holding an end of the measuring tape. It was the third time in the trial that the prosecution pulled out the tool.

"It doesn’t take technology to see that, correct?" Wilson said. "This is real life. This is 37 feet in real life."

But defense attorney Donald McCune had Liscio do the same display at 27 inches, the estimated distance that separated the men as Slager pulled out his gun.

"Twenty-seven inches is 27 inches, right?" McCune said.

The witness agreed.

Noon: Defense expert Eugene Liscio reiterates on cross-examination that considering the Taser's motion, it was unlikely that Michael Slager had it because the officer's arms were not in typical throwing positions in the eyewitness video. Walter Scott's right arm, meanwhile, was seen in the footage moving downward, which is more consistent with the Taser's motion.

"The physical evidence points back to it being thrown," Liscio said.

11:45 a.m. After defense expert Eugene Liscio indicated that Walter Scott likely had Michael Slager's Taser, 9th Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson pointed out that it would be important to see from the video whether anyone was actually captured getting shocked with the device.

But the eyewitness footage doesn't show it.

"If it doesn’t show it on the video," Liscio said, "then you can’t see it."

11:30 a.m. Prosecutors asked that defense expert Eugene Liscio be barred from opining about the location of Michael Slager's Taser at the end of the confrontation with Walter Scott. The prosecution's motion was denied until the judge could hear some of the testimony in question.

Liscio showed a 360-degree view of the point where Slager and Scott separate. Using computer software, he hovered over the Taser and combined that view with the bystander's video of the shooting. The motion of the Taser, which was seen bouncing behind Slager, isn't consistent with where the officer's hands were at the time the stun gun appears moving on the footage, Liscio said.

11 a.m. Jurors got a 3-D computer-generated glimpse at officer Michael Slager's perspective in the Walter Scott shooting. Crime-scene reconstruction expert Eugene Liscio showed an image that put the view in Slager's shoes, depicting him taking aim at a figure representing Scott, who is running somewhat sideways rather than straight away from Slager.

Liscio estimated the distance between the men when the first shot was fired to have been about 18 feet. A prosecution expert had estimated 17 feet.

10:30 a.m. Crime-scene reconstruction expert Eugene Liscio immersed courtroom viewers in a 3-D rendering from the spot where Michael Slager stopped Walter Scott's car to the site of the shooting. The computer technology allows observers to pick any point and view the scene from that perspective in three dimensions.

9:45 a.m. Crime-scene reconstruction expert Eugene Liscio took the stand, saying he used to work for Boeing on failure investigations.

Liscio uses various methods — including 3-D imaging, videos and still photographs — to reconstruct scenes and depicted distances involved.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/watch-first-officer-on-scene-after-michael-slager-testifies-about/article_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I found it interesting that the prosecution brought up that Scott feared going to debtors prison. I guess it was to explain why he ran.  It was the type of tactic I more typically see from the defense. In this case it seems the state felt the need to defend Scott's motive for running

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

And re tazer from above link
n."

3 p.m. Chief Deputy Solicitor Bruce DuRant cross-examined Mark Kroll, an expert on Tasers and electric shock who was hired by the defense.

DuRant, as prosecutors have done with every witness who has suggested Walter Scott could have used a Taser against Michael Slager, questioned when the device would have been effective at several feet away. Slager's Taser at that point in the confrontation with Scott would have been effective only in "drive-stun" mode, which delivers a shock in direct contact with a person.

As someone who has been shocked with a Taser before, though, Kroll said he still would have been scared of it.

"You can’t electrically shock me," he said. "It’s a psychological shock."

1:30 p.m. Mark Kroll, an expert on Tasers hired by the defense, said the stun gun delivers a shock that can burn four times hotter than the surface of the sun. That's one of the reasons, he said, that he can think of nothing else that could have caused the unique electronic burns.

"There’s really no alternate source for that heat damage," he testified. "An electric arc defect is very distinct. It burns in a certain way. I think we can exclude any other cause. There’s not anything else I can think of that could cause that damage besides the Taser electronic weapon being used against officer Slager’s shirt."

The presiding judge ordered a lunch recess until about 2:45 p.m.

12:30 p.m. SLED expert Megan Fletcher acknowledged that the small holes in Michael Slager's uniform did not look like the ones she made by using a Taser on a test shirt, though she still could not rule out a Taser as the cause of the burn marks.

"My opinion is that I cannot rule out a Taser as the cause," she said. "I can’t say it definitely did. I can’t say it definitely did not."

The defense also called its sixth witness, Mark Kroll, a biomedical scientist specializing in electrical shocks.

11:30 a.m. State Law Enforcement Division trace evidence examiner Megan Fletcher testified that she issued a report on burn marks found on Michael Slager's left uniform shirt pocket. It takes heat of about 480 degrees to melt the polyester shirt, she said.

"I was not able to rule out a Taser as a possible source of having created those melted fibers," Fletcher said. "I’m not aware of any other source that could create that kind of damage."

Fletcher said she couldn't rule out another source. But she also tested an iron, which didn't burn the shirt, and a flame, which burned the shirt but caused a color change.

Defense attorney Andy Savage suggested, flippantly, that a bizarre event could have damaged the shirt.

"There’s always a possibility that he was laying on the beach with a magnify glass?" Savage asked. "There’s always that potential of a meteor landing on the earth."

11 a.m. State Law Enforcement Division trace evidence examiner Megan Fletcher started testifying about gunshot residue, or GSR, tests done on Michael Slager and Walter Scott. She said GSR was found on Scott's right hand but not on his left hand.

GSR is made up of tiny particles of gunpowder spewed when a firearm is fired.

Fletcher said someone can get GSR on them if they're near a weapon when it's fired, when they fired a weapon, or when they touch someone who has shot a gun or the gun itself.

A prosecutor later noted on cross-examination that GSR could be transferred from one person to another by the touching of hands.

Slager handcuffed Scott after the

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

What we think is not what matters.  It's the cops perception based on what he believes at that time that counts. And ironically the prosecution provided some of the best evidence to support slager.

The bolded is not a true statement. 
What matters is what a "Reasonable Person" in the same circumstances would think.  That's a pretty important difference. If Slager had drunk the 1* kool-aid he may very well perceive a threat that other, more reasonable people would not.  If that's the case he would, correctly, face conviction.

There are circumstances I could think of that would justify the shooting in the video, however, what I've read of Slager's story (even taken at face value) doesn't justify shooting the fleeing suspect.  Were i on the Jury I'd be thinking very hard about the definition of the word imminent.

[Hawkmoon]

Just because the cop thinks he was a threat, running away and all, doesn't make it right.

Technically, it might make it at least legal, if not morally right. That's what juries are for. The "reasonable man" standard probably applies, but in this case the jury would likely be instructed to judge the officer's actions on what they think another, "reasonable" police officer would do under the same circumstances.

[Scout26]

The bolded is not a true statement. 
What matters is what a "Reasonable Person" in the same circumstances would think.  That's a pretty important difference. If Slager had drunk the 1* kool-aid he may very well perceive a threat that other, more reasonable people would not.  If that's the case he would, correctly, face conviction.

There are circumstances I could think of that would justify the shooting in the video, however, what I've read of Slager's story (even taken at face value) doesn't justify shooting the fleeing suspect.  Were i on the Jury I'd be thinking very hard about the definition of the word imminent.

I've stated up thread, that once Scott broke contact as is unarmed and not a threat to anyone, deadly force IS NO LONGER an option.  That's where Motorola comes in.  Ask the question of any (good) CCW instructor if you can shoot someone, who is unarmed, running away from you, even after going hands-on, mano-a-mano with said person.  Go ahead, I'll wait.


And I've posted this real life example a while back:

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=47901.msg975998#msg975998

[Perd Hapley]

You guys are over-thinking this. What we really need is to go out and burn some stuff, and get our loot on. Any other response would be racist.

[De Selby]

The fact that the jury is 11 to 1 at the moment tells you how credible all this tripe that's being posted is.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

11 to 1 on manslaughter the big charge was toast quick

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[zxcvbob]

11 to 1 on manslaughter the big charge was toast quick

Really?  After the defense laid out such a good case for it being premeditated?  (the taser burn)

[De Selby]

11 to 1 on manslaughter the big charge was toast quick

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Haha, where did you see manslaughter?

[Hawkmoon]

Really?  After the defense laid out such a good case for it being premeditated?  (the taser burn)

Huh?

How does the taser burn (if that's what it was) in any way indicate premeditation?

Or is this like the female prosecutor in another case, several years ago, who argued that "premeditation can be formed in an instant"? Seems the lady managed to graduate from law school without ever passing an English class. Premeditation means thought about beforehand. If you thought about it beforehand, it wasn't an idea formed in an instant. If the idea was formed in an instant (or was an instinctive reaction/reflex), then it wasn't premeditated.

[Jocassee]

Haha, where did you see manslaughter?

The State amended the charges halfway through the trial when they knew the murder charge was not going to fly.

I've stated up thread, that once Scott broke contact as is unarmed and not a threat to anyone, deadly force IS NO LONGER an option.

I don't think this was a good shoot. But I believe it was lawful.

These two guys fought for an extensive amount of time, the felon tased the officer, then tried to break contact...he made poor life choices. Slager testifed that he saw the taser pointed at him when he drew (this would have been immediately before the two men are shown in the video). If that is true, then I find it hard to find excessive fault with the officer for shooting *after an extensive engagement with the violent felon.*

[Hawkmoon]

Found this gem in one of C&SD's links:

The prosecution has argued that the distance between Slager and Scott proved that the officer's actions were premeditated. They were not in "close contact," as the officer has said.

If I were on the jury, the prosecution would have lost me right there. Sorry, but "premeditation" is a word, and words have meanings. And the "pre" part of that word means "before, in advance." Officer Slager did NOT wake up that morning and put on his uniform planning to go out on the mean streets and kill someone. There's a "yuuuge" difference between "intentional" and "premeditated."

I hate grandstanding, and I especially hate prosecutorial grandstanding.

[zxcvbob]

I don't believe premeditation can happen in an instant.  But several seconds?  I put myself in the officer's place and I think I could do it.

That Oklahoma pharmacist didn't wake up one morning planning to execute a robber.  IIRC, he's doing a life sentence.

[Hawkmoon]

I don't believe premeditation can happen in an instant.  But several seconds?  I put myself in the officer's place and I think I could do it.

Even a lag of several seconds doesn't to me come anywhere close to getting into "premeditated" territory. Intentional? Sure -- he aimed and he pulled the trigger. He clearly intended to shoot. It wasn't an "accidental" discharge. But I won't get to premeditated. To me, it was "in the heat of the moment." He had just been in a physical fight -- which, apparently, he was losing. He had apparently just been tased with his own taser. If you had just been through that experience, would you be thinking with laser clarity in the first few seconds after the taser jolt? If so, you're a better man than I am.

If I were on the jury I might lean toward the manslaughter charge, but definitely not premeditated murder.

That Oklahoma pharmacist didn't wake up one morning planning to execute a robber.  IIRC, he's doing a life sentence.

Different circumstances. He didn't shoot that perp in the heat of the moment. Ersland left the store after shooting the robber, chased after the accomplice, came back into the store, stepped over the wounded robber on the floor, went back to his counter and exchanged his gun for a different one, then went back and shot the robber again. If he had stopped after he first shot the kid, he'd have been a hero instead of a felon.

That said, was he convicted of "premeditated" murder? Or was he convicted on unlawful use of deadly force? I remember the case, and I don't remember that premeditation was part of it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-jerome-ersland-found-guilty-of-murder-in-killing-of-suspect/

http://newsok.com/article/3854619

[De Selby]

Even a lag of several seconds doesn't to me come anywhere close to getting into "premeditated" territory. Intentional? Sure -- he aimed and he pulled the trigger. He clearly intended to shoot. It wasn't an "accidental" discharge. But I won't get to premeditated. To me, it was "in the heat of the moment." He had just been in a physical fight -- which, apparently, he was losing. He had apparently just been tased with his own taser. If you had just been through that experience, would you be thinking with laser clarity in the first few seconds after the taser jolt? If so, you're a better man than I am.

If I were on the jury I might lean toward the manslaughter charge, but definitely not premeditated murder.


Different circumstances. He didn't shoot that perp in the heat of the moment. Ersland left the store after shooting the robber, chased after the accomplice, came back into the store, stepped over the wounded robber on the floor, went back to his counter and exchanged his gun for a different one, then went back and shot the robber again. If he had stopped after he first shot the kid, he'd have been a hero instead of a felon.

That said, was he convicted of "premeditated" murder? Or was he convicted on unlawful use of deadly force? I remember the case, and I don't remember that premeditation was part of it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-jerome-ersland-found-guilty-of-murder-in-killing-of-suspect/

http://newsok.com/article/3854619

The legal standard for premeditation is not what you think it is.

[De Selby]

The State amended the charges halfway through the trial when they knew the murder charge was not going to fly.

I don't think this was a good shoot. But I believe it was lawful.

These two guys fought for an extensive amount of time, the felon tased the officer, then tried to break contact...he made poor life choices. Slager testifed that he saw the taser pointed at him when he drew (this would have been immediately before the two men are shown in the video). If that is true, then I find it hard to find excessive fault with the officer for shooting *after an extensive engagement with the violent felon.*

Yeah, I was referring to the jury.  Who said it's 11 to 1 on manslaughter instead of murder?

Dude, if you find it hard to fault that shooting you should sell your guns. 

I think this cause lends some truth to the BLM claims that some whites in the south will always find an excuse in these cases.  That video shows a policeman carefully take aim and shoot a running man, and we know from the trial that he lied about it immediately afterwards. 

If he had the good sense to lie, he had his wits during the shooting. 

[Hawkmoon]

The legal standard for premeditation is not what you think it is.

I'm not speaking as a lawyer, or a judge. I'm speaking as a person who might some day sit on a jury.

So tell us -- what's the legal definition? And where is it defined in the law?

[Jocassee]

Yeah, I was referring to the jury.  Who said it's 11 to 1 on manslaughter instead of murder?

Dude, if you find it hard to fault that shooting you should sell your guns. 

I think this cause lends some truth to the BLM claims that some whites in the south will always find an excuse in these cases. 

If you want to call me racist you need come right out and say it so I can cuss you out, instead of pussyfooting around the issue.

[grampster]

The problem with shootings in general, and with LE in particular, is unless one has been in a heat of the moment violent occurrence, where bodily harm is imminent, occurred, or is or has been barely fended off, in a matter of moments, it is difficult to understand what is going through the mind of the innocent portion of the violent occurrence.  I have been in that situation a number of times when in LE.

In most states shooting a fleeing felon has been lawful.  I've always wondered about the state in which the discussed shooting occurred.  Under federal law it is still lawful, though limited by SCOTUS in 1985.

I've watched the video.  It doesn't show everything that is needed to be known.  If I had been the attorney for the defense, I'd have asked to have it suppressed.  If the judge failed to grant it, it would be solid ground for an appeal.  I admit I haven't been following this case.  But one has to wonder why the shootee ran in the first place.  He was being pulled over for a broken taillight.  The officer surely wondered and pursued and then became involved in a violent altercation that he was losing.  The felon, yes he was a felon at that point, ran again.  Under the rather ambiguous SCOTUS decision, it appears to me to be an ugly shoot, but lawful.  It is a shame that charges were levied.  In my view, it was because the anarchy that has taken over elements of our society has legitimate government on its heals.  Rather than defending the rule of law, they are cowering in the face of that anarchy.

Just my 2 cents and not particularly worthy of anything other than just a comment from an old, creaky, ornery, opinionated SOB.

[230RN]

^In most states shooting a fleeing felon has been lawful.  I've always wondered about the state in which the discussed shooting occurred.  Under federal law it is still lawful, though limited by SCOTUS in 1985."

I wondered about that too, but didn't ask since I figured it would be brought up sooner or later.  It was just later, so thanks.

Terry

[Jocassee]

But one has to wonder why the shootee ran in the first place.  He was being pulled over for a broken taillight.  The officer surely wondered and pursued and then became involved in a violent altercation that he was losing. 

The prosecution helpfully supplied that the deceased was afraid of going to debtor's prison.

[Hawkmoon]

The prosecution helpfully supplied that the deceased was afraid of going to debtor's prison.

We know that now, but the officer clearly didn't know it at the time of the incident. At some point while he was getting punched and tased he must have been wondering, "All this for a taillight? What's up with this guy?"