jury unable to decide in police shooting

[iris lilies]

Interesting outcome of the Walter Scott death trial in South Carolina. This is the guy shot in the back and the film footage went viral.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/12/05/mistrial-declared-in-case-of-south-carolina-officer-who-shot-walter-scott-after-traffic-stop/?utm_term=.0e3587d3b995

[creaker]

Regardless of the evidence provided, a juror is still free to decide whichever way they want. So things like this will occasionally happen.

[CathyA]

So was it one juror for or against finding the policeman guilty? I know (supposedly) there was much more involved than the video shows, but even if the guy took his taser, he was running away from the cop and he was shot in the back. I'm not sure I understand how this could be acceptable? The guy hadn't even committed a horrible crime. It's my understanding he was pulled over for something like a moving violation. I sure wish people wouldn't fight/argue with the police when they're pulled over and aren't guilty of much.
And......how about the guy who shot Joe McKnight (ex NFL player) and was released for a few days, then arrested? I know many times they release suspects until everything's been sorted out, but this seemed a little strange. Or wasn't it?

[Tybee]

So was it one juror for or against finding the policeman guilty? I know (supposedly) there was much more involved than the video shows, but even if the guy took his taser, he was running away from the cop and he was shot in the back. I'm not sure I understand how this could be acceptable? The guy hadn't even committed a horrible crime. It's my understanding he was pulled over for something like a moving violation. I sure wish people wouldn't fight/argue with the police when they're pulled over and aren't guilty of much.
And......how about the guy who shot Joe McKnight (ex NFL player) and was released for a few days, then arrested? I know many times they release suspects until everything's been sorted out, but this seemed a little strange. Or wasn't it?
It was my understanding that it was one juror who could not vote to convict. He told the judge that, and the judge made them go back and deliberate again, and he stated again after deliberation that he could not convict. I think that was what happened, though others may know better.

If he were Henry Fonda in 12 Angry men, we would all think he was great.

I am a big fan of the jury system, and jurors must follow their conscience. Perhaps he did not feel the state proved its case? Like with the OJ case?

[iris lilies]

It was my understanding that it was one juror who could not vote to convict. He told the judge that, and the judge made them go back and deliberate again, and he stated again after deliberation that he could not convict. I think that was what happened, though others may know better.

If he were Henry Fonda in 12 Angry men, we would all think he was great.

I am a big fan of the jury system, and jurors must follow their conscience. Perhaps he did not feel the state proved its case? Like with the OJ case?
One juror said he would not convict. Mainstream media uses soundbites to lead you to the idea thats all there was to the hung jury. but--There were five others who could not decide.

thats a pretty big bridge to gap in conviction.

[Tybee]

I did not know about the other five! Sounds like state did not do a good job. If one is looking to throw shade, then I guess throw it at the prosecution then.

[ToomuchStuff]

And......how about the guy who shot Joe McKnight (ex NFL player) and was released for a few days, then arrested? I know many times they release suspects until everything's been sorted out, but this seemed a little strange. Or wasn't it?


Since I am not a LEO down there, I don't know either what they are thinking, or restricted from talking about an ongoing investigation.
They are in a Castle defense state. If the shooter thought he was going to be assaulted, then he has the right to defend himself, with lethal force. (guessing if someone the size of the football players I have known, and he played for our team, you might feel intimidated/threatened by them)
That means they need to make sure they have enough evidences, if they think it is murder, rather then self defense, before they arrest him and go before a judge. (there is NO statute of limitations on murder, so no ticking clock)
Now, I have heard he is in custody, but I have not heard it reported, that he was arrested or charged. I have heard threats against both him and that police force (local radio had a blip I caught about that police chief receiving threats of vigilante justice). So has he been charged with a crime, or is he in protective custody?
We have a presumption of innocence in the USA. He is innocent, and until they decide they have enough to charge him with, he should be free to go, without having to be protected from those that self appoint judge/jury, etc.

[Tybee]

We have a presumption of innocence in the USA. He is innocent, and until they decide they have enough to charge him with, he should be free to go, without having to be protected from those that self appoint judge/jury, etc.

+1

[CathyA]

I've heard that the guy (the shooter) was sitting in his car and McKnight was outside his window on the other side of the car. I don't think McKnight had a gun. How much of a threat can that be? You could jump out and run, yell for help, etc. I think I also heard the guy in the car was in an altercation at the same intersection a few years back. Too bad we can't always know the truth.

[jp1]

Actually the final vote of the jury was 10/2. Not knowing what the judge's instructions to the jury were it's impossible to say whether there was no way those 2 would have voted to convict or if the instructions left enough doubt that they, in good faith, just couldn't convict.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-slager-trial-foreman-recalls-passionate-emotional-climate/story?id=44059790

Personally I find it distressing that we live in a society where it's acceptable for a cop to shoot someone in the back five times as the person, without a weapon, is running away from them.

[CathyA]

Sorry if I'm mixing up the different shootings. I don't understand why the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg or something. I mean even that would be overkill, so to speak

[Alan]

I don't understand why the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg or something.
I think many of us have watched too many westerns over the years. Successfully shooting a running person in the leg would almost certainly be a fluke accident.
Also, the rules for the use of deadly force are very specific and do not include provisions for use of potential deadly force to maim. It's all or nothing.

[CathyA]

I think many of us have watched too many westerns over the years. Successfully shooting a running person in the leg would almost certainly be a fluke accident.
Also, the rules for the use of deadly force are very specific and do not include provisions for use of potential deadly force to maim. It's all or nothing.

I think you're right, Alan, about the westerns! (I've been watching Gunsmoke....haha). But I think all the shows on today (Law and Order, medical shows, etc.) give us all a false sense of how easy it is to deal with everything. I had to quit watching E.R. a long time ago, because I worked in an E.R. and it was NEVER that easy, and it was too frustrating to see them make it look like it was.

[iris lilies]

Actually the final vote of the jury was 10/2. Not knowing what the judge's instructions to the jury were it's impossible to say whether there was no way those 2 would have voted to convict or if the instructions left enough doubt that they, in good faith, just couldn't convict.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-slager-trial-foreman-recalls-passionate-emotional-climate/story?id=44059790

Personally I find it distressing that we live in a society where it's acceptable for a cop to shoot someone in the back five times as the person, without a weapon, is running away from them.
Sorry, jp, you are right in the final version. I didn't know there was an actual vote entered. I was listening to reports from this two- day- older NY Times artcle that says:

But on Monday morning, the jury said in another note that a majority of its members were “still undecided.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/walter-scott-michael-slager-north-charleston.html?_r=0

[creaker]

Actually the final vote of the jury was 10/2. Not knowing what the judge's instructions to the jury were it's impossible to say whether there was no way those 2 would have voted to convict or if the instructions left enough doubt that they, in good faith, just couldn't convict.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-slager-trial-foreman-recalls-passionate-emotional-climate/story?id=44059790

Personally I find it distressing that we live in a society where it's acceptable for a cop to shoot someone in the back five times as the person, without a weapon, is running away from them.

Especially since that is a likely response from someone mental illness issues.

My adult son is autistic - if he got away from his aides, he's not going to present dangerous behavior, but he's not going to respond to the commands of a police officer, either. Should he be shot multiple times and killed for that?

[iris lilies]

Especially since that is a likely response from someone mental illness issues.

My adult son is autistic - if he got away from his aides, he's not going to present dangerous behavior, but he's not going to respond to the commands of a police officer, either. Should he be shot multiple times and killed for that?
Walter Scott grappled with a police officer for a weapon. That seems to be "presenting dangerous behavior" to me.

I can understand where you can project your son's jeopardy in all altercations, but this doesnt appear to all be about running away.

There was a special needs guy who was shot dead by St Louis police just a few days after the Ferguson cop shot Michael Brown. That guy charged police with a knife.

[jp1]

Do you think Walter Scott grappled with a police officer for a weapon. That seems to be "presenting dangerous behavior" to me.


I can understand where you can porjevt your son's jeopardy in all altercations, but this doesnt appear to all be about running away.

There was a spevial needs guy who was shot dead by St Louis police just a few dsys after the Ferguson cop shot Michael Brown. That guy charged police with a knife.

And then there was this situation where it doesn't appear that anyone needed to get shot, but yet they did.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article90905442.html

[ToomuchStuff]

I've heard that the guy (the shooter) was sitting in his car and McKnight was outside his window on the other side of the car. I don't think McKnight had a gun. How much of a threat can that be? You could jump out and run, yell for help, etc. I think I also heard the guy in the car was in an altercation at the same intersection a few years back. Too bad we can't always know the truth.

I did more reading on it, online. He was arrested and charged with manslaughter. That requires less proof then murder, but not by much, and they still have to get around the castle doctrine/defense.
Mcknight, had access to a gun, as it was in his car. We don't know if he showed it before stopping, or made the verbal threat of it, etc.
Really, get out of a vehicle, and try to run away from someone whose job it was to run people down and tackle them? Let alone the issue of Mcknight could have got into his vehicle and drove over him?
The prior altercation was not gone into. I don't know if this guy is just an ass (his right), or it was bad luck, etc. The prosecutor will have to decide if that has benefit or not.

Sorry if I'm mixing up the different shootings. I don't understand why the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg or something. I mean even that would be overkill, so to speak

You should really take a shooting class to understand things. First off, you always treat a gun as if it is loaded. Second, you don't aim it at anything you don't mean to shoot, and you don't pull it unless your prepared to use it.
Third, you need to aim for a target you can hit, which is center mass of a person, between the belly button and the shoulders. Little targets can move out of the way, and then you have a bullet going behind them and what or who is behind them. MAYBE someday, if we have a android cop, they will have improved responses that can aim and shoot smaller targets. Until then, you don't aim to maim. Center mass is a large target, and contains lots of vital area's (heart, lung, spine, etc). Your aiming to stop that person before they commit harm to you. Even if shot, depending on damage, rounds, persons state (on drugs, medical issues like nerve damage, etc), and what they have on them (knife 21' or less, MMA fighter etc), they could still get to you and kill you. When you shoot, people tend to be taught to shoot either two or three shots together, for better stopping odds. Snipers, one shot, but a much different bullet.

Especially since that is a likely response from someone mental illness issues.

My adult son is autistic - if he got away from his aides, he's not going to present dangerous behavior, but he's not going to respond to the commands of a police officer, either. Should he be shot multiple times and killed for that?
I have mentioned elsewhere, about the LEO that was one of two retiring, that was shot in the head by a kid with mental issues, normally controlled by medication. The kid beat up the parents and stole their gun's. Cop's are taught to protect themselves and others. Non compliance can be lethal, fact of life. A cop may, or may not be able to tell if someone is autistic, or on a substance.
Years ago, 20/20 shown some of the training video's that cops use (shoot or don't shoot). In one instance, it showed how wrong a situation can go (either way). The person didn't comply with orders to stop and they had a hand behind their back, approching the officer. Something like 90% fired and when this subject got close enough, he pulled out a wallet that said he was deaf and dumb and couldn't communicate.
A similar scenerio, the subject pulled out a weapon. I have heard some say, they expect the cops to be shot, as "that is what they are paid for". Well how much for that, and then why aren't they paying those others affected? (cops spouse, kid, parents, etc)
Yesterday, I saw a friend, who is medically retired, after being hit by a car, when putting out stop sticks. He was thrown 30 feet in the air, over a fence and landed in a junk yard (wasn't expected to survive, cops went to his families doors, they call if not lethal). He survived but the toll was taken out of his father, died 18 months after that. (you could see how he aged)
I

[iris lilies]

Of course, this won't be making national news because it doesn't fit the preferred narrative of mainstream media. Black man sentenced for shooting cops in Ferguson, MO.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-guilty-of-shooting-two-officers-at-ferguson-protest/article_5c37a53e-faf1-52ba-9907-fa0afc4e3def.html