|
Post by robeiae on Dec 8, 2016 10:06:34 GMT -5
So, Michael Slager--who stopped a black man (Walter Scott) for a busted taillight, then tasered him, then shot him in the back five times--went on trial for murder. That trial ended a few days ago in a mistrial, apparently because of one hold-out who would not vote to convict, despite the video evidence of the shooting and Slager's apparent attempt to screw with the evidence (he claimed Scott took his taser, but the video show him apparently bringing it to Scott's body and dropping it next to him). Here's a thoughtful piece by Jamelle Bouie at Slate an the aftermath and lessons learned. From it: Taken as a test case, he's not wrong. It seems incomprehensible that someone using reasonable standards would not vote to convict, imo. More: My own feeling is that this "fear for my life" justification that is almost routinely adopted by police officers now is a serious problem. It maybe shouldn't be that way, but it is. And it ties into profiling in a way that leads to escalations and over-reactions. Racism and bigotry aside, police officers are making poor--and sometimes deadly--decisions because of pressures and assumptions about not only what it means to be a police officer, but also what it means to be a citizen, with respect to personal rights and safety. To put it another way, I think we--our society--has created an atmosphere wherein "duty" is a secondary consideration for almost everyone; selfish needs come first now, always, i.e. everyone--including cops--gets to "feel safe" above all else. And there's no way around the fact that this impacts marginalized groups in much worse ways. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by David on Dec 8, 2016 10:27:07 GMT -5
The Fat Lady hasn't sung on this case. The trial ended with a hung jury, but it will return to a courthouse, soon. It is most likely the shooter will be convicted.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 8, 2016 12:27:48 GMT -5
I have a big issue with the fact that this ended in a mistrial and hope a retrial will come to a conviction, but let me address the "Fear for me life" issue.
Imagine any scenario in which you are a cop, or someone like your son or daughter was a cop, and the use of deadly physical force is needed and proper. In each and every case, it's going to be because there was a fear of losing their life. That's the verbiage that has to be used to express why you took the action that you did. It's all well and good to roll our eyes when we hear it, but how would you expect a cop to react.
The problem isn't the words, it's when they don't apply, and it's up the prosecutor to prove that a reasonable person would not have fear for their life.
When a cop uses deadly physical force, the questions are:
Did the cop, based on their POV, fear for their life. Was it a reasonable fear and were their actions reasonable based on that fear.
|
|
|
Post by Carlos Danger on Dec 9, 2016 12:52:40 GMT -5
At some point either we're going to have a justice system for every one or we're going to have anarchy in the streets because no one believes there is a justice system. There are no open-and-shut cases.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 9, 2016 13:02:10 GMT -5
I have a big issue with the fact that this ended in a mistrial and hope a retrial will come to a conviction, but let me address the "Fear for me life" issue. Imagine any scenario in which you are a cop, or someone like your son or daughter was a cop, and the use of deadly physical force is needed and proper. In each and every case, it's going to be because there was a fear of losing their life. That's the verbiage that has to be used to express why you took the action that you did. It's all well and good to roll our eyes when we hear it, but how would you expect a cop to react. The problem isn't the words, it's when they don't apply, and it's up the prosecutor to prove that a reasonable person would not have fear for their life. Everyone now knows that if you are involved in a violent altercation, the first words out of your mouth when the cops show up need to be "I was in fear for my life." (And the second words need to be "I will answer your questions only with the advice of legal counsel.") So of course cops, just like civilians, will claim fear for their life no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 9, 2016 13:10:41 GMT -5
Yes, but the defense also has to convince the jury that it is a reasonable fear. (OOPS, Vince already said something similar, sorry)
This was a sad result, but I'm not going to say it's due to institutional racism. If a juror is racist, then that's terrible, but unfortunately it happens. Jurors come from every walk of life and have all sorts of levels abilities for critical thinking. Thank goodness there is a process in place to have another trial. The cop is not freed, and the likely result of the next trial is that he will be convicted.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 9, 2016 13:17:20 GMT -5
I have a big issue with the fact that this ended in a mistrial and hope a retrial will come to a conviction, but let me address the "Fear for me life" issue. Imagine any scenario in which you are a cop, or someone like your son or daughter was a cop, and the use of deadly physical force is needed and proper. In each and every case, it's going to be because there was a fear of losing their life. That's the verbiage that has to be used to express why you took the action that you did. It's all well and good to roll our eyes when we hear it, but how would you expect a cop to react. The problem isn't the words, it's when they don't apply, and it's up the prosecutor to prove that a reasonable person would not have fear for their life. Everyone now knows that if you are involved in a violent altercation, the first words out of your mouth when the cops show up need to be "I was in fear for my life." (And the second words need to be "I will answer your questions only with the advice of legal counsel.") So of course cops, just like civilians, will claim fear for their life no matter what. Of course. And such claims should not be wholly believed or disbelieved. Like I said, you'd be hard pressed to imagine a scenario in which a cop used their fire arm in a legal and justified way where the statement wasn't valid. The devil is in the details.
Did the officer fear for their life. Was that fear reasonable? Were their actions reasonable based on that fear and circumstances?
If your a cop and you get a call for man with a gun, you have a legitimate reason to fear for your life as you approach. But you can't just decide better safe than sorry and blow everyone away.
If someone pulls a gun and aims it at you, you have a real reason to fear and are justified in shooting. The fact that the gun wasn't loaded doesn't change that, as you most likely have no way of knowing it at the time.
There is no one size fits all answer. You have to look into it, investigate and try and understand what happened.
|
|
|
Post by Carlos Danger on Dec 9, 2016 16:09:13 GMT -5
I don't understand why if the officer was not convicted the first time he would be the next time. It's not as though the prosecution has any new evidence for the second trial they didn't have in the first one.
If one juror decides they don't want to convict it doesn't matter what the other 11 want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 16:17:04 GMT -5
Because getting a freak juror one time doesn't mean you'll inevitably get one.
I've both seen juries in action as a lawyer and I've served on a grand jury. I've seen some rational and intelligent consideration of facts, and some astounding dumb-assery. That's the trouble with juries -- at least a judge has to give reasons for a decision, and if the reasons suck, you can appeal. But that's what we've got.
I'm on a phone now, but I have a story to tell about how one person simply not understanding the law applied to the facts resulted in someone getting off who just should not have gotten off. If I have time later, maybe I'll tell it.
It sucks royally. However, a mistrial doesn't necessarily mean -- at all -- that the defendant will get off next time around.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 9, 2016 16:34:51 GMT -5
I don't understand why if the officer was not convicted the first time he would be the next time. It's not as though the prosecution has any new evidence for the second trial they didn't have in the first one. If one juror decides they don't want to convict it doesn't matter what the other 11 want. 2 things to consider. If it was 1 lone juror, then it's safe to say the state put on a convincing case. They can also look back on what worked best and tweak.
Also, if the defense knows that a conviction is very likely, they may try and plea.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 10, 2016 7:50:31 GMT -5
I have a big issue with the fact that this ended in a mistrial and hope a retrial will come to a conviction, but let me address the "Fear for me life" issue. Imagine any scenario in which you are a cop, or someone like your son or daughter was a cop, and the use of deadly physical force is needed and proper. In each and every case, it's going to be because there was a fear of losing their life. That's the verbiage that has to be used to express why you took the action that you did. It's all well and good to roll our eyes when we hear it, but how would you expect a cop to react. The problem isn't the words, it's when they don't apply, and it's up the prosecutor to prove that a reasonable person would not have fear for their life. When a cop uses deadly physical force, the questions are: Did the cop, based on their POV, fear for their life. Was it a reasonable fear and were their actions reasonable based on that fear. This all sounds reasonable, but the problem is--from my perspective--a new and more widespread reliance on this "fear for my life" standard. In this case, the cop shot a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back. There was video of it. Yet he still imagined that "fear for my life" meant something here. And this isn't the only such case, not by a long shot. Frankly, a cop can be in fear for their life every time they respond to a call that has a violent component. They can be in fear for their life every time they pull someone over. But that shouldn't lead to unloading clips at people as a matter of course. Cops who have that kind of response to these kinds of situations shouldn't be cops, imo. Because they're either trigger-happy cowboys or simply lack the mental toughness to do the job. And imo, we--as a society--need to stop cutting them slack. We need to hold them to the highest standards for their conduct. It seems to me that we're currently holding them--by and large--to the lowest ones.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 10, 2016 10:49:47 GMT -5
^What he said.
It's disturbing to me that this even went to trial, that they even thought they had a chance at acquittal, that 12 people could look at that video and come back with a not guilty verdict.
Very glad they were wrong, at least.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 10, 2016 19:02:15 GMT -5
I have a big issue with the fact that this ended in a mistrial and hope a retrial will come to a conviction, but let me address the "Fear for me life" issue. Imagine any scenario in which you are a cop, or someone like your son or daughter was a cop, and the use of deadly physical force is needed and proper. In each and every case, it's going to be because there was a fear of losing their life. That's the verbiage that has to be used to express why you took the action that you did. It's all well and good to roll our eyes when we hear it, but how would you expect a cop to react. The problem isn't the words, it's when they don't apply, and it's up the prosecutor to prove that a reasonable person would not have fear for their life. When a cop uses deadly physical force, the questions are: Did the cop, based on their POV, fear for their life. Was it a reasonable fear and were their actions reasonable based on that fear. This all sounds reasonable, but the problem is--from my perspective--a new and more widespread reliance on this "fear for my life" standard. In this case, the cop shot a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back. There was video of it. Yet he still imagined that "fear for my life" meant something here. And this isn't the only such case, not by a long shot. Frankly, a cop can be in fear for their life every time they respond to a call that has a violent component. They can be in fear for their life every time they pull someone over. But that shouldn't lead to unloading clips at people as a matter of course. Cops who have that kind of response to these kinds of situations shouldn't be cops, imo. Because they're either trigger-happy cowboys or simply lack the mental toughness to do the job. And imo, we--as a society--need to stop cutting them slack. We need to hold them to the highest standards for their conduct. It seems to me that we're currently holding them--by and large--to the lowest ones. Fear for your life isn't and shouldn't be the end of it. As I said, it's part. If a cop isn't in fear of their life, they shouldn't be using their sidearm. But the next questions that need to be answered are was the fear reasonable? And were their actions reasonable based on that fear? Personally, I can't understand how anyone, including the one, lone juror, could look at that video and think that Slager was really in fear of his life, or that it was a reasonable fear or that his response was reasonable. I think that juror went in with his mind made up and a confession from Slager wasn't going change his mind.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 11, 2016 5:34:08 GMT -5
The Stockholm Syndrome is alive and well in the jury pool. There will always be one code of justice for the politically-connected and their enforcers, distinct from that serving the rest of the population.
I'm frankly surprised that only one juror refused to convict, and take it as a sign of hope, however meager.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 11, 2016 11:53:07 GMT -5
|
|