quote:You don't even have to do that... Taser someone one time, and if they lose control of their body, run up and slice their throat open with a knife.
Originally posted by EasyYep, a Taser, can kill you! Just hold down that trigger, or pull it enough!
A taser is a deadly weapon in the hands of a criminal. Would you trust a murderer, kidnapper, or rapist with a taser?
quote:I think this is the crux of the argument right here. I think that if they wanted to get him a conviction involuntary is the way to go.
Originally posted by Too BusyI’m not sure the jury would convict on voluntary manslaughter. Read the law and think sbout what it says. No race, no video bias, just the wording of the law.
If they want to burn him for something it would need to be involuntary manslaughter. Where he caused a death during criminally negligent conduct, the conduct itself doesn’t have to be illegal.
That being said, Slager testified that he believed Scott to have the taser in his possession. It’s really up to the jury to believe it.
And THAT being said, isn’t this the tazer where the cables come out? How long does it take to “reload” one of those things? I always thought that once it was shot, it would take time to re-load it. Is it even possible, that IF Scott still had the tazer that he could have even re-loaded it on the run?
A skilled operator can reload it very quickly…
Wadmalaw native
16’ Bentz-Craft Flats Boat
quote:Does it have a "catridge" of some sort, or do you have to retrieve the dispensed wires? And if it does take a "cartridge", would there have been some actually attached to the gun?
Originally posted by leadenwahboyA skilled operator can reload it very quickly…
Wadmalaw native
16’ Bentz-Craft Flats Boat
I’m probably not using the correct terminology, but here is the crux of the question…
Slager claims that the thought Scott had possession of the taser. Scott was on the run. Slager knows that the taser had already been fired. So, is it even reasonably possible that Scott could have reloaded the taser on the run? Did he have the necessary “materials” and time to do so?
And, how do you spell “taser”“tazer”? 
I don’t feel like looking it up.
Yes, it’s a cartridge…that makes electrical contact with the unit once inserted into it. So…no, the wires don’t need to be retrieved.
And you’re right, I always wondered the same…if Scott had the taser “gun” and no cartridges, then it would be useless to him. But it’s possible that Slager reloaded the taser, and was then overcome and had it stolen, or Scott took it WHILE Slager was reloading it, and he got ahold of a cartridge as well…
Spelling doesn’t matter I guess, my spell check says taser and tazer are both spelled wrong.
Wadmalaw native
16’ Bentz-Craft Flats Boat
http://www.thehomesecuritysuperstore.com/self-defense-taser-c=37
Wadmalaw native
16’ Bentz-Craft Flats Boat
quote:
Originally posted by leadenwahboyYes, it’s a cartridge…that makes electrical contact with the unit once inserted into it. So…no, the wires don’t need to be retrieved.
And you’re right, I always wondered the same…if Scott had the taser “gun” and no cartridges, then it would be useless to him.
Yeah, that’s what I was wondering.
quote:I saw a video analysis of this that looked like the tazer had *just* been used. Like, the lines were pulled tight as they were running. That would have been an important question for the prosecution to ask, "My Slager. Did you RELOAD the taser?"... I wonder why they did not. That might have been very important information to have.
But it's possible that Slager reloaded the taser, and was then overcome and had it stolen, or Scott took it WHILE Slager was reloading it, and he got ahold of a cartridge as well....
Also, did they ever determine who actually fired the taser? Was it confirmed that Scott actually grabbed the taser and discharged it?
quote:I'm not arguing anything i'm just throwing it out there for discussion. The defense never argued that Slager was overcome with emotion or out of control, so the crime of passion idea is a moot point.
Originally posted by skinneejquote:In the USA people are "innocent until PROVEN GUILTY"... You are arguing it exactly in reverse. It's not up to the prosecution to show that it's "conceivable" that Slager had malice aforethought. It's up to them to PROVE "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Slager had malice aforethought.
Originally posted by EdistodanielSo food for thought here:
There was a period of time between the scuffle and when Slager began unloading on Scott. He was 18 feet away before he started shooting. You don’t think it’s conceivable that Slager had some malice about the fight, and therefore forethought that he was going to kill that guy before shooting him in the back? There’s no restriction on how “long” you have to have malice and forethought.
And that is where the jury was hung. We all know it’s “conceivable” that he had malice aforethought. But to get a conviction of murder, you have to PROVE it. Thus, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies on the prosecution.
Basically I think the solicitor **** the bed on this one.
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejAlso, did they ever determine who actually fired the taser? Was it confirmed that Scott actually grabbed the taser and discharged it?
We know for a fact there were burn marks in Slager’s uniform from the taser being used on him. With it being a pistol-type weapon I’m gonna assume that he didn’t do it to himself…
Wadmalaw native
16’ Bentz-Craft Flats Boat
quote:Understood, but what is the point of answering "might he have had a malice aforethought in the seconds leading up to th
Originally posted by Edistodanielquote:I'm not arguing anything i'm just throwing it out there for discussion. The defense never argued that Slager was overcome with emotion or out of control, so the crime of passion idea is a moot point.
Originally posted by skinneejquote:In the USA people are "innocent until PROVEN GUILTY"... You are arguing it exactly in reverse. It's not up to the prosecution to show that it's "conceivable" that Slager had malice aforethought. It's up to them to PROVE "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Slager had malice aforethought.
Originally posted by EdistodanielSo food for thought here:
There was a period of time between the scuffle and when Slager began unloading on Scott. He was 18 feet away before he started shooting. You don’t think it’s conceivable that Slager had some malice about the fight, and therefore forethought that he was going to kill that guy before shooting him in the back? There’s no restriction on how “long” you have to have malice and forethought.
And that is where the jury was hung. We all know it’s “conceivable” that he had malice aforethought. But to get a conviction of murder, you have to PROVE it. Thus, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies on the prosecution.
Basically I think the solicitor **** the bed on this one.
quote:Was that person a LEO that had just recently detained me and I decided to run from him?
Originally posted by freedomfisherWhat if you were walking down the street and someone shot you in the back? Was it was justified since you could have shot them first?
’
Down here is where a signature goes but they can confuse and anger some people so I don’t have one.
quote:Well here is the distinction...
Originally posted by leadenwahboyWe know for a fact there were burn marks in Slager’s uniform from the taser being used on him. With it being a pistol-type weapon I’m gonna assume that he didn’t do it to himself…
Scenario 1: Slager drew the taser out at close range and as he was turning it onto Scott, Scott went into “defensive” posture and grabbed the taser. Slager already had his finger on the trigger (which we know is bad if you are *wrestling * over the gun.
Scenario 2: Slager never brought taser into play, and Scott grabbed it on his own accord, pointed to Slager and pulled trigger.
Even though both are “bad”, semantically these are very different in terms of intent.
quote:
Originally posted by CaptFritzquote:Was that person a LEO that had just recently detained me and I decided to run from him? Then he caught me and I fought him, beat him, tased him with his own taser, who knows what else, then ran AGAIN? '
Originally posted by freedomfisherWhat if you were walking down the street and someone shot you in the back? Was it was justified since you could have shot them first?
Down here is where a signature goes but they can confuse and anger some people so I don’t have one.
Wadmalaw native
16’ Bentz-Craft Flats Boat
Today’s society lacks personal accountability. Walter Scott got himself killed due to his own actions.
’
Down here is where a signature goes but they can confuse and anger some people so I don’t have one.
quote:I have zero doubt that if he would not have run, he would be alive. Probably in jail, but at least alive.
Originally posted by CaptFritzToday’s society lacks personal accountability. Walter Scott got himself killed due to his own actions.
’
Down here is where a signature goes but they can confuse and anger some people so I don’t have one.
quote:Personally, no. From several friends who have both private and military. Constant and control means they do not go full auto and drop every round they ave as fast as they can. A very good practice IMO.
Originally posted by leadenwahboy[quote]Originally posted by ReelShock
Hvae you been through police firearms training? They’re taught to stop firing when the threat is neutralized. …what does “constant and control” mean?
Wadmalaw native
16’ Bentz-Craft Flats Boat
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:We know this in hindsight, but Slager testified in court that he believed that Scott still had his taser in possession.
Originally posted by Fred67Scott did not possess a deadly weapon intending on doing more harm.
Fair enough. But didn’t it show in the video slager having the taser and then placing it by Scott’s body? If I was in slagers place I’d probably testify that too. I wonder in a case like this if they could make him take a lie detector test ?
I guess what I cannot get over are people that actually run from the law. #10067;
quote:
Originally posted by Fred67quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:We know this in hindsight, but Slager testified in court that he believed that Scott still had his taser in possession.
Originally posted by Fred67Scott did not possess a deadly weapon intending on doing more harm.
Fair enough. But didn’t it show in the video slager having the taser and then placing it by Scott’s body? If I was in slagers place I’d probably testify that too. I wonder in a case like this if they could make him take a lie detector test ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl-uK2LCkbY
At 0:26, you can see something black on the ground. This is what is believed (and confirmed by Slager) to be the taser. Note at this point, Slager only knows that the taser was used, but he is not lookign at it and may not know it was dropped…
If you start off around 0:25, and then use your mouse to “pause, unpause, pause”, you can first see that they are locked in (hand to hand). When the taser DOES hit the ground, you can see that it’s next to Scott, not next to Slager, so that is some sort of evidence that it wasn’t fully in Slager’s possession.
At this same exact frame (so within 1 second of taser hitting the ground), you can see Slager already drawing for his weapon.
He’s FULLY drawn and pointed at Scott by 0:27.
First shot fired at 0:28
Suspect did not actually STOP\DROP until 0:33…
He doe
Skinnee allot of info here for you to check out. During the trial prosecutors dropped N. Charleston police charge against jury foreman [:0] Check out video of foreman as well.