I obviously want to see Slager punished to the full extent of the law, but passing time will see this case further politicized and obscured. In fact, it already has. In less than a year, we've gone from NCPD throwing Slager to the wolves and treating him like a pariah to NCPD officers standing up in court in solidarity with him. In a year, this will look like a police/conservatives vs. "thugs"/liberals issue to the jurors, and we'll end up with a mistrial or a not guilty verdict due to a lack of consensus on the first degree murder charge. It's sad, but this is what happens when police training and disciplinary processes are unreformable, and critics of bad police practices are branded as anarchists, criminals, or people who don't appreciate the job that police do or should do.
“And so the question arises: Exactly what new evidence will lead a jury to draw the conclusion that Michael T. Slager is innocent of murdering Walter Scott?”
Mr. Savage will present a menu of deadly force gray area scenarios – especially of the textbook variety. So the question for the jury will be: “Did Officer Slager believe he was acting in accordance with behaviors learned in his police training?” – with the emphasis being on “believe”.
Slager’s defense will contend that an overzealous “aim for the body mass first, ask questions later” institutional response to perceived threats made him do it.
Off the hook, probably not. But Slager deserves the full murder charge, not some watered down manslaughter charge. I'm with you, there's nothing I could be shown that would justify shooting someone in the back from 10 feet away, but it's frightening how easy it is to collect 12 dimwits.
You are definitely right on that Jaxx. Mr. Savage is a brilliant defense attorney, one of the best. If I ever go totally and completely berserk and become a full blown raving lunatic national big time, I would want Andy as my defense attorney. He takes cases that many would not touch with a ten foot pole and goes the extra mile for families of many-both criminal and victims, for that alone, I greatly admire him. That being said, I really do not believe that Andy Savage possibly expects to get this cold blooded murderer off the hook, he is just doing a public service of giving him the best defense he can. I mean even John Wayne Gacy had a defense attorney.
usually just one holdout for a hung jury. I remember a juror during pre-trial stating "I don't care what they say, I ain't sending a brother to jail." Followed by another commenting, "That's right". That is all it takes.
Angry or stupid. But you're a fool if you underestimate Andy Savage.
Yep. Just 12.
He doesn't have to convince the majority of us, just 12.
Lets see.....man running away.....man shot in back. All captured quite clearly on camera for posterity. There is nothing, zip, zilch, nada that the defense could possibly show any of us that would allow the majority of us to think that this was in any way, shape or form anything but a out of control police officer who took matters into his own hands. Quit watching TV Chris.
An artistic warning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFJlzcxb6l…
"What, if anything, could exonerate Michael T. Slager?"
A majority Republican jury.
"Therein lies the rub."
Knowing this author is, in fact, completely full of shit, I'd be surprised if he's really read Hamlet. More likely, he's referencing what he understands to be a well-known quote ("It's from Shakespeare, actually").
What an idiot this guy is. As a side note (I hadn't seen this discussed in above comments), Scott Weiland's changing vocal style has been highly praised for its depth and versatility...certainly didn't contribute to the "downfall" of the band. From a commercial standpoint, the band was doing fine. Its issues were largely internal and related to artistic direction -- the common sort of issues that contribute to the breakup of a band. Fucking idiot, God dammit this self-indulgent bastard hasn't a clue.
I'm just shocked that Slager's attorney is claiming that his client is innocent. I mean... if his lawyer says so, then we must have this whole thing wrong! Makes me wonder about Jerry Sandusky now, since his lawyer was so certain, too.
"s garland 1962 yahoo"
I think you meant firstname.lastname@example.org
I don't want you to miss out on spam.
Pronghorn. ...I won't talk to you any more. Thanks for the "debate"
Shit article. Phony journalism..
The fries can be made crispy, TROLLSLAYER.
Unless you are a chain smoker ( and like soggy fries!) I would avoid that particular Huddle House.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper