Boone hall has hosted the Low Country Oyster Festival for decades (34 years ?) and it has been frequented by all races of oyster lovers the entire time. Now some are offended because they cooked oysters at Boone Hall? Stop looking for things that offend you and just enjoy the south charm that is South Carolina and Charleston TODAY. It is our past that made our culinary roots and it has taken off from there.
Yes, lets not exaggerate or form conjecture with no proof. Is this not one of those things you constantly bash Trump about? Making brash statements with no backing proof?
Hey Trump could decide we will all leave earth and migrate to mars whether or not we want to go. Why, he is forming secret legions of armed census takers now to identify everyone so no one gets missed as we all queue up to board the spaceships to take us all off planet! We should all be concerned! I have no proof, but its true, because I just said it was!
"The court's view of his actions on that day cannot be viewed the same as a Saturday night killing or a typical murder case, but must be viewed through the eyes of a reasonable police officer at the time he determined to use lethal force"
This is correct. As a police officer, he is not limited to firing in self defense. The 'Fleeing Felon' law, as amended around 1985, says an officer can fire upon a fleeing suspect IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE to determine the suspect is a danger to the officer, other officers in the area, or the community at large. This is what many people do not realize in these cases. An officer can LEGALLY shoot you in the back if the above conditions are met.
When determining guilt, the jury must consider if probable cause existed to fire. The suspect did not have to be an ACTUAL danger, only that the officer had a reasonable belief that the suspect could possibly be a danger. Unarmed or not, the officer can legally shoot you if he believes you are a danger at the time he fired.
In this case, the jury will be asked to determine if such probable cause existed. Could the officer see that the suspect, Mr. Scott, was unarmed? We can see his hands from our angle, but can the officer? Was the fact that the officer could not search Mr. Scott, and the later struggle, enough to create a reasonable image that Mr. Scott was a danger to others?
For this to be murder, there must be malice, and forethought. I doubt the prosecution has proved this. Moving the taser, if done to contaminate the scene, is not enough to prove murder. The prosecution should have avoided the political pressure to try for a murder conviction, and instead tried for voluntary manslaughter, which, I believe, would have been a more accurate charge for this case. But, what do I know.....
Congrats, a cartoon without cussing. I'm proud of you.
I am not a law student but...
Double Jeopardy rule would apply. Once someone is found not guilty by a court of law for a particular criminal act, that person cannot be tried again for the same criminal act by the same jurisdictional authority, even if later evidence proves the person's guilt. However, a person can be tried multiple times if there are multiple jurisdictions that have claim to the same act. Such is the case when a person violates both state and federal laws while committing a crime. The person may be found not guilty in a state court, but could be found guilty for the same crime in federal court.
I also believe that in some instances a jury can find you guilty of a lesser crime,if instructed by the judge that such a possibility exists in the case.
"The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented
at trial." State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262, 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993). The trial court is required to charge a jury on a lesser-included offense if there is evidence from which it could be inferred that the defendant committed the lesser, rather than the greater, offense. State v. Drafts, 288 S.C. 30, 340 S.E.2d 784 (1986); see also Dempsey v. State, 363 S.C. 365, 610 S.E.2d 812 (2005); State v. Gourdine, 322 S.C. 396, 472 S.E.2d 241 (1996).
So i guess the answer to your question is..... It depends. The judge can instruct the jury to consider a lesser charge during deliberation, or the attorneys can request that the judge do so.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper