Will there be a conviction in the Walter Scott case?

[Renew Deal]

5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, the officer will be convicted of murder
	2 (40%)
	No
	0 (0%)
	Yes, the cameraman will be convicted of something
	3 (60%)
	Not Sure
	0 (0%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Man from Pickens]

1. This is South Carolina

That cop will spend the rest of his life behind bars.

It's not like New York or California or Illinois, where cops can kill you in broad daylight and get away with it. That shit is actually taken seriously here.

Something to think about next time the "herp derp Southerners are backwards" crowd shows up.

[Renew Deal]

2. Is this crime eligible for the death penalty?

[Man from Pickens]

4. Yes

http://fox13now.com/2015/04/07/south-carolina-police-officer-charged-with-murder-could-face-death-penalty/

This is the kind of case where I struggle with my opposition to the death penalty.

[joshcryer]

5. If there was no video, he'd have got paid leave.

They would've done an investigation, an put whatever "evidence" they had in front of a grand jury and then he would've walked.

The video makes it a very cut and dry case. It's the kind of thing prosecutors dream for.

[Man from Pickens]

6. In other states

even if there is video, the cop gets off

Case in point: Eric Garner. Plain as can be, murder in broad daylight, tons of witnesses plus video.

No cops being charged with anything, as far as I'm aware, not even fired. And the guy who took the video is in Rikers getting poisoned by his jailers - who are also getting away with it.

Explain that one to me.

By the way, this isn't an isolated case in South Carolina. Another cop is up shit's creek for having shot a driver who reached into his vehicle to get his license and registration - as ordered by the cop. In New York or California the cop gets away with it pretty much every time.

Note there is no mention of any police union - don't think we have them in our state. And that is ultimately why this guy isn't going to get away with it.

[joshcryer]

8. Even in that case there was video.

I think in this case even if there was a union involved they wouldn't defend him. The video is really clear cut. No ambiguity.

[Man from Pickens]

9. What wasn't clear cut about the Garner video?

That was as straight up a murder as this one. Watch the Garner video again if you have any doubt.

Union backed the murder-cops 100% in that case. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/eric-garner-chokehold-death-ny-police-union-chief-praises-grand-n261586

[joshcryer]

10. A jury can be swayed in that instance.

I think Garner's case should of course go to trial with all of the officers involved, but the "resisting" part is what makes it passable.

[Man from Pickens]

11. As anyone can see on the video

there was zero physical resistance on the part of Garner

[joshcryer]

12. That's not what a jury would see.

"Look, it's taking 3-4 guys to hold this guy down!"

[Man from Pickens]

13. How can you know that?

No jury has been asked to evaluate it, and no jury will ever be so asked.

Forget the jury. What do YOU see? Resistance? Give me a timestamp and a description of the resistance, if you can spot any.

[joshcryer]

15. I see a murder.

But I know enough about law how they would say those cops struggling "proves" that he was resisting. People watch COPS, they don't recognize this sort of excessive force for what it is. I've been in juries. Juries are not very bright people. They're easily impressionable.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. The whistleblower is in deep sh!t. The cop gets a raise and paid vacation to "recover."

[uponit7771]

7. +1

[npk]

14. I am sure his defense attorney's will come up with some kind of defense...

But the "I was in fear for my life" wont cut it on this one. The Supreme Court has already made it clear that you cannot shoot at a fleeing suspect (Tennessee v. Garner), except under some very narrow exceptions, usually involving the commission on violent felonies where the suspect getting away would be a greater danger to the community. The defenses option though are more limited with the video. They cant use the "Oops I thought it was my tazer" defense because the officer fired multiple shots and callously offered no aid to Mr. Scott after it was clear he had been struck several times with bullets. The defense will most likely try and go the rout of trying to convince the jury that the officer believed Mr. Scot had a gun he was reaching for in his waistband, some angle that we cannot see on the video, but I don't think it's going to fly in this case.

People are tired of this crap. And in this case the officer clearly wasn't concerned with the suspect trying to reach for a weapon, because he causally took a shooing stance and fired multiple shots. if the officer had thought the suspect was reaching for something he would have closed the distance to get a better vantage point, which is big in this kind of defense.