GUILTY SC - Walter Scott, 50, fatally shot by North Charleston PD officer, 4 April 2015 - #2

[perplexed1]

The officer's were trying to put him in the squad car and he's kicking and acting like an idiot. North Charleston is a very violent place...the new Detroit, I guess, since most of their citizens are coming this way.

 

[Tawny]

The officer's were trying to put him in the squad car and he's kicking and acting like an idiot. North Charleston is a very violent place...the new Detroit, I guess, since most of their citizens are coming this way.

I don't understand the relevance to this thread...

 

[turaj]

I am pretty sure that this jury is deadlocked and they know that is what they will end up telling the judge on Monday. I think they did not want to leave at night given no conviction...they know what could happen in the streets. So unusual to have this holdout writing the note...almost begging for the judge to rescue him/her ..it is ugly in there...then a note saying the jurors has "issues". If by some miracle that juror changes their mind over the weekend it would really seem like a result of some serious pressure and thus verdict could be questioned by the defense.

 

[Jax49]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us/walter-scott-michael-slager-shooting-charleston.html?_r=0

Over the misgivings of a defense lawyer, Judge Clifton B. Newman, who presided over a four-week trial, did not declare a mistrial in the case of the former officer, Michael T. Slager, who shot and killed Walter L. Scott in North Charleston, S.C., on April 4, 2015.

Jurors had been deliberating for about 48 hours and, by day’s end, had decided to resume their discussions on Monday.
Yet Friday’s proceedings, before a crowded courtroom that alternated between focused and flummoxed, were a remarkable display of the divisions in one of the country’s most closely watched cases.

It has been seen as a bellwether for whether video evidence could lead to a rare conviction of a law enforcement officer in an on-duty killing.

 

[turaj]

still trying to understand what happened Friday...in many ways this is going to create an even more heated result in the community now that is is prolonged no doubt to get same result on Monday. And never have seen a juror sending a note to the judge that he can't convict and will NOT change his mind? But yet something going on back in that jury room that they will not declare themselves hung? Wonder about how much pressure this juror is undergoing? Would not doubt that over the weekend this person has some sort of breakdown and does not even return. Have any trial watchers seen anything like this before? It really speaks to the difficulty in these police shootings to get any conviction.

 

[Tawny]

still trying to understand what happened Friday...in many ways this is going to create an even more heated result in the community now that is is prolonged no doubt to get same result on Monday. And never have seen a juror sending a note to the judge that he can't convict and will NOT change his mind? But yet something going on back in that jury room that they will not declare themselves hung? Wonder about how much pressure this juror is undergoing? Would not doubt that over the weekend this person has some sort of breakdown and does not even return. Have any trial watchers seen anything like this before? It really speaks to the difficulty in these police shootings to get any conviction.

Or on the flip side, is this juror refusing to agree to a hung jury because s/he doesn't want another trial and doesn't want a guilty verdict to be reached? There are so many variables and confusion. Frustrating!

 

[Canaille]

Wow, what a roller coaster that was.

If recent history is any indication, then imo 1 in 12 people are emotionally unfit for jury duty when it comes to a uniform.

Maybe it's time to change the setup for taking a uniform to trial - since many feel that the uniform has special privileges, level the playing field somehow.

The current practice and this trial will only incite people into taking their frustrations out when/where they shouldn't. Jmo.

When you say "level the playing field"... like a jury consisting of other law enforcement officers? Maybe law enforcement needs to be tried in the same manner as military court martial cases? Just a thought.

"Because juries are comprised of the defendant's peers, military court martial cases do have juries, but these juries are comprised of commissioned officers or other enlisted persons. Another difference is that it is not referred to as a "jury" in court martial cases, but as a "court member panel."

 

[SophieRose]

I was watching CNN and they said if it's a mistrial, it will be tried since it's an 11 guilty. They say the holdout may be a stealth juror.

A stealth juror or rogue juror is a person who, motivated by a hidden agenda in reference to a legal case, attempts to be seated on the jury and to influence the outcome.

 

[Jax49]

I was watching CNN and they said if it's a mistrial, it will be tried since it's an 11 guilty. They say the holdout may be a stealth juror.

A stealth juror or rogue juror is a person who, motivated by a hidden agenda in reference to a legal case, attempts to be seated on the jury and to influence the outcome.

I agree about it being a stealth juror. The statement he made gives me that impression. He didn't say he'd considered the facts and can't vote guilty.

"I cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict"

BBM

MOO

 

[Tawny]

When you say "level the playing field"... like a jury consisting of other law enforcement officers? Maybe law enforcement needs to be tried in the same manner as military court martial cases? Just a thought.

"Because juries are comprised of the defendant's peers, military court martial cases do have juries, but these juries are comprised of commissioned officers or other enlisted persons. Another difference is that it is not referred to as a "jury" in court martial cases, but as a "court member panel."

I'm not stepping on THAT landmine LOL

 

[SophieRose]

When you say "level the playing field"... like a jury consisting of other law enforcement officers? Maybe law enforcement needs to be tried in the same manner as military court martial cases? Just a thought.

"Because juries are comprised of the defendant's peers, military court martial cases do have juries, but these juries are comprised of commissioned officers or other enlisted persons. Another difference is that it is not referred to as a "jury" in court martial cases, but as a "court member panel."

That would be like a civil case where doctors decide whether it's malpractice or not. How do you think that verdict would go?

 

[Canaille]

That would be like a civil case where doctors decide whether it's malpractice or not. How do you think that verdict would go?

I'm not sure. I'd like to think that a jury consisting of other officers would be more "balanced" for a lack of better words. But, then again, if it were a jury of all officers, people would still not be satisfied with whatever the outcome is. There would be some claiming that he got a lesser punishment because he was LE, and there would be those saying his punishment was too severe.

 

[Woodland]

When you say "level the playing field"... like a jury consisting of other law enforcement officers? Maybe law enforcement needs to be tried in the same manner as military court martial cases? Just a thought.

"Because juries are comprised of the defendant's peers, military court martial cases do have juries, but these juries are comprised of commissioned officers or other enlisted persons. Another difference is that it is not referred to as a "jury" in court martial cases, but as a "court member panel."

No to a jury consisting of LEO's when a LEO is on trial. Hard to believe many would find that a 'level playing field' or 'balanced'.

More like a tribunal or panel using the criminal code and made up of professionals and lay-people that can demonstrate a history that would qualify them to sit as a juror when a LEO is on trial.
I know, I know - that is what is suppose to be happening now right? Is it?

Example - former officer SK in Tulsa - hunts down his daughters bf, with a gun in his vehicle, and shoots him in the street while off-duty - a daughter that he had recently escorted out of his house.
One on a jury of his 'peers'? decided sure that's OK with me - causing a hung jury. Imo, this 'juror' did not apply common sense, did not follow or consider what is known to be lawful and imo, took matters into his/her own hands for their own personal agenda.

So what was the agenda? One can read time and time again (media and here on WS) the emotional plea that 'LEO's put their lives on the line for us everyday so we have to give them a broad path in which to operate' or similar wording. Have never read someone making that plea follow-up with, but they have to operate within the law.

It's an emotional response and imo lacking what is needed to be a juror.

If LEO's are going to be put on a pedestal as individuals, rather than the uniform or job on a pedestal, how can a fair trial be conducted and a warranted outcome had using the methods/systems in play for non-Leo's?

I think recent trials of LEO's (in the US and Canada) are showing that there is some sort of unreasonable bias and view that the rules don't apply to LEO's - they have after all been given the right to kill in the line of duty when the situation calls for it. But, the LEO's that go to trial have not acted within their mandate and imo 'privilege' to kill.

I really think something different should be setup for LEO's on trial given what imo is a clear topsy-turvy mindset of the public and non-level playing field.

Thanks for asking - cheers!

 

[drjones]

OT i have always felt that an anonymous record of jury deliberations should become public record after some time, or made available for review if there are issues brought to light.

 

[Jax49]

OT i have always felt that an anonymous record of jury deliberations should become public record after some time, or made available for review if there are issues brought to light.

O/T Last time I served there would have been a lot of bleeping needed.

 

[katydid23]

That is not what I said at all katydid23 <modsnip>

well, what does 'level the playing field' mean then? You were speaking about jury trials and leveling the playing field. How does it not mean altering the way officers are tried?

 

[Woodland]

OT i have always felt that an anonymous record of jury deliberations should become public record after some time, or made available for review if there are issues brought to light.

That's a pretty good concept/theory imo - it might serve as a deterrent for some not to act like fools (not the word I'm looking for) if it could become public knowledge down the road.

 

[katydid23]

When you say "level the playing field"... like a jury consisting of other law enforcement officers? Maybe law enforcement needs to be tried in the same manner as military court martial cases? Just a thought.

"Because juries are comprised of the defendant's peers, military court martial cases do have juries, but these juries are comprised of commissioned officers or other enlisted persons. Another difference is that it is not referred to as a "jury" in court martial cases, but as a "court member panel."

I think that is the opposite of what she was asking for.

 

[katydid23]

No to a jury consisting of LEO's when a LEO is on trial. Hard to believe many would find that a 'level playing field' or 'balanced'.

More like a tribunal or panel using the criminal code and made up of professionals and lay-people that can demonstrate a history that would qualify them to sit as a juror when a LEO is on trial.
I know, I know - that is what is suppose to be happening now right? Is it?

Example - former officer SK in Tulsa - hunts down his daughters bf, with a gun in his vehicle, and shoots him in the street while off-duty - a daughter that he had recently escorted out of his house.
One on a jury of his 'peers'? decided sure that's OK with me - causing a hung jury. Imo, this 'juror' did not apply common sense, did not follow or consider what is known to be lawful and imo, took matters into his/her own hands for their own personal agenda.

So what was the agenda? One can read time and time again (media and here on WS) the emotional plea that 'LEO's put their lives on the line for us everyday so we have to give them a broad path in which to operate' or similar wording. Have never read someone making that plea follow-up with, but they have to operate within the law.

It's an emotional response and imo lacking what is needed to be a juror.

If LEO's are going to be put on a pedestal as individuals, rather than the uniform or job on a pedestal, how can a fair trial be conducted and a warranted outcome had using the methods/systems in play for non-Leo's?

I think recent trials of LEO's (in the US and Canada) are showing that there is some sort of unreasonable bias and view that the rules don't apply to LEO's - they have after all been given the right to kill in the line of duty when the situation calls for it. But, the LEO's that go to trial have not acted within their mandate and imo 'privilege' to kill.

I really think something different should be setup for LEO's on trial given what imo is a clear topsy-turvy mindset of the public and non-level playing field.

Thanks for asking - cheers!

That was what was done in the Freddie Gray case and the judge acquitted every officer. there was a public backlash and the DA wanted NOT to allow professional lay people familiar with the criminal codes to be jurors anymore.

The reason that people hesitate to convict officers is that officers are i a very different situation than civilians in these cases. We pay them to physically confront and engage with dangerous situations every day and night. So there are going to be times that they skirt the legal rules/boundaries when in a lethal situation. It is hard to avoid that forever. If we put an officer in prison for making the wrong choice in the heat of battle, then it will have a negative affect in many ways, imo. And it already has.

 

[Woodland]

Anyway, looking forward to what happens on Monday.