Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    03 Dec '16 14:442 edits
    YouTube

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/jury-says-it-s-deadlocked-trial-officer-who-shot-walter-n691291

    A lone juror said Friday he can't convict a white former police officer who fatally shot a black man in South Carolina, and the jury said they want to continue deliberating.

    The juror in a letter to the court said "I cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict" against Michael Slager, a former patrolman who pulled over Walter Scott in North Charleston, and ended up shooting him as a bystander recorded the incident on video.

    The jury foreperson said in a separate note to the court that it was only one juror who was "having issues," Circuit Judge Clifton Newman said. The juror opposed to conviction said in the letter, "I cannot and will not change my mind," Newman said.
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    03 Dec '16 14:48
    A) The video not only shows Slager calmly shooting a man fleeing from him in the back, but also shows Slager dropping his taser next to the victim, to validate his claim that the victim took his taser (and made him fear for his life). What the hell is stopping this juror?

    B) Slager, a white cop, is out on bond for murder. Doesn't a murder charge automatically disqualify one from being able to be bailed?
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    03 Dec '16 14:51
    juries. a great idea
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52855
    04 Dec '16 08:08
    Originally posted by vivify
    [youtube]_Ayoy4ASz9w[/youtube]

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/jury-says-it-s-deadlocked-trial-officer-who-shot-walter-n691291

    A lone juror said Friday he can't convict a white former police officer who fatally shot a black man in South Carolina, and the jury said they want to continue deliberating.

    The juror in a letter to the court said " ...[text shortened]... r opposed to conviction said in the letter, "I cannot and will not change my mind," Newman said.
    And no doubt that juror was white.
  5. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    04 Dec '16 15:23
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    And no doubt that juror was white.
    11 of 12 jurors were white; so it's quite likely.
  6. Joined
    03 Feb '07
    Moves
    146158
    05 Dec '16 00:18
    I'm pretty sure that the DA will move for a second trial if the jury is hung.
  7. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    05 Dec '16 01:091 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    Doesn't a murder charge automatically disqualify one from being able to be bailed?
    No; it's up to the discretion of the judge.

    On the contrary, making an iron-clad rule that disallowed bail for specific types of cases might run afoul of the 8th Amendment. Bail/remand is supposed to ensure attendance, not punish.
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    06 Dec '16 17:36
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/walter-scott-shooting/judge-allows-jury-consider-manslaughter-walter-scott-trial-n690331

    "South Carolina law defines murder as the unlawful taking of life with malice. In Slager's case — because the prosecution is alleging no aggravating circumstances that could bring a death sentence — murder carries a penalty of 30 years to life.

    The prosecution contends that by shooting Scott repeatedly in the back as the motorist tried to run away, Slager showed evidence of malice."

    shot five times while fleeing. away from the murderer. recorded. witnesses.

    yet one retard/psycho in a jury is all it takes to declare a mistrial? a retard who will not and cannot face any consequences for failing to do his job.

    How is this not a horribly flawed system?
  9. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55416
    06 Dec '16 18:15
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/walter-scott-shooting/judge-allows-jury-consider-manslaughter-walter-scott-trial-n690331

    "South Carolina law defines murder as the unlawful taking of life with malice. In Slager's case — because the prosecution is alleging no aggravating circumstances that could bring a death sentence — murder carries a penalty of 30 year ...[text shortened]... t face any consequences for failing to do his job.

    How is this not a horribly flawed system?
    What type of consequences would be appropriate? Do you think we should punish everyone who sees the evidence differently than you?
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Dec '16 20:30
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/walter-scott-shooting/judge-allows-jury-consider-manslaughter-walter-scott-trial-n690331

    "South Carolina law defines murder as the unlawful taking of life with malice. In Slager's case — because the prosecution is alleging no aggravating circumstances that could bring a death sentence — murder carries a penalty of 30 year ...[text shortened]... t face any consequences for failing to do his job.

    How is this not a horribly flawed system?
    What system would you prefer? A judge can be just as biased as any juror + he might factor in considerations like his political career which are inappropriate in determining guilt.

    At least with a mistrial there is a chance for another trial with a different jury.
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    06 Dec '16 20:36
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What system would you prefer? A judge can be just as biased as any juror + he might factor in considerations like his political career which are inappropriate in determining guilt.

    At least with a mistrial there is a chance for another trial with a different jury.
    "A judge can be just as biased as any juror"
    a judge can and should be held accountable.
    a judge has to justify his "i don't feel like he is guilty" statement.
    a judge has training to understand when there is insufficient evidence and when there is not.


    aside from talent shows, where else do you have a panel of completely random individuals decide on a matter for which we have specialists and rightfully so?
  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    06 Dec '16 20:41
    Originally posted by quackquack
    What type of consequences would be appropriate? Do you think we should punish everyone who sees the evidence differently than you?
    The appropriate consequence would be abolishing the antiquated jury system and replacing it with independent judges.
  13. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55416
    06 Dec '16 20:45
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The appropriate consequence would be abolishing the antiquated jury system and replacing it with independent judges.
    I'm all for that but isn't this case in the news because people do not like the way the governmental agent administered justice?
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    06 Dec '16 20:48
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I'm all for that but isn't this case in the news because people do not like the way the governmental agent administered justice?
    I think this case has been in the news because (alleged) police brutality is a commonly discussed topic in the U.S. at the moment and this appears to be a particularly egregious case.
  15. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55416
    06 Dec '16 20:53
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "A judge can be just as biased as any juror"
    a judge can and should be held accountable.
    a judge has to justify his "i don't feel like he is guilty" statement.
    a judge has training to understand when there is insufficient evidence and when there is not.


    aside from talent shows, where else do you have a panel of completely random individuals decide on a matter for which we have specialists and rightfully so?
    Are you ever done complaining?
    You don't like when we have primaries and the person with the most votes won because it was not your candidate. You don't like when we have presidential elections and it's not just a straight majority again because your candidate did not win. You don't like when we have ordinary people deciding cases because they did not decide the way you did. If we have a jury system, or a primary or an election people vote the way they wish and there should be no consequences for exercising their judgment.
Back to Top