This again, only different. Kind of. Follow

It depends on whether we assume he fired so many shots because he was angry at the suspect and wanted to hurt him, or if he intended to just injure him to prevent him from escaping and unintentionally fired more shots than intended. Cops do sometimes get tunnel vision when firing weapons, and it's not uncommon for them to insist they only fired "2 or 3 shots" only to discover they emptied the entire clip.

The legality gets tricky with police shootings (as I think we're all aware of by now) because of the way the various charges are described. For example, voluntary manslaughter either require malice aforethought (intent to kill), or can include a lesser version where the intent was to injure but the person died in the course of the action. The problem is that in many cases, the legal code explicitly excludes the latter case when it involves a police officer operating in the course of his duties. It's there specifically so that a cop faced with a fleeing armed bank robber or serial killer doesn't second guess shooting at the person as a means to prevent his escape out of the fear that if he should kill him, he'll be charged with a felony himself.

Similarly, involuntary manslaughter includes two broad categories. The first involves deaths that occur during the commission of an unlawful act (whether intentional or not). That's not going to apply to a police officer though, no matter how much we may disagree with his decision to fire his weapon. He was clearly in all other ways not engaged in any unlawful act. Which leaves us with the second form of involuntary manslaughter which is more generally referred to as "criminally negligent homicide/manslaughter" (specific term depends on jurisdiction). That's what I was referring to earlier. In this case, it can either be an accident, or recklessness. The latter case probably applying here. It's generally used when someone has some kind of professional duty/responsibility that holds a known potential risk to life and limb, and either fails to perform that duty, resulting in death, or does so improperly, resulting in death. While we can certainly debate his choice to use his weapon to stop the fleeing suspect, having made that choice, I think we can all agree that firing so many shots constitutes "doing so improperly, resulting in death".

Again, it's tricky with cops because their jobs actually involve them potentially having to use lethal weapons. The normal legal definitions don't apply as cleanly. In cases like this, they tend to start with the greatest charge they think might possibly apply and then go from there. I'm not sure if "murder" works (and also not sure exactly how that charge is defined in the jurisdiction in question). That usually requires intent, and I don't see anything in the video's I've seen that suggest that the officer had any intent other than to prevent a fleeing suspect from escaping. He massively overused force to do so, but that charge requires proving intent (to an entire jury), which I'm not sure can be done. Proving he acted recklessly in the performance of his duty resulting in loss of life? Almost certainly can prove that.

Ah... But the planting of the taser happened after the decision to fire.

You think the execution of a crime begins and stops at singular actions? Apparently you do. That's kind of sad, son.

Edited, Apr 11th 2015 12:22am by lolgaxe

Yes. You don't?

Given that the cell phone video does show the two struggling over the taser, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he did believe that Scott had grabbed his taser during the struggle and that's why he fired. It's then also not out of the realm of possibility that he only moved the taser after firing, looking around for the taser, seeing it on the ground where the struggle had occurred, realized he'd just shot an unarmed man, and moved it in order to make it appear that Scott had indeed taken the weapon and thus represented a threat to himself.

That makes it a terrible decision after the fact, and a serious violation of the law (falsifying evidence and probably a few other charges), but it does not itself prove that the entire thing was planned from the start. You'd have to assume that he knew that the taser had been dropped on the ground during the struggle and that Scott didn't have it, and then assume that he wanted to commit murder, and decided that he could get way with it if he shot Scott and moved the taser next to the body. That's a whole heck of a lot of speculation and requires that we assume a pretty incredibly awful motive on the part of Slager.

It's much more reasonable to assume that he made a mistake, realized it, and then attempted to conceal it after the fact. Still incredibly wrong, but not something that assumes the kind of planning and malicious intent that the other scenario would require. I mean, I suppose it's also not out of the realm of possibility for a white racist cop to travel around just looking for an opportunity to trick a black man into a situation where he can justify killing him, but the whole "made a mistake and then stupidly tried to cover it up" seems astronomically more likely.

Nothing in your hypothetical you assumed changes the fact that the death occurred during the commission of a felony.

You'd almost think a police officer would be trained this way.

I doubt it. Nearly all small arms training begins with "first, we're going to learn how to shoot a weapon out of an assailants hand without otherwise injuring them. This is the most common use of firearms. Ignore all that center mass, fire until the target is down BS, that's just for show, what this is really about is fancy trickshots. Once you master disarming, we'll move on to non lethal leg shots to slow the disarmed target and later once you've rated marksman, how to shoot overhead objects free to knock targets unconscious. I like to call that part "bullets of Damocles.

I bet a lot of folks are wondering what it takes to be killed by police under "normal" circumstances.

I saw that over the weekend, and it was just ridiculous. That family had to be mentally handicapped the way those younger ones were running around screaming and completely ignoring the cops (except when they were attacking the cops). I'm surprised the officers approached them when they were outnumbered.

I see in the video one of the officers is shot, but was one of the family members there on the right also shot? The one laying on the ground at the end?

A family of roving musicians, even. Didn't realize America had its own Gypsies.

A family of roving musicians, even. Didn't realize America had its own Gypsies.

You clearly haven't spent much time in Appalachia.

Argentina?