This Piggy Wiggy Got Caught

[Reynaldo]

Duderonomy said:Reynaldo said:He should have had a gun. Too bad white liberals stigmatize open carry when they aren't the ones in the crosshairs.




Surely carrying a gun only bolsters the cop's self-defence argument...











...or are you saying that the best way for a black man to deal with institutionalised racism within the police force is to have a shoot-out everytime you get stopped by a cop?





That sounds like a fucking great idea.







Institutionalised racism? Haha. I think the more appropriate phrase would be: "an apparent open season for cops on any black man resisting arrest in any way whatsoever." In such cases, yes, possible death is preferable to probable death. Until cops are retrained, what practical force other than bullet evasion could possibly slow the rate of executions of unarmed black men? Black men should be encouraged to take the same [em]hand on gun, finger on trigger[/em] approach that cops take with them. Or we could all simply work for structural change over the course of decades while the body count rises. I'm sure either approach would effect you equally. Not everyone is so lucky. Schitt is beyond beyond.

 

[batmon]

Timebomb

 

[ketan]

(i haven't actually heard the tape. any good?)

 

[LazarusOblong]

Rockadelic saidrosecute & hopefully execute....dude is a murderer.





b/w





Running from the police never has a happy ending




He was being tortured and he took a chance and ran.





Maybe pulling over in the first place was his wrong move. But I'm not into blaming the victim.





Years ago I posted that America has a police problem and you strongly disagreed. Is that still your position?

 

[tech12z]

"But we don't know what happened before the tape started rolling!" in 3… 2...

 

[Duderonomy]

Reynaldo said: I'm sure either approach would effect you equally. Not everyone is so lucky.







Not living in America - a choice on my part. Didn't realise this would be considered lucky!








Really the changes to law enforcement should happen now instead of an arms race.

 

[Brian]

DOR said:LaserWolf said:Apparently even his union has abandoned him.


SC is a right to work state, it could be this officer shunned the union and is now getting payback.





Still, expect his lawyers to delay trail for 2 years. Defame Scott and paint him as a dangerous criminal. Get a change of venue. Convince at least one juror that Slager was afraid that Scott was an imminent danger to others. (Which is all he needs to get off.)




His first lawyer abandoned too as soon as he saw the video. Good to see a defense lawyer not give a shit about the money and just walk away.Yeah, I also think it's great that he completely sold out his client not only by publicly announcing why he was no longer representing him but scheduling interviews, press releases, and website announcements when a simple "no comment" would have been okay. No possible way this doesn't influence a jury's opinion.

 

[Brian]

lol @ euroman seriously responding to reynaldo

 

[Fred_Garvin]

PatrickCrazy saidOR said:LaserWolf said:Apparently even his union has abandoned him.


SC is a right to work state, it could be this officer shunned the union and is now getting payback.





Still, expect his lawyers to delay trail for 2 years. Defame Scott and paint him as a dangerous criminal. Get a change of venue. Convince at least one juror that Slager was afraid that Scott was an imminent danger to others. (Which is all he needs to get off.)




His first lawyer abandoned too as soon as he saw the video. Good to see a defense lawyer not give a shit about the money and just walk away.Yeah, I also think it's great that he completely sold out his client not only by publicly announcing why he was no longer representing him but scheduling interviews, press releases, and website announcements when a simple "no comment" would have been okay. No possible way this doesn't influence a jury's opinion.

The only (potentially influential) thing he actually said (that I can find) was that he walked away from the case after seeing the video. Considering that any potential jurors will have seen the same video, would his statement be powerful enough to influence their opinion beyond the conclusions they draw after seeing the evidence? What do you think the odds are that by the time it actually goes to trial, jury members will even recall what he had to say about it?





How does this contrast with other ways in which a jury might be influenced... such as publicly painting the victim as a violent, dangerous thug (thus making their death acceptable) in the run-up to the trial, like we've seen happen nearly every time a case like this becomes a major story?





Given historical context (i.e. the typical outcome of cases like this), it's hard to imagine why we should think it's likely that a jury might be unfairly swayed in the direction of ruling against a police officer, even one who very clearly committed the crime he's being charged with.

 

[Brian]

Fred_Garvin saidatrickCrazy saidOR said:LaserWolf said:Apparently even his union has abandoned him.


SC is a right to work state, it could be this officer shunned the union and is now getting payback.





Still, expect his lawyers to delay trail for 2 years. Defame Scott and paint him as a dangerous criminal. Get a change of venue. Convince at least one juror that Slager was afraid that Scott was an imminent danger to others. (Which is all he needs to get off.)




His first lawyer abandoned too as soon as he saw the video. Good to see a defense lawyer not give a shit about the money and just walk away.Yeah, I also think it's great that he completely sold out his client not only by publicly announcing why he was no longer representing him but scheduling interviews, press releases, and website announcements when a simple "no comment" would have been okay. No possible way this doesn't influence a jury's opinion.

The only (potentially influential) thing he actually said (that I can find) was that he walked away from the case after seeing the video. Considering that any potential jurors will have seen the same video, would his statement be powerful enough to influence their opinion beyond the conclusions they draw after seeing the evidence? What do you think the odds are that by the time it actually goes to trial, jury members will even recall what he had to say about it?





How does this contrast with other ways in which a jury might be influenced... such as publicly painting the victim as a violent, dangerous thug (thus making their death acceptable) in the run-up to the trial, like we've seen happen nearly every time a case like this becomes a major story?





Given historical context (i.e. the typical outcome of cases like this), it's hard to imagine why we should think it's likely that a jury might be unfairly swayed in the direction of ruling against a police officer, even one who very clearly committed the crime he's being charged with.







First off, there's very little historical context on cases like this as there have been very few cases where something like this has been caught on video. Considering the concern over historical police homicides, do you think it would be best that avoiding any potential jury bias would kinda be good? I don't see how speculating what someone is going to remember over what time period is going to be fruitful, for all we know the entire jury will each have photographic memories. An attorney is going to have privileged information that a jury will not have access to and given that information along with the video, almost anyone will have their opinion changed in some fashion upon knowing that dude dumped him after seeing the video.





On DOR's absurd point that this guy is somehow a good guy for dumping a client publicly like this, dude basically violated attorney-client privilege by saying that he dumped him after watching the video. It's one thing to dump a client after they lied to you and refuse to comment, it's another thing to stage a press campaign and give interviews. In fact dude is thinking long term greed; up front petty cash vs reputation hit/loss of business for defending dude.

 

[LaserWolf]

In England there are strict rules about commenting on pending trials.


The media, lawyers, witnesses are all limited in what they can say.





In the States we have freedom of speech.

 

[Horseleech]

LaserWolf said:In England there are strict rules about commenting on pending trials.


The media, lawyers, witnesses are all limited in what they can say.





In the States we have freedom of speech.




Actually, gag orders are pretty much standard in high profile cases in the US.

 

[DOR]

PatrickCrazy said:On DOR's absurd point that this guy is somehow a good guy for dumping a client publicly like this




First off. I never claimed it was fact. I never actually heard the lawyer state his reasons for dropping the case. I still haven't seen him on video or read a quote from him. I only assumed he saw the video and realized everything his client said to him was a lie and he dropped the case. If he is going around doing what you say he is doing, that's on him... I'm not condoning that. Just simply stating I'm glad that he dropped him. I respect the act of doing that single thing. Don't put whatever he may or may not be doing after said fact on me.





And for someone crying at the beginning of this thread about "I've never said anything close to supporting anything like this" you should know the difference between the two.

 

[Fred_Garvin]

PatrickCrazy said:First off, there's very little historical context on cases like this as there have been very few cases where something like this has been caught on video. So only cases caught on video are considered valid historical context? No other police-citizen interaction has bearing?

Considering the concern over historical police homicides, do you think it would be best that avoiding any potential jury bias would kinda be good? I don't see how speculating what someone is going to remember over what time period is going to be fruitful, for all we know the entire jury will each have photographic memories. An attorney is going to have privileged information that a jury will not have access to and given that information along with the video, almost anyone will have their opinion changed in some fashion upon knowing that dude dumped him after seeing the video.

I do think avoiding jury bias is good (although all jurors are biased, inasmuch as all humans are biased), but that wasn't the question. The question was about how strong an impact his statement would have in influencing a jury over and above their own judgment, based on available evidence. For example, if I'm a juror, I see the video clip and the other evidence, and I:





1) Think "Clearly this cop murdered this guy, he's guilty".





2) Think (at the other extreme) "That guy was clearly a dangerous thug, good thing the cop shot him".





3) Think " Well he did shoot the guy in the back while he was running away, but I don't know what happened before the video was taken, so I can't be 100% certain something didn't happen that would justify it".





Does the knowledge of the first lawyer walking away after seeing the video change my POV? What if he had walked away, but we didn't know it was because he saw the video? How great would the difference be? The cop will definitely have another lawyer by that point. Does that lawyer's opinion hold less weight than the first? Why or why not?





I would think it's fair to say that examples 1 and 2 aren't likely to change at all. As for 3, it seems unlikely that they're going to take in all the evidence presented, come to a mental stalemate, and then say "Well, his first lawyer quit, so I'll have to go with guilty."





What if the other forms of potential jury bias I mentioned come into play? That's already happened, BTW... Scott's family court warrant, arrests for failing to pay child support (a jailable offense in SC) and 20+ year old assault charge, plus the standard "officer felt threatened" statement, are out there... and if there's anything else in that category to be found, it'll come up soon enough. Will these things have more or less impact than the thing about the officer's lawyer? Which type of information has historically had more impact? Is there a reason why we should be more concerned about one than the other?





Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the boundaries of attorney-client privilege, but I thought that was specific to confidential information passed between client and attorney. Since the video is public, wouldn't that mean mention of it is not protected? Wouldn't it also be the case that an attorney is within their rights to say why they dropped a case, as long as they don't reveal any confidential information about the case or the client in the process of doing so?

 

[Brian]

DOR saidatrickCrazy said:On DOR's absurd point that this guy is somehow a good guy for dumping a client publicly like this




First off. I never claimed it was fact.

His first lawyer abandoned too as soon as he saw the video. Good to see a defense lawyer not give a shit about the money and just walk away.

You're right, I don't see a sworn statement here that you, DOR, say that this was a factual statement. I feel like someone should have pushed me further into investigating this. In the future, if I ever decide to respond to your posts, I will ask you if you are claiming a fact or just merely speculating even if it seems extremely clear cut. I apologize for that.

I never actually heard the lawyer state his reasons for dropping the case.

Never heard his reason but....

His first lawyer abandoned too as soon as he saw the video.

k

Just simply stating I'm glad that he dropped him. I respect the act of doing that single thing. Don't put whatever he may or may not be doing after said fact on me.

I'm not putting anything on you beyond addressing your glee that someone who did something you don't like is not getting fair representation. Had this been a citizen against a cop with the same circumstances, you would be raging out of control. Regardless of the crime, people deserve fair representation.

And for someone crying at the beginning of this thread about "I've never said anything close to supporting anything like this" you should know the difference between the two.

I've only addressed your post in this thread, did not carry anything from some other thread, and have not extrapolated any disagreement with Soulstrut groupthink into some evil conspiracy theory. Slight difference between the two. Merely stating that I think it's absurd to be happy that someone got thrown under the bus by their former legal council.

 

[kala]

this killer pig swill transcends race


latinos,whites,browns and yellows are all on the same kill grid as everyone else as soon as they step out they door and or get behind the wheel.

 

[Brian]

Fred_Garvin saidatrickCrazy said:First off, there's very little historical context on cases like this as there have been very few cases where something like this has been caught on video. So only cases caught on video are considered valid historical context? No other police-citizen interaction has bearing?




You can't look a sample of all police cases and compare it to something like this which clearly shows a crime being committed and covered up. I'm guessing you would have a similar conviction rate for all crimes captured on video that clearly show the offense; regardless if police were involved or not.

Considering the concern over historical police homicides, do you think it would be best that avoiding any potential jury bias would kinda be good? I don't see how speculating what someone is going to remember over what time period is going to be fruitful, for all we know the entire jury will each have photographic memories. An attorney is going to have privileged information that a jury will not have access to and given that information along with the video, almost anyone will have their opinion changed in some fashion upon knowing that dude dumped him after seeing the video.

I do think avoiding jury bias is good (although all jurors are biased, inasmuch as all humans are biased), but that wasn't the question. The question was about how strong an impact his statement would have in influencing a jury over and above their own judgment, based on available evidence. For example, if I'm a juror, I see the video clip and the other evidence, and I:





1) Think "Clearly this cop murdered this guy, he's guilty".





2) Think (at the other extreme) "That guy was clearly a dangerous thug, good thing the cop shot him".





3) Think " Well he did shoot the guy in the back while he was running away, but I don't know what happened before the video was taken, so I can't be 100% certain something didn't happen that would justify it".





Does the knowledge of the first lawyer walking away after seeing the video change my POV? What if he had walked away, but we didn't know it was because he saw the video? How great would the difference be? The cop will definitely have another lawyer by that point. Does that lawyer's opinion hold less weight than the first? Why or why not?





I would think it's fair to say that examples 1 and 2 aren't likely to change at all. As for 3, it seems unlikely that they're going to take in all the evidence presented, come to a mental stalemate, and then say "Well, his first lawyer quit, so I'll have to go with guilty."





What if the other forms of potential jury bias I mentioned come into play? That's already happened, BTW... Scott's family court warrant, arrests for failing to pay child support (a jailable offense in SC) and 20+ year old assault charge, plus the standard "officer felt threatened" statement, are out there... and if there's anything else in that category to be found, it'll come up soon enough. Will these things have more or less impact than the thing about the officer's lawyer? Which type of information has historically had more impact? Is there a reason why we should be more concerned about one than the other?





Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the boundaries of attorney-client privilege, but I thought that was specific to confidential information passed between client and attorney. Since the video is public, wouldn't that mean mention of it is not protected? Wouldn't it also be the case that an attorney is within their rights to say why they dropped a case, as long as they don't reveal any confidential information about the case or the client in the process of doing so?

Not trying to be rude or anything but really don't have the time to respond to all this alternate reality possible scenario stuff. Let me restate my point, legal council (who are assumed to be in possession of confidential information) should not be publicly casting suspicion on their clients (or former clients); regardless of the crime and especially while a case is still going on. This applies to anyone for any crime committed; even the ones I personally dislike. You can't make arbitrary standards based on some "well i dont think its going to influence the case so who gives a shit" shit.

 

[vintageinfants]

so what you're saying is that it's not fair to lump all policemen into the same pool based in the actions of a few?





man, I'll bet the POC population never has to deal with something like that.

 

[Brian]

vintageinfants said:so what you're saying is that it's not fair to lump all policemen into the same pool based in the actions of a few?





man, I'll bet the POC population never has to deal with something like that.nah, not what i'm saying at all. learn how to read better

 

[parallax]

PatrickCrazy said:vintageinfants said:so what you're saying is that it's not fair to lump all policemen into the same pool based in the actions of a few?





man, I'll bet the POC population never has to deal with something like that.nah, not what i'm saying at all. learn how to read better




Brian, you're a soggy twat-waffle.