Grand Jury Indicts Michael Slager For Killing Walter Scott

Jun 8

Posted by

walter-scott-michael-slagerA grand jury has indicted former South Carolina police officer Michael Slager on a murder charge in the fatal shooting of unarmed Walter Scott.

The April 4, 2015 killing was captured on video by a bystander. It showed that Slager fired 8 times at the 50-year old Walter Scott as Scott’s back was turned, running away from Slager.

 

Slager aiming and shooting

Prosecutor Scarlett Wilson announced the indictment this morning. Prosecutors will not seek the death penalty because under South Carolina law, it requires aggravating circumstances. If convicted, the 33-year old Slager faces 30 years to life in prison.

Here’s the press conference.

 

Posted on 06/08/2015, in Cases, Cops Gone Wild, Walter Scott and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 23 Comments.

  1. scrodriguez | 06/08/2015 at 10:52 am

    Lets see a conviction, Slager is guilty as all hell…..

    Like

    Reply
  2. yahtzeebutterfly | 06/08/2015 at 10:57 am

    Good.

    Like

    Reply
  4. mindyme62 | 06/08/2015 at 12:22 pm

    A jury could still find him not guilty or guilty of a lesser charge couldn’t they? I am impressed. If a LEO shooting someone in the back doesn’t constitute aggravating circumstances, I don’t know what would

    Like

    Reply
    • Xena | 06/08/2015 at 1:12 pm

      Hey Mindyme! I’m uploading a vid of the press conference now. The prosecutor explains South Carolina law on murder and how it differs from other states. It should be finished uploading any moment now and I’ll put it in the article above.

      Like

      Reply
      • scrodriguez | 06/08/2015 at 3:43 pm

        Xena,

        They dont have to announce lesser charges yet correct? I recall the Zimmerman trial lessor charges were not recommended until after closing arguments is this the same scenario?

        Like

        Reply
    • Two sides to a story | 06/08/2015 at 7:46 pm

      Shootings in the back have happened a few times in Cali recently with no repercussions to officers. The difference here might be altering evidence by dropping the taser by the body. Maybe. Too many police apologists get on juries though.

      Like

      Reply
      • scrodriguez | 06/09/2015 at 11:32 am

        I dont doubt it but even should that happen I can see an easy pick up by the DOJ on civil rights violations I mean the man clearly planted evidence after shooting Scott in the back.
        Keep in mind there was a audio recording device that was working the entire time, you never heard Slager say the stop, or that he was being assaulted by scott all you heard was Slager running and announce the taser being deployed…. at no point in the audio or video is there one shred of evidence that Scott assaulted him or went for his taser.
        in fact the only time you hear anything about the taser is after Slager murdered Scott in cold blood.

        Like

        Reply
  5. Rachael | 06/08/2015 at 12:34 pm

    Yay!!!!

    Like

    Reply
  6. Mr. Militant Negro | 06/08/2015 at 1:03 pm

    Reblogged this on The Militant Negro™.

    Like

    Reply
  7. racerrodig | 06/08/2015 at 1:18 pm

    I can’t see this one being an acquit since he used his tazer, then picked it up and dropped it by Scott’s body and made the claim of “close combat”

    Like

    Reply
    • scrodriguez | 06/08/2015 at 3:44 pm

      Logic would tell you this should be a slam dunk but how many times have we seen video showing murder at the hands of Law Enforcement and no convictions ever turn up?

      Like

      Reply
    • Xena | 06/09/2015 at 12:25 am

      It depends on how the defense works the case, and what the judge allows. If the judge allows the defense to turn the trial into the Walter Scott trial to justify Slager’s execution of a “criminal,” it will take a wise jury to resist that impression.

      Like

      Reply
  8. Linda Andersen | 06/08/2015 at 1:52 pm

    With so many “jury decision disappointments” lately, we can only hope THIS jury has some common sense and does the right thing.

    Like

    Reply
  9. Sunshinebright | 06/08/2015 at 3:57 pm

    Nothing’s a slam dunk. It’s good the grand jury indicted him, but time will tell if he gets any punishment – deserving punishment. His and his fellow officers’ lies and then the condemning video goes viral! Wow. Do they need any more evidence?

    Like

    Reply
    • scrodriguez | 06/09/2015 at 11:35 am

      Nobody said it is a slam dunk but Logic if applied to the case tells you this is a slam dunk. However we know when it comes to trial when a guilty cop is facing time in prison we usually do not see logic being applied nine times out of ten the victim is put on trial

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  10. Two sides to a story | 06/08/2015 at 7:36 pm

    I’m certainly don’t have any illusion about this jury convicting – I’ll be surprised if they do. But it’s a big step forward to indict LEOs. I can only hope the time is coming soon when better hiring and training practices and use of cameras and outside investigations will equal justice for victims of police brutality.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Rachael | 06/08/2015 at 9:36 pm

    Sorry but I on my phone and I will get to xenia ‘ s email so I’m putting this here. I can’t stop crying. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015

    Like

    Reply
  12. yahtzeebutterfly | 12/24/2015 at 1:38 pm

    “Michael Slager Declared Indigent”
    http://www.abccolumbia.com/2015/12/24/michael-slager-declared-indigent/

    Excerpt:

    Attorneys for Slager are seeking state funding to pay for expert witnesses through the indigent defense program, so the afternoon decision is a step in the defense’s direction.

    But Judge Clifton Newman still has to allow taxpayer funds to go towards Slager’s defense. In this case, the money would be used to secure expert witnesses. During Wednesday morning’s hearing, attorney Andy Savage said his team had already spent in excess of $100,000 on the case.

    Savage, who is working on the Slager case pro bono, also noted he has yet to ask for any kind of payment for his legal assistance.

    “We have not asked for one cent for any of the lawyers working hundreds and hundreds of hours on this case,” Savage said, pointing to a table packed with attorneys surrounding Slager.

    But Hugh Ryan, one of two indigent defense experts brought into the court Wednesday to address the ex parte motion, said the way the case has played out could set a peculiar precedent for defendants to take on pro bono legal help only to seek indigence to get access to taxpayer funds to cover the cost of experts.

    Ryan says the indigent defense office still wants to know how much a defense team expects to spend on experts; they don’t write blank checks, he said.

    Like

    Reply

Join the discussion