Re: Walter Scott

1

Not for murder? The story says the judge ruled him guilty of murder 2 and obstruction.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 12- 7-17 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
2

Oh hrm. I don't know. Who can say.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 12- 7-17 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
3

U.S. District Judge David Norton ruled that Michael Slager, 36, committed second-degree murder and obstruction of justice, in addition to a federal civil rights charge, and set sentencing guidelines of 19 to 24 years in prison.

But also...

In May, Slager pleaded guilty to Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, a federal civil rights charge, in exchange for dropping the two other federal charges and the original state murder charges he was facing


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 12- 7-17 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
4

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law is apparently an extremely serious charge, and is potentially a capital crime. So if he was only charged for that, that would be sufficient to explain the punishment.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 12- 7-17 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
5

Under White of Law Matters Too!


Posted by: Opinionated Republicans | Link to this comment | 12- 7-17 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
6

This is probably going to be confusing for the Scottish commenters.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12- 7-17 5:52 PM
horizontal rule
7

They're only blue and white at sporting events, Mobes. It washes off.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 12- 7-17 6:31 PM
horizontal rule
8

"Under color of law" is an interesting expression. "Under cover of law" would be the way I think I would phrase it in normal discourse.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 12- 8-17 6:58 AM
horizontal rule
9

8: I don't think that's right, but I admit it's a colorable claim.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 12- 8-17 7:05 AM
horizontal rule
10

OP.last is so fucking cheerful.

And, indeed, some pig just got acquitted for shooting a guy in a hotel hallway, and I swear I have no recollection of anything about that incident.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 12- 8-17 4:56 PM
horizontal rule
11

10.2: I think what made that one get traction in the news is that they released the video after the verdict.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 12- 8-17 5:11 PM
horizontal rule
12

Also, didn't he have something horribly violent written on his gun?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12- 8-17 5:13 PM
horizontal rule
13

What kills me is that in all these "self defense" claims a regular person would also be legally justified in shooting.


Posted by: Asteele | Link to this comment | 12- 8-17 5:44 PM
horizontal rule
14

12: Sure, it said YOU'RE FUCKED but that's inadmissible!


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 12- 8-17 5:58 PM
horizontal rule
15

That could mean anything. If it weren't written on a gun.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12- 8-17 6:18 PM
horizontal rule
16

11: Ah, I was wondering why nothing about it seemed familiar. That makes perfect sense.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 12- 8-17 6:24 PM
horizontal rule
17

this is the video of the cop shooting the guy in the hallway.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/939014159726870530
Is that anything like normal police procedure? It was like some horrific simon-says yoga game, like in a dystopian movie. "Cross your left leg over your right thigh or I'll blow you away!!!"


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 12- 8-17 10:21 PM
horizontal rule
18

I've been thinking about this (the hallway shooting) because it was just so bad. I wonder if the jury wasn't trying to discredit Black Lives Matter by showing that 'see, white people can get murdered without the police facing consequences'.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12- 9-17 9:50 AM
horizontal rule
19

I also note with unease that the officer moved to Philadelphia.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12- 9-17 9:55 AM
horizontal rule