Jurors Unable to Agree in Trial of South Carolina Officer Who Shot Walter Scott

You are going to hurt yourself jumping to conclusions. What if the Black guy was the hold out? What if they just can't decide between man slaughter and murder?

 

Well I guess you never thought about white privilege and black lives don't matter. Just takes only 1 of them gimps to be on the jury to get that cop out, and so it happened.

 

If they can agree that it is at least man slaughter and not agree on murder, than man slaughter it is.

 

I didn't see any "innocent" person in the vid, I saw somebody trying to snatch a cops gun..

 

Except that didn't happen in this case.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess some people just invent things that aren't there, so it fits the best outcome for the people whose race they got in common.

 

The cop had a split-second decision to make- "Do I let a low-life escape into the community where he might mistreat fluffy kittens, or do I cull him out of decent society?"
He made the right choice in my opinion because let's face it, what good are violent criminals to themselves or anybody else?

 

So mistreating fluffy kittens should be an executable offense?

Ben Carson, the prospective HUD secretary and life-saving brain surgeon, was a self-admitted violent criminal early in his life. Would it have been better for him to have been "culled" from decent society?

 

Please show me the law where the crime you describe is to punished with an immediate death sentence carried out by Judge Dredd.

The cop shot a man in the back, because he was not cooperating. That is illegal, no matter what "pro cop" delusions you have.

 

All fluffy-kitten mistreaters must die..
As for Carson, we all make mistakes early on in our lives (I'm an ex-jailbird myself, 3-month vigilante rap in 2002) but are lucky enough to grow out of it before we stop a cop's bullet..

 

because of the jury trial system? What do you propose as a alternative. ?

 

So if a violent criminal is lucky, then they don't need to be "culled" from decent society?

Should a cop have executed you without trial?

 

The jury has more evidence than you do; their opinion is fully informed, while yours is not.

 

to me this falls squarely on the shoulders of the lawyers involved in in the voir dire. I believe the holdout a preconceived prejudice which he successfully concealed during jury selection. You would be surprised how many trials are over the moment the jury is seated and the trial is just a formality. If I had been in that jury pool it would have been very hard to conceal my dislike for Slager and maintain a open mind after seeing that video a few times at the time of the incident

 

Other countries got a panel of non-chosen professional judges, from just 1 to up to 7 I think.
The appeal chamber of the Internation Criminal Tribunal got 9 judges.
And tbh... why let a bunch of dumb amatures play with who can get a death sentence.
Cmon.

- - - Updated - - -

Everybody is able to see that video, where you can see the guy running away from the cop. And the cop planting the evidence at the corpse. That is all you need to know. Get real.

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed. That cop should have gotten an execution sentence.

 

Your jump to conclusion w/o seeing all the evidence is noted.
People who do this are excluded from jury trials, by both sides,for that very reason.

 

Most every civilized country uses trial by jury. It is not perfect but it is popular

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#The_jury_trial_in_various_jurisdictions

it is also part of the Bill of Rights , the 7th Amendment, it is not going away any time soon

 

Sounds like a one juror nullification. Why didn't the judge interrogate the jury especially this one person as to what their view of the evidence and the law was in the matter and clear up any confusion on that jurors part and if he deemed this was a pre-judged verdict by that juror part replace him and restart the deliberations.

 

do you think President Trump should have the justice department review the facts of this case, or does it look like justice was served fairly?

 

yes, that is why taxpayers pay for jackbooted government thugs

 

Right now,. there's a hung jury, so there's nothing to review.
All the DoJ can to is look into the case to see of there was a race-based violation of civil rights - the DoJ cannot in any way alter the jury decision.
As for Trump having the DoJ look into the case - you cannot make an argument that the victim's civil rights were violated because of his race.

 

The U.S. constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy does not apply when the defendant is White.

 

If all else fails, you have a microwave.

 

Yes, yes. Clearly the almost all white jury was full of evil racists that hate blacks. I bet they were even hand picked.

- - - Updated - - -

All a myth.

- - - Updated - - -

Like white privilege?

 

since it can't be proven that the lone juror was racist, do they go for retrial or throw it out for double jeopardy.

 

That's completely up to the prosecutor.
And even if it can be proven the lone juror was racist, no executive office has the power to overturn a jury result - especially not the USDoJ in a state trial.