SC police officer charged with murder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voodoo_man

I will have to say it depends on what the officer believed at that moment.

---

Not really, under South Carolina self defense law and SCOTUS case law on use of force by the state, objective reasonableness is still required. While subjective belief is one half of the legal test used for self-defense in South Carolina (as it is in all U.S. jurisdictions in most cases), objective reasonableness is most often the only thing in question since it is extremely difficult for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have a subjective belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshs

Not really, under South Carolina self defense law and SCOTUS case law on use of force by the state, objective reasonableness is still required. While subjective belief is one half of the legal test used for self-defense in South Carolina (as it is in all U.S. jurisdictions in most cases), objective reasonableness is most often the only thing in question since it is extremely difficult for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have a subjective belief.

---

Is the same true for Stand Your Ground laws?
Is the same true for hand to hand combat and knife fights?

Thanks,
Cody

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cclaxton

Is the same true for Stand Your Ground laws?
Is the same true for hand to hand combat and knife fights?

---

Yes, neither of those change the objective reasonableness requirement. There are some presumptions in certain states that can actually create a presumption of objective reasonableness if certain events occur. The most common type are triggered when a person unlawfully and forcefully enters a domicile. In some states, those facts trigger a presumption that a person within the home holds a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury (the most common standard for allowing deadly force).

This post is not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is expressed or implied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshs

Not really, under South Carolina self defense law and SCOTUS case law on use of force by the state, objective reasonableness is still required. While subjective belief is one half of the legal test used for self-defense in South Carolina (as it is in all U.S. jurisdictions in most cases), objective reasonableness is most often the only thing in question since it is extremely difficult for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have a subjective belief.

---

I agree that objective reasonableness is still required, but there are no absolutes and I do not need to explain to you that anything can be argued if enough evidence exists to make the argument. My point is that saying "you can never shoot a person running away" just like "you can never shoot a person who is unarmed," is short sighted since it depends on the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voodoo_man

I agree that objective reasonableness is still required, but there are no absolutes and I do not need to explain to you that anything can be argued if enough evidence exists to make the argument. My point is that saying "you can never shoot a person running away" just like "you can never shoot a person who is unarmed," is short sighted since it depends on the evidence.

---

I agree that it is not a categorical running away = no justification. Garner clearly allows for use of lethal force on a fleeing suspect where there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officer or others. But, even with the additional facts provided in the link, I'm not seeing that in this case. If the officer had reason to believe the suspect was armed with a gun or was still holding the taser as he ran away, then I could see a potential justification for lethal force, but not with the information available so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshs

I agree that it is not a categorical running away = no justification. Garner clearly allows for use of lethal force on a fleeing suspect where there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officer or others. But, even with the additional facts provided in the link, I'm not seeing that in this case. If the officer had reason to believe the suspect was armed with a gun or was still holding the taser as he ran away, then I could see a potential justification for lethal force, but not with the information available so far.

---

Again, totally agree.

We are, of course, basing our info off of untrusted sources and not an actual investigation.

I am interested to see what happens in court.

$6.5 Million for the settlement.

Quote:

---

The family of the late Walter Scott and the city of North Charleston, South Carolina, have reached a $6.5 million settlement.

The North Charleston City Council approved the settlement on Thursday night.

Scott was fatally shot on April 4 by former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager after being pulled over, reportedly for a broken brake light, and later struck in the back as he was running away from police.

Slager was later charged with murder in the case. State Circuit Judge Clifton Newman denied him bond last month, writing that his possible release "would constitute an unreasonable danger to the community."...

---

New data?
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/wal...rs-cop-n677696

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk