Murderous Pig who killed Walter Scott trial begins in South Carolina...

  • Thread starter Thread starter New Editor
  • Start date Start date
Recaptimus_Prime360;9536247 said:
So what would yall do then? Tell us what her reaction should be? What would any of yall tell the family what they should do? What's the solution?

'Let's get this settlement, kill him and his family and then we gonna move to a country that doesn't have extradition.'
 
Trillfate;9539074 said:
stringer bell;9539014 said:

@SolemnSauce @Recaptimus_Prime360 how many?

what yall dont get is..charleston is real b..they know them...beenin the face of this..have to remain calm...i know yall like..RIOT!!!,..RIOT IN DA STREETS!!!...they know how it get down out here, i think its humbling how responsible they are being. but if you aint from here, i can get how u dont see that
 
Last edited:
lol...my bad i didnt see dude only saw the mother..yea fuck "that" nigga...he aint even from charleston, dont in no way sound like a nigga from charleston..bet that
 
I learned today that motherfuckers don't know what malicious means

characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.

forget the fact the cop shot Walter Scott while he was running away

how is shooting someone PERIOD not malicious?
 
nah that dude is def cooning..fuck does holding the gun and tazer have to do with anything. fuck does forensics have to do with anything..

dude said he grabbed for my taser..were his fingers prints on it..No- no need for any more forensics..dude got shot running away on video

how is it not malicious to shoot someone who is running from you in the back?

yo...these white folks even knew what it was by tossing homeboy the lob and making him foreman..lawd..lawd..lawd
 
Last edited:
Already Home_17;9539186 said:
I learned today that motherfuckers don't know what malicious means

characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.

forget the fact the cop shot Walter Scott while he was running away

how is shooting someone PERIOD not malicious?

The legal definition is probably stricter than what you just put. I'm sure it doesn't contain any language as general as "intending to do harm." Shooting someone in true self defense isn't consider malicious. I agree that it's hard to understand how someone could think shooting a person in the back while they ran away doesn't require malicious intent.
 
I'm telling you niggas, Dylan roof is going to walk or have a hung jury. It seems like South Carolina is full of racists and coons
 
blackamerica;9539055 said:
stringer bell;9539014 said:
https://twitter.com/TheView/status/806907693067665408
https://twitter.com/brandonbaur/status/806899832262656000

Walter Scott Jury Foreman “The View” Video: Shooting “Wasn’t Malicious”

This faggot coon said he didn't see anything "malicious" about a cop shooting a man running away in the back, while PLANTING evidence & lying about this altercation. Now y'all see why coons are dangerous

Plus he talking about feeling the gun and the taser and that changed it for them

Wtf ??

These host ask horrible fucking questions...not one time did anyone ask about the fucking taser drop
 
Already Home_17;9539186 said:
I learned today that motherfuckers don't know what malicious means

characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.

forget the fact the cop shot Walter Scott while he was running away

how is shooting someone PERIOD not malicious?

It is not the ordinary definition of 'malicious' that is relevant, but the legal one, whatever that might be.

 
But when a mistrial was declared Monday, five of the 12 jurors remained undecided on any conviction while a holdout for an acquittal refused to rethink his decision,

I thought it was just one. I guess that it was just one that absolutely refused to convict.

That's beyond fucked up. How can you remain undecided for any conviction when the video is so clear? Not undecided between murder and voluntary manslaughter, but undecided for any conviction?

 
Last edited:
One of white supremacy best allies is black compliance....and niggas been complying like a mufucka in 2016...this fag is just the latest
 
Disgusting


Horrible fucking interview, horrible fucking questions

Not one question about the planted taser and the lie he radioed in. No pushback on that fags claim that "he had no malicious intent"
 
Copper;9539898 said:
Disgusting


Horrible fucking interview, horrible fucking questions

Not one question about the planted taser and the lie he radioed in. No pushback on that fags claim that "he had no malicious intent"


That's what I'm saying. By implying it wasn't malicious you're implying he shot this man on accident. But we saw clear as day the man wasn't a threat & the cop lies about details of the shooting. Faggot azz faggot coon need to explain
 
Prosecutors dropped North Charleston police charge against jury Forman


The jury foreman who said he wanted to convict Michael Slager had a felony charge by North Charleston police that was dropped by prosecutors during the former officer's murder trial.

Dorsey Montgomery, 34, was picked for the jury despite his 2014 traffic stop and arrest by the North Charleston Police Department, the agency where Slager worked.

It’s not known if the breach-of-trust charge was discussed during the jury selection process, as the presiding judge on Slager’s case barred the public from attending those early proceedings.

After the trial in Walter Scott's shooting death ended with a hung jury, members of the public posed further questions about how a jury with only one black member, Montgomery, was chosen for a case with racial undertones. If Slager had been convicted, some with opposite views of the case likely would have raised more questions in light of Montgomery's past.

Montgomery also was the only juror who indicated during selection that he had not known about the case or watched an eyewitness video of the white officer firing eight times as Scott, a black man, ran away.

“Jury selection is open to the public because it’s a public trial,” Charleston attorney Steve Schmutz said. “Sometimes judges close part of a trial after balancing the interest of the public with whatever issue they have.”

It is not known why Circuit Judge Clifton Newman closed more than half the proceeding in Slager’s trial. He permitted news reporters to attend its conclusion after The Post and Courier and other news media expressed concerns.

None of the lawyers involved in the case objected to Montgomery serving, though defense lawyer Andy Savage said the limited questioning of prospective jurors' histories would have been grounds for an appeal. Savage said, though, that he had known about Montgomery’s past, but he did not opt to exclude Montgomery from the panel.

Then, nearly three weeks into the trial, a prosecutor in 9th Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson’s office dropped Montgomery’s charge without Wilson’s knowledge, she said. On the same day, the judge appointed Montgomery as foreman.

"I’m a big boy," Montgomery said in a brief telephone interview Thursday. "Whatever transpired transpired. What happened happened. Whatever was done was done."

He and his defense lawyer, Allen Mastantuno of Charleston, declined to comment further.

Montgomery appeared on NBC earlier in the day and said the jury had focused on a manslaughter charge after deciding Slager had done nothing "malicious" in Scott's shooting.

But before a mistrial was declared Monday, five of the 12 jurors remained undecided on any conviction while a holdout for an acquittal refused to rethink his decision, Montgomery told the "Today" show. He said he chose to speak out Thursday to set the record straight about the jury's discussions.

After seeing the bystander's video, he first thought Scott's killing was murder, he said. But after looking at other evidence, poring over the legal requirements and factoring in the judge's instructions, he said the jury resorted to the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter.

"We had to come to find out that he didn’t do anything malicious," Montgomery said of Slager during the "Today" interview. "He had a brief disturbance in reason at that moment."

"Malice," or an evil intent, is a central component of murder, while manslaughter happens in the "heat of passion" after the killer is somehow provoked. While murder carries 30 years to life in prison, manslaughter carries between two and 30 years.

Slager, 35, was arrested on the murder charge when the footage emerged publicly after the April 4, 2015, shooting. He said Scott, 50, whose car had been pulled over for a broken brake light, grabbed his Taser and turned it against him during a fight, prompting his gunfire in self-defense. The footage captured the Taser hitting the ground as Scott separated himself from the confrontation, though Slager testified during the trial that he didn't know it at the time.

Prosecutors cited a portion of the video that showed Slager pick up the stun gun and drop it near Scott's body as evidence of malice in the killing. The officer picked it up again seconds later, but he testified that he didn't remember doing that.

Like Scott, Montgomery had a pending arrest warrant when a North Charleston patrol officer stopped his car for a traffic violation.

The officer, who said in a report that Montgomery had been speeding in December 2014, learned about the warrant after checking Montgomery’s identity. Investigators alleged that Montgomery had given away or offered discounts on $5,500 worth of electronics at Best Buy, where he worked. An arrest affidavit said he later acknowledged poor judgment and promised to pay back the items' value.

Scott was wanted for not paying child support when Slager stopped him. Slager was not the officer who stopped Montgomery.

Montgomery, who lived in Ladson at the time, was handcuffed and taken to jail, where he was released on his own recognizance hours later. It was his only arrest in South Carolina, a rap sheet showed.

Montgomery was indicted last year on the charge of breach of trust with fraudulent intent, which carries up to five years in prison. A prosecutor in Wilson’s office, Assistant Solicitor Ted Corvey, dropped it Nov. 17 "per statute," paperwork stated without giving further reasoning.

“I was not aware that his charges were resolved in the midst of trial,” Wilson said, “or what the circumstances were surrounding their resolution.”

Over Slager's month-long trial, the 12 jurors listened to 55 witnesses for the prosecution and the defense.

Though race was never alleged to have played a role in Scott's killing, the shooting had come during a national conversation about police uses of force against black people.

"Due to the society that we live in, race will always be a factor," Montgomery told "Today." "I do believe some jurors may have had that in their mind, but the majority of them didn’t have anything in reference to race that may have played a factor in the decision."

The jurors started deliberations Wednesday night. By Friday, they announced a deadlock, pointing to the holdout for a not guilty verdict. But Montgomery said he had been hopeful that further talks could have swayed that juror, so he told Newman that the jury wanted to deliberate a little more.

They returned Monday, but the juror would not budge.

"He just had his own convictions," Montgomery told "Today," "and I’ll leave that right there."

Wilson vowed to retry Slager, who also is charged in federal court.

"I believe that justice shall come forth," Montgomery said in the interview. "Whatever the outcome will be ... that is what the outcome shall be."
 


"I believe that justice shall come forth," Montgomery said in the interview. "Whatever the outcome will be ... that is what the outcome shall be."


Fucking fag
 

Members online

No members online now.

Trending content

Thread statistics

Created
-,
Last reply from
-,
Replies
206
Views
0
Back
Top
Menu
Your profile
Post thread…