UPDATE: Defendant in Walter Scott Death To Be Retried After Mistrial Declared

Before you read this post, I have to offer a disclaimer so that you won't think I'm any crazier than you already do. Or perhaps so that you won't think I'm newly crazy... Anyway, several months ago I began having trouble with Blogger (again) and have been  unable to correct the issue. I'm tired of taking hours to get out a post (or days) and have it still not be correct. So, I'm just posting this the way it is; perhaps someone will be able to help me correct it. (I do know some HTML 5/CSS 3)  The issue is the font; if you notice, in some places it's sentence case while in others it's all uppercase. I didn't do that, when I wrote it everything was in sentence case. When I hit Preview though, it all changed....
************************************************************************************

Well hallelujah,  democracy lives! I won't say 'justice', because we haven't seen that yet, but I'm praying  for it! Especially in this case, where they have it on videotape that the man was running away from the police officer after a traffic stop and the officer pulled  his gun and shot the man in the back, then placed a Taser by his dead body. His claim was that he was in fear for his life because the man running from him might have turned around and charged the officer!!!

"Slager testified that even at 18 feet away, Scott still posed a threat to him and could have turned around and charged him."

So he didn't shoot because the man was turning around, fumbling at his waistband, yelling threats, none of the usual dumb excuses; he shot because he thought the man who was obviously so scared that he was running away might turn around (at 18 feet  away) and charge him. Meaning the man  might run back the 18  yards he'd gained and attack the officer. If he was scared enough to run in the first place, why does this guy think we're going to believe that he thought the runner might turn around and come back? Nah, don't wash with me officer, no way. You shot him because he was 18 feet away already and gaining ground with every step, and you couldn't let it be said that you lost him because he outran you, so you took him down. (Of course that's JMHO)

Here's the story for you to read yourselves.

Walter Scott Cop To Be Retried for Murder in 2017

Ex-officer Michael Slager will again face a state jury trial for shooting Scott in the back beginning on March 1.

BY: The Root Staff

POSTED: December 30, 2017

Michael Slager testifies at his trial for killing of Walter Scott

The former North Charleston, South Carolina police officer charged in the murder of motorist Walter Scott will be retried on March 1, 2017, reports CNN.

A state judge declared a mistrial in the case earlier this month, after jurors could not unanimously reach a decision to convict.

Although Slager was caught lying about the April 4, 2015, encounter, in which video captures him shooting Scott several times in the back and placing his Taser near Scott’s body, the jury failed to reach a guilty verdict after four days and more than 24 hours of deliberation.Of the 12 jurors, 11 black and one white, one juror, in a note, said he couldn’t vote for a conviction and wouldn’t change his mind, despite the fact that the judge on the case allowed the jury to consider a lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. Prosecutors charge that Scott, a father of four, ran after Slager stopped his car for a broken taillight because he feared going to jail for unpaid child support. They assert that Slager pursued and killed Scott even though his life was not in danger.

Slain father of four, Walter Scott

An emotional Slager testified that even at 18 feet away, Scott still posed a threat to him and could have turned around and charged him.

If convicted of either charge, Slager faces 30 years to life in prison.

Additionally, Slager is being tried in federal court on May 1, 2017, according to CBS News. In the federal case, Slager is charged with violating Scott’s rights under the color of law, lying to investigators and using a firearm in a violent crime. For those charges, he faces a term of life in prison. Read more at CNN and CBS News.

Felony Charge Dropped For Jury Foreman - What Is Wrong With This Headline?

Personally, i thought there was a rule or something about impaneling a jurist who has a pending criminal case? Wouldn’t that seem like a good reason for the defense to not want to impanel him? After all, he’s a youngish black man with a pending criminal case, he might take this case as a way to “get back at the system” for what’s being done to him? At the very least he might try to swing the jury around to seeing it from his point of view, that of the ‘downtrodden blacks’ ؟ 

FELONY CHARGE DROPPED FOR JURY FOREMAN AS HE SERVED ON MICHAEL SLAGER TRIAL

THE ONLY BLACK JUROR WHO ALSO SERVED AS FOREMAN DURING THE MICHAEL SLAGER TRIAL HAD A PENDING FELONY CHARGE AGAINST HIM THAT WAS SUDDENLY DROPPED BY PROSECUTORS DURING THE TRIAL. IRONICALLY, SLAGER’S TRIAL ENDED IN A MISTRIAL.

ACCORDING TO THE POST AND COURIER, DORSEY MONTGOMERY WAS INDICTED LAST YEAR ON BREACH OF TRUST WITH FRAUDULENT INTENT FOR OFFERING $5500 IN DISCOUNTS WHILE WORKING AT BEST BUY, BUT HE WAS STILL CHOSEN FOR THE JURY ANYWAY. IT APPEARS THAT MONTGOMERY’S CHARGES WERE DROPPED THREE WEEKS INTO THE TRIAL WHICH WAS ALSO THE DAY THAT HE WAS APPOINTED AS THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY. HAD MONTGOMERY BEEN FOUND GUILTY HE COULD HAVE SERVED UP TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.

IT’S UNCLEAR IF MONTGOMERY’S PAST WAS BROUGHT UP DURING JURY SELECTION DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE BARRED THE PUBLIC FROM ATTENDING THE EARLY PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL. SLAGER’S LAWYERS ADMIT THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF THE 35-YEAR-OLD’S CHARGES AND THAT HE DID NOT OPT TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM THE JURY PANEL, THE POST AND COURIER REPORTED.

“I’M A BIG BOY,” MONTGOMERY TOLD THE NEWSPAPER ON THURSDAY. “WHATEVER TRANSPIRED TRANSPIRED. WHAT HAPPENED HAPPENED. WHATEVER WAS DONE WAS DONE. “

MONTGOMERY HAS BEEN DOING THE MEDIA ROUNDS LATELY, RAISING A FEW EYEBROWS WITH STATEMENTS SUCH AS PRIOR TO JURY SELECTION HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE WALTER SCOTT SHOOTING; THAT RACE DIDN’T SEEM TO BE THE DRIVING FACTOR FOR THE JURY’S DECISION; AND THAT HE BELIEVED THAT SLAGER, WHO SHOT SCOTT IN THE BACK AND PLANTED A TASER ON HIS DEAD BODY, “DIDN’T DO ANYTHING MALICIOUS.”

“Didn’t do anything malicious”???? Did i read that correctly? “planted a taser on his dead body”?? That wasn’t malicious, trying to make it look as if he was attacking the cop so the cop could kill him??? What was it then, if it wasn’t malicious??? Someone, anyone! Please tell me exactly what that is, if it’s not malicious???

This is the definition I found for ‘malicious’:

adjective

1. characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.

"malicious destruction of property"

synonyms:

spiteful, malevolent, evil-intentioned, vindictive, vengeful, malign, mean, nasty, hurtful,mischievous, wounding, cruel, unkind; More

Dorsey Montgomery, please tell me that again, that what the cop did was not ‘malicious’; sure sounds like it to me!