Michael Slager: Treacherous Prosecutor and White Juror Nullification

Scarlet Wilson — which side is she on?

Officer Michael Slager, one of the two racist murderers of Black people on trial in the state of South Carolina, just became the beneficiary of a mistrial because a single White juror who refused to find Slager guilty—in a case where Slager is seen on video shooting Walter Scott in the back, and planting evidence.

Was this White juror just an individual who acted on his own volition and decided that under no condition could he, or she, vote for a conviction? Or is something more unseemly at work here? Did the prosecutor just make a mistake by missing this prejudiced juror before trial? Will justice here delayed be ultimately denied?

The thwarting of justice by this holdout White juror—on a jury of 11 Whites and one Black—is proof positive that the even in the Age of the Obama Presidency, America’s entrenched racism remains.

Another White officer and murderer of a Black person was exonerated in the so-called “justice system” by a virtually all-White jury. Is it possible this juror was planted to secure this outcome?

That idea may seem crazy, but there are those Whites who think police should never be held accountable for brutalizing or killing a Black person. Can we really trust the criminal justice system which we know criminalizes Black people to justify mass incarceration?

In this case, an irrelevant comment by chief prosecutor Scarlett Wilson —who is also prosecuting Dylann Roof who executed nine Black people in a church —may have been all this juror need to justify obstructing justice. “

“If Walter Scott had stayed in that car, he wouldn’t have been shot,”” Ms. Wilson said. “:He paid the extreme consequence for his conduct. He lost his life for his foolishness.””

This kind of stupid prejudicial statement by the prosecutor diminishes the criminal conduct of Officer Slager. It is the kind of comment one would expect from a defense attorney.

Why did the prosecutor make this curious comment? Is this comment also the reason why other White jurors were undecided as to whether Wilson was guilty of murder or manslaughter?

Technically, Scott may not have been killed if he stayed in the car— but only because the police vehicle had a dash-cam that tempered Officer Slager’s behavior.

These comments by this prosecutor may well be used in the next trial by the defense to blame Mr. Scott for his death, as we’’ve seen in so many other cases. Was this comment just a bad lapse in prosecutorial judgment?

The translation is that he got out of his car so deserved to be shot in the back?

The prosecutor should have said: “Had Officer Slager not pursued Scott when he ran away he would be alive today.”

After all was Scott’s car going to drive itself away? Would it not have been possible to arrest him later if that was indeed Slager’s objective? This prosecutor made another troublingly terrible comment.

According to her, criminality by cops “is very, very rare.” This statement shows just how much these people live in denial of the very serious reality we have regarding police crimes against Black people.

It’’s another example of why special prosecutors are needed in these cases where the incestuous relationship between police and prosecutors subvert justice.

Over the past few years, in several high-profile cases where police were defendants, we’ve seen prosecutors engage in judicial shenanigans to help guilty police evade justice.

For example, in Ferguson prosecutor Bob McCullough acted as a defense lawyer disparaging prosecution witnesses as “liars” and allowing Officer Darren Wilson to make grand jury statements, without facing prosecution rebuttal.

McCullough was more effective in helping ensure Officer Wilson would not face trial than Wilson’s own attorneys.

In South Carolina, the killer of a cop can be—and most likely would be—given the death penalty. If Walter Scott had been the one to murder Officer Slager, Scott would have just been convicted— and would be facing execution by now. But Slager— was given bail after he murdered Scott— and is now walking around South Carolina scot-free.

Mass murderer Dylann Roof is also currently on trial for his racist murders of nine Black people at the historic Emanuel AME Church—and is in fact facing the death penalty.

Although Roof slaughtered nine Black people his primary target was Pastor Clementa Pinckney—a state senator who attempted to introduce body cameras in the aftermath of Officer Slager’’s murder of Walter Scott.

Does Roof’s’ targeting of Senator Pinckney tell us something about White resistance in South Carolina to change the way police operate in light of Slager’’s murderous act?

Truthfully, isn’’t Officer Slager a worse monster than Dylann Roof? Officer Slager utilized his police position, with its “license to kill,” and unjustly murdered Walter Scott. If Roof is facing the death penalty, why shouldn’’t Slager— who took an oath “to “protect and serve” face the same fate?

Isn’’t Slager more deserving of execution?
How is it possible someone can conceivably believe Officer Michael Slager didn’’t commit murder after watching on video how he callously and calmly shot Walter Scott five times —including –three bullets in the victim’s back– as Scott ran away? Didn’’t this holdout juror see Officer Slager plant a Taser to bolster his story of being viciously attacked by Walter Scott?

If Officer Slager was innocent, why the need to plant the Taser? The video shows us a clear cut case of murder by this police officer who then took steps to cover-up; period.

To argue self-defense, when Officer Slager is shown shooting Mr. Scott as he is running away is beyond absurd. The murder of Walter Scott shows that Black life is devalued by many White Americans —including some who wear police uniforms. The nonchalant way in which Officer Slager squeezes shots off at Scott is chillingly cold-blooded.

If there is any real justice in America, Officer Slager must be convicted by authorities in South Carolina. This mistrial, in itself, appears to be another illustration of how racism infects every aspect of American life. What did this juror see that the other 10 White jurors and one Black didn’t see?

Another curious question here is: the nearly all-White jury that presided in this first case. North Charleston, where Walter Scott was killed has a higher population of Black people, around 47 percent, than White around 37 percent. So how is it only one Black person ended up on this first jury?

In the next trial, the focus needs to be exclusively on Officer Slager’’s blatant murder of Scott— and his planting of evidence to enhance his concocted story. This prosecutor must refrain from blaming Scott, in any way, from the criminal actions of a murderous criminal cop.

If Officer Slager is not convicted in South Carolina, justice may not prevail, since a Department of Justice run by Jeff Sessions will likely torpedo any federal prosecution.
The steady mass murders of Black people by America’’s police— where none of the criminal cops ever gets convicted for their crimes— is clear proof Black lives still don’’t matter much to those who like to lecture Black people about the need for “law and order.”

Imagine, the establishment talks of “a “few bad apples”” while we continually see Black people being killed by those sworn to “serve and protect.”” Isn’’t it interesting that those who White America labels as protectors are the very ones killing innocent Black people with the blessings of the professional politicians?

The lack of accountability, when it comes to the police killings of Black people speaks volumes of the crooked nature of the “justice system.”

If Slager is ultimately not convicted for the brazen murder of Walter Scott, that cruel reality will be even more obvious to the world than it is now.

The clear signal from such an outcome from the establishment would be that Black people should not expect protection or justice.

That they’re on their own.