>>And we'll see whether he gets convicted. If this cop can't be convicted, given the evidence against him, it's a pretty sad statement.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>I think everyone should reserve judgment. A mistrial occurred only because of 1 juror - so the prosecution almost won and stands a good chance to still win on a manslaughter charge. From every piece of evidence that's available, it looks like the shooting/killing wasn't justified.
>
>Despite the knee-jerk reactions from HuffPo and the far left, the mistrial doesn't mean America is systematically racist.

I saw somewhere that the one refused to vote guilty, but 4 or 5 other jurors waffled. Here we go: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/12/08/several-jurors-in-walter-scott-shooting-case-were-undecided-on-verdict-foreman-says/?utm_term=.a827ca1cbb9e

-----
A letter sent by a juror last week during deliberations suggested that there may have been a lone holdout separating Michael Slager, the white officer, from a guilty verdict. But Dorsey Montgomery, the jury’s foreman, said that nearly half the jurors were essentially undecided at that point about whether Slager should be convicted of killing Walter Scott, a black motorist, after a traffic stop last year.

“We had one individual who was just deadlocked that he wasn’t changing,” Montgomery said during an interview Thursday morning on the “Today” show. “But yet we had five other individuals who were undecided.”
-----

Also, saw some quote from the prosecutor that read much more like it should have come from the defense. I think DAs really don't like prosecuting these cases and may not give them their all. I think I've seen the suggestion that outside prosecutors should be brought in for cases like this, so you don't have a DA who depends on the local cops prosecuting one of them.

Tamar