Michael Slager, an officer with the North Charleston Police Department, has been charged with murder after a highly disturbing video surfaced that shows him shooting an unarmed man who was running away. He could face the death penalty for the alleged crime.
The shooting followed a traffic stop for the ubiquitous reason of having a brake light out on his Mercedes-Benz. We have previously discussed the problem of pretextual stops where traffic violations are used to conduct searches or question drivers. For a prior column, click here.
The video below shows Walter Scott, 50, breaking away from the officer. Something clearly falls to the ground and the officer fires eight shots at the man as he runs away.
Police reports include a statement from Slager that “Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser.”
The video appears to contradict some of what Slager reported. He did report using the taser without effect. The video appears to show wires from the stun gun extending from Scott’s body as the two men struggle. However, Scott then breaks away and is shot roughly 20 feet away from the officer in a hail of bullets.
Under Tennessee v. Garner, a fleeing suspect can be shot under limited circumstances. Deadly force may be used only when “necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.” Justice White wrote:
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead…however…Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
The question is likely to be whether the struggle and failed use of the taser created a sufficient basis for Slager to believe that he had probable cause that Scott was posed a serious threat to him or others. Slager could claim that, the fact that Scott allegedly attacked him and tried to take his taser, was enough to satisfy that Garner standard. This is the ultimate jury decision and the image of shooting a fleeing suspect in the back will obviously present a considerable challenge for the defense.
Source: CNN
Where is TJustice to talk about Prof Turley upholding bad cops and Darren Smith putting men in cages?
Ross
The first salvo in any war is to dehumanize the opposition: dirty j*ps, k*rauts, sand ni**ers, ra* heads, etc. While there is an innate desire for adventure and proving oneself, especially in males, only a few have the innate desire to kill.
Another aspect of what the Nazis did is that their best warriors were not often if at all involved in these atrocities. The squads that were formed to exterminate the peasants, both Jewish and non Jewish were carefully picked for their qualities. They were not front line soldiers. Men of the ilk of Rommel would not serve this purpose. This is also true of the types that manned the camps where unspeakable things happened. The right combination of low IQ, perversion, and hate can turn anybody into monsters.
Via ABC news:
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action. Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
The emails revealed by the Department of Justice on Ferguson: for example the one with Ronald Reagan and the monkey. The emailer said it was Obama. It was George W. Bush. The poster has been around here for years and is in the bathroom at a bar in Ferguson where I am. But the spoof was on George W. Someone brought it up to current time but not necessarily being racist. Have any of you folks seen The Little Rascals? “I wish Cotton was a monkey.” That one sentence (from back in the 30’s) got the show pulled from current television. It is very easy for humans to kill other people. Your nation has a huge army and you cultivate the flag and country thing and send the young and old off to Afghanistan to kill people. Some people thought the shooting of Bin Laden was a bit much. Then they dropped him out of a plane. Dead but nevertheless it was evil. Obama bragged about the whole thing. I did not hear anyone calling Obama a racist for that murder. Except I did hear some of that overseas. But not here in America. The worst cop who killed a citizen was that Italian guy in New York who choked the guy to death in front of ten other cops. They are all guilty in that video.
In the movie “Nuremberg” Alec Baldwin’s character asks the Nazi official how did he do such evil things and the Nazi leader responded by “dehumanizing” those that you are doing evil things to – comparing them animals or insects, not human beings.
The emails recently uncovered by the DOJ report on Ferguson was essentially this same mindset by those in positions of authority – dehumanization – which makes it very easy to kill other people.
I suspect when the DOJ investigates this SC town’s local government they will discover a similar attitude.
It is kind of similar to Michel Brown. But Brown was charging Wilson. Here though, the cop could shoot the guy if the cop thought the guy had his taser or another weapon and posed a threat to others. A taser is a deadly weapon folks. Don’t leave home without it.
The most appropriate and refreshing result will be for the defense, the police department, the unions, and everyone in the justice system connected to this event to not stray to one side or the other but just put the animal behind bars for murder, not manslaughter. If they change to manslaughter that will be some very big steps backwards for our society. The video clearly shows: no threat, time to think, and a hail of bullets; followed by no real concern for the victims condition, calm and careful moves attempting to cover up his actions.
The cop should do the maximum for murder. Will he have the balls to attempt a temporary insanity plea.
Just a little thought exercise on how this incident may have been reported if the video had never surfaced.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/walter-scott-shooting-without-video_n_7024404.html
No wonder police dislike video. Without it, they’re heroes every time.
And that cop wasn’t fat, he could’ve ran after Scott.
You don’t run and shoot. This is not basketball.
He shouldn’t have shot, he should’ve ran after the guy, or waited for backup.
http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3819209/Fat+cops
Ok this is dark humor. What happened to this poor guy wasn’t at all funny.
Oh, yes. It’s definitely a joke.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fat+cop&biw=1920&bih=942&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=-FYlVaD8G8uxogSZnoCQBA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
Darren, A shove, or horse collar tackle, illegal in football but just fine in the street, would have brought this fleeing suspect down easily. I watched the video 3 times now. Disgusting.
So awful. Cops chase suspects all the time without shooting them. It’s the joke at some of the precincts that they get their exercise at work. I couldn’t watch the video, but if he shot a fleeing suspect in the back like that he should be in jail. I feel sorry for the victim’s family.
I got the impression the suspect was still alive or the officer thought he was alive which is why he cuffed him.
Ah Russian artists…
I cannot see any reason for the use of deadly force. When Mr. Scott runs away, he does so in a slow and lumbering manner. The officer clearly could have caught up to him quickly and a stiff shove probably would have knocked Scott to the ground.
In this case I do not believe the Tennessee v. Garner standard would favor the officer’s actions. If Scott was, as a hypothetical example, fleeing the scene of a murder the officer should have been able to effect an arrest in my view without an extreme amount of difficulty. The Garner standard does not automatically permit the use of deadly force when lesser means may be easily utilized.
As to “call Dershowitz.” Well, Alan is busy defending himself currently regarding pedophilia accusations. There are better barristers to call, anyway.
Good prediction, MikeA. The family has an attorney already, as he/she is the person in possession of the videotape and released it to the media. This cop should go to prison. But the family will be made partially whole @ least by an 8 figure civil settlement. A righteous cop would have chased the fleeing suspect down on foot.
The officer’s account:
Oops. Caught lying like a rug and embarrassing his lawyer all at the same time.
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150407/PC16/150409468
I predict that this case will be resolved with a manslaughter plea and a substantial civil settlement with the decedent’s family. There will be no trial.
A few folks said that this officer should have shot the man in the legs. If a police officer pulls his gun out and shoots, someone should end up dead, period.
That being said, if an officer is shooting, he should be directly defending himself or someone else in IMMINENT danger. There are stipulated exceptions that are very stringent, but they are few and specific. Police do not “shoot to wound”. If they did, apprehending running criminals would be a lot easier (and bloodier). Shooting to wound someone when defending lives, could easily fail anyhow, and end up in an even bigger mess.
Bottom line: If a police officer makes the decision to shoot someone, it had damned well better be for a good reason. This seems like a very poor reason (understatement) based on the video, and will likely be worked out in court to the officer’s detriment.