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
Beldar
“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.”
Factually true post.
And the Bin Laden killing, under international law (possibly domestic law), is actually considered an assassination.
It’s rather interesting what “public interest law” in Washington D.C. and our elite classes often times stands for.
TJustice – the US Army Air Force assassinated Adm Yamamoto during WWII. And there were several assassination attempts by the Confederacy against Lincoln.
Jim22,
Sorry, I hadn’t seen the heavily edited version posted on this site and thought commenters had actually watched the full four minute clip posted with most other stories on this killing.
Check out the full video. Note at about 1:30 where the killer, after retrieving the stun gun from back where he was shooting, walks up to the body and drops the stun gun next to it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
In this scenario we have a constitutional officer (cop) and an American citizen (his employer) with constitutional rights – not a foreign enemy in a war.
The Bill of Rights “restrains” the constitutional officer from performing things like unconstitutional searches or using cruel & unusual punishment.
If a police officer refuses to accept the oath of office (to uphold the U.S. Constitution) he or she can’t hold a position of authority over other citizens. Having said that it is usually the police leadership, city attorney and other government leaders that are more culpable than the subordinate police officers in most cases but this officer appears to be the exception.
Well, things are going in the right direction: the police chief says he was sickened by the video, he and the mayor have met with the family, city will provide police escort to funeral, cop is denied bond, police chief is calling for all cops to wear cameras, city officials are not on cop’s side, so far. If the result is murder and 25 to life, then there’s hope.
The next hurdles are the police union lawyers, and guys like USN420. USN420’s pretty close to an acquittal or manslaughter charges, perhaps resulting in a letter in his file. The first step is it’s OK for a cop to gun down, (eight shots-seven hits), someone who doesn’t comply. The next step is it’s OK to gun him down if he doesn’t comply fast enough. They used to show Nazis machine gunning innocent civilians when they didn’t move fast enough. After a few examples the rest jumped to it. Well perhaps you’re right USN420.
There comes a time to call it what it is.
issac – it is my personal opinion that had this happened two years ago, nothing would have happened to this officer. However, because of a series of deaths by police the police are over-reacting.
Jim22
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0
Explains discrepancies between what officer said (including in police report) versus the video.
Paul, You don’t get it. Fiver and Wade saw the video and it’s all they need. They know everything there is possibly to know. Hands up dude!
Jim22 – I saw the video and had a different take on the video, including the fact that I think the officer thought the suspect was still alive when he cuffed him. Different viewpoints by different witnesses is not uncommon. In fact, it is to be expected.
As issac points out, the military is adept at dehumanizing the enemy. And if UNS420 is any indication, they are also adept at eliminating the ability to think.
Wade “I never met a question I couldn’t dodge” williams – it is the purpose of the military to have people follow orders. In battle you want people to follow those order immediately, not get into a consensus, that is why there is a chain of command. However, with American troops they do like to be told why they are going to do something. Seems to make a difference. American troops are very good at adapting when the plan goes South.
fiver, You must have a different video. The one posted looks pretty close to what the officer said. Justification? I don’t know since I don’t know the whole story.
No. We’re really not. The video not only shows an unarmed, non-threatening, man being gunned down in the back, it also shows that the officer’s justification for the killing was a complete fabrication (planted evidence and all).
fiver – given the space of time, it is hard to see where the cop had time to plant evidence.
USN420, I couldn’t agree more.
Paul, I wasn’t writing that issac was wrong. I was just adding to his list that he forgot to mention.
USN420
It’s called rights… core political values come before police forces.
Geez even the S.C. gives lip service to this (albeit in a dissent)
Scalia: “Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail.”
Blacks are now included in “our people” at least the Constitution and case law now says.
What you suggest USN420 is authoritarian at its worst or finest (however one chooses). Do what authority tells you just because they are authority. What’s the point of the rule of law in protecting our rights then?
Here we go again… We can’t help it… Much like the Gardner (sic.) case in NYC last year, the video looks pretty damning. But at this point we are ALL merely speculating.
Let’s see what the investigation reveals before passing judgement.
If this turns out to be a case of the video showing all pertinent information, this officer definitely needs to be in jail.
Please don’t misinterpret my pending questions, because I am serious when I ask…
“Why do people ignore the police when the officer yells… Stop!, Freeze!, or Don’t Move!?”
“Why make a choice to have a confrontation with an armed officer of the law who has been trained to use their weapon or other level of force?”
It just seems to me that both Mr’s Scott and Gardner would still be alive today had they just made a decision to do what the police asked them to do.
Just sayin’…
Here is the Ferguson DOJ report:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
Happy pappies
And so much for Justice after the fact. There’s another dead civilian… Uniformed personnel are routinely given the power to strike kill due to “fear” of life for that person or others. Civilians don’t have this right in practice, especially against powerful people so we have a bunch of body bags and rarely (if ever) accountability. And if there is, the victim has already perished in most cases.
Happy pappies
There record is res Ipsa loquitur. Over and over these cases happen and it is not until essentially clear video evidence of a murder that they call for an officer to have a day in court. It’s hard for them to skirt the brutality of this case because the proof is literally right in front of us.
If berghdal is “searching for a defense” surely this guy is too. He looks pretty scared after that eighth shot, though.
Rule of law is mostly a laughing matter in my country.
There you are TJustice. What is your point about Berdahl the deserter who was reading maps with his friends before he joined known to comment that if he didn’t like the scene he would take off into the mountains of Afghanistan
issac – “Ross
The first salvo in any war is to dehumanize the opposition: dirty j*ps, k*rauts, sand ni**ers, ra* heads, etc.”
You forgot to include racist and bigot.
Jim22 – issac is correct. It is important to dehumanize the opponent. The Japanese did it to Americans, the Americans did it to Japanese and Germans. Germans. It does make it easier. The American Civil War was particularly difficult because officers knew officers on the other side and often would meet with them. I think it was Custer who held a death watch for a Confederate friend who was dying. And supposedly Confederate soldiers called out the guard and saluted Gen. Grant as he passed on the other side. He supposedly saluted back.
After the police shop for, and get a judge and jury……….CASE CLOSED.
Glenn
Be real
Based on overall historical context “dehumanization” is at least a part of it, one can debate to what degree. Anyone that grew up in a state like South Carolina has heard some form of this used against African-Americans.