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
@ fiver
Thanks for the feedback.
Although Altemeyer has done brilliantly systematic work in identifying and describing the traits of the authoritarian personality, he doesn’t get into the experiential origins of those traits, nor how they can be replaced with more cognitively integrative ones.
For that, we are indebted to therapists like Melanie Klein and Alice Miller, to name only two:
” ‘We do not need books about psychology in order to learn to respect our children,’ Miller says. ‘What we need is a total revision of the methods of child rearing and our traditional view about it.’ The way we were treated as small children is the way we treat ourselves the rest of our lives: with cruelty or with tenderness and protection. We often impose our most agonizing suffering upon ourselves and, later, on our children.‘ ” (My emphasis)
http://www.thisisawar.com/AuthorsAlice.htm
Ken Rogers,
Spot on. That book explains a lot. It’s also a fairly quick read without much jargon.
And it’s free online 🙂
@ fiver
“Heck, even PoliceOne.com hasn’t tried to justify this kill.
“Yet any reader can go through the comments on this thread and find many who reflexively defend (and sometimes even celebrate) a murderer they’ve never met simply because he was wearing a uniform (or perhaps because he killed a black guy) – even after watching a video of the murder.
“For some, the desire to automatically submit to, defend, or even worship authority overrides rational, independent thought almost effortlessly.”
You’ve described above a very important psychological orientation, fiver, commonly referred to as the “authoritarian personality.”
Social psychologist Dr. Robert Altemeyer has spent over thirty years studying this personality type and has reached some important and cautionary conclusions:
“In North America people who submit to the established authorities to extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, so you can call them ‘right-wingers’ both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my psychological right-wing authoritarians, even though we would also say he was a political left-winger.
“So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he’s [1] someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, [2] attacks others in their name, and [3] is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. (Emphasis added) Right-wing authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or happy or grumpy or dopey.”
It’s no exaggeration to say that recognizing and counteracting the behavior of those with authoritarian personalities is a practical social problem of the first magnitude, both with respect to domestic politics and with respect to the foreign policies of the US and other governments.
Once the personality traits are recognized as the motivating factors they are, one can avoid dissipating his or her energy in fruitless debate with authoritarian personalities as though they hold rationally defensible socio-political views.
Those who condone police murder and the invasions of other countries posing no credible threat to the US are not equipped psychologically to dispassionately discuss, for example, the rights of minorities. This is by no means to suggest that they are suffering from a “mental illness,” but it is to suggest that their rationality and capacity for empathy are seriously compromised by emotional trauma they’ve suffered, usually as defenseless children, which trauma they have yet to overcome.
As I’ve argued in other posts on this blog, the US is in very serious danger of becoming a full-fledged police state [See, for examples, JT’s column on the “Land of the Free” and Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty], and one of the reasons that’s the case is the large number of authoritarian followers in the US, many of whom support police state tactics, such as the execution of “disobedient lawbreakers” by “the thin blue line of law enforcement officers.”
It’s a hopeful sign that the exposure of these tactics, as videotaped evidence of them accumulates, is generating a large public backlash against them, notwithstanding the best efforts of their apologists and supporters inside and outside law enforcement circles:
“In fact they’d [authoritarian followers] send just about anyone to jail for a longer time than most people would, from those who spit on the sidewalk to rapists. However, as noted earlier, authoritarian followers usually would go easy on authorities who commit crimes, and they similarly make allowances for someone
who attacks a victim the authoritarian is prejudiced against. (Emphasis added) If you were a district attorney prosecuting a lynching case, you would NOT rejoice at a jury filled with high RWAs [Right Wing Authoritarians]. But in general they would sentence most criminals to longer terms than the average Joe would. They also tend to strongly endorse capital punishment.”
Regarding the emotionality of the authoritarian personality, which, in your words, “overrides rational, independent thought almost effortlessly,” consider this:
“Why are high RWAs extra-punitive against law-breakers? For one thing, they
think the crimes involved are more serious than most people do, and they believe more in the beneficial effects of punishment. But they also find ‘common criminals’ highly repulsive and disgusting, and they admit it feels personally good, it makes them glad, to be able to punish a perpetrator. They get off smiting the sinner; they relish being ‘the arm of the Lord.’ [See the story in another post of the Skinhead who, abused as a child, murdered a randomly selected sex offender and his wife].
“Similarly, high RWA university students say that classmates in high school who misbehaved and got into trouble, experienced ‘bad trips’ on drugs, became pregnant, and so on ‘got exactly what they deserved’ and that they felt a secret pleasure when they found out about the others’ misfortune.
“Which suggests authoritarian followers have a little volcano of hostility bubbling away inside them looking for a (safe, approved) way to erupt. This was supported by an experiment I ran in which subjects were (supposedly) allowed to deliver electric shocks to someone trying to master a list of nonsense syllables. The subject/teacher could choose the level of shock for each mistake the learner made.”
“Since the punishment was sanctioned by the experimenter [authoritarian leader], this opened the door for the authoritarian [follower]. The higher the subject’s RWA scale score, the stronger the shocks delivered.” (Emphasis added)
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
To be more specific. The Anderson Cooper guy was the CNN journalist who interviewed the mother and family members of the decedent.. He did a good job. This was not your normal defamation of town and cop like some previous broadcasts on Ferguson.
I watched the interviews on CNN with this Cooper guy. The folks in SC were very impressive. The family was wonderful. The police chief and mayor showed some class. I was watching this from a bar in Ferguson. It gave us some perspective. The family of the victim and the townsfolk were exceptional.
Jim22,
Actually, the phrase I used was “heavily edited” as part of the beginning and most of the end of the video is missing from the clip posted with this piece. While I’m sure it’s merely coincidental, the edited version actually ends just as Slager is jogging back to retrieve the taser and plant it next to the body.
I didn’t know that until I’d read your comment and assumed the vid here was the same as the one posted on the NYT and other sites.
issac, TJustice, Wadewilliams…
I appreciate your feedback. It is good to know where you stand and that you think me to be an idiot.
I in no way was condoning the shooting and clearly indicated if the video showed the full situation this officer needed to be in jail.
I also wasn’t inferring that these men had no rights or should somehow have less rights than any other citizen. However, as a society we enable law enforcement agencies to enforce and uphold duly enacted laws for the benefit of all peoples.
Mine was just a simple observation… it seems that 99.8% of interactions between law enforcement and citizens occur without serious incident. Some don’t. Why? Is there a common theme in cases that escalate?
According to the video, what this officer in North Charleston did appears to be beyond contempt and if no mitigating facts come to light he deserves to be convicted.
However, I can’t help but to wonder if Mr. Scott would have been shot if he had simply complied with Officer Slager’s commands during the initial traffic stop. I’m not even saying the initial traffic stop was legit…
I fully agree that each and every citizen has a right to run from the police, ignore the police, question the police, or even have a physical confrontation with the police. But does exercising that right make it a smart choice?
In the real world life is about choices. Choices have consequences. In this case, Officer Slager is just beginning to deal with the poor choices he made. Unfortunately, Mr. Scott has already dealt with his.
You can also throw in the fact, that under stress your average policeman shooting at someone’s legs will probably hit the torso or miss entirely.
“Are you suggesting that a shot to the back can be less lethal?”
Huh? I’m not suggesting anything. I’m stating a fact, that the “He should have shot at his legs” ignores the fact that leg wounds can be lethal. There is no safe way to shoot a human being. All this stuff about shooting someone in the shoulder or legs is Hollywood nonsense.
From the Washington Post, back in December:
“Why South Carolina indicted three white police officers in four months”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/05/south-carolina-indicted-three-white-cops-in-four-months-and-its-probably-not-a-coincidence/
I think the govt. should step in and force the lawyer to represent the officer and bake him a cake.
fiver, My favorite part of your article was “Slightly edited” statement.
I love when people rag on today’s cops and compare them to Mayberry times when the worst a kid did was throw a rock through a window. Progressives have pushed for the society we have today and the police are just reacting to what is out there. I’m in no way justifying this officer, just stating that the world is a really crappy place and I understand why the police might be on edge dealing with it day after day.
There’s an update on Slager’s former lawyer.
Apparently, he had not only ditched his client after the video exposed Slager’s lies, he also sent out a press release announcing his withdrawal and then did an interview with the Daily Beast about his former client.
Disgusting.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/08/exclusive-michael-slager-s-attorney-dumped-him-as-soon-as-he-saw-video.html
@ Paul C. Schulte
“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.”
Where to start? Do you actually mean to assert that if a video had two years ago shown a man being gunned down by a policeman who put seven bullets in his back as he was running away, that nothing would have happened to that policeman because he was just doing police business as usual, but “because of a series of deaths by police” that have come to light, the police are now “over-reacting”? Over-reacting??
Are you totally oblivious to the heinousness of the criminality you’re implicitly confessing that you condone, here?
I’m reminded of your stating in a much earlier post that you “expect your government to do things they don’t tell [you] about.”
Is police murder of unarmed civilians posing no threat an example of things you don’t want to be told about?
Ken Rogers – are you keeping a notebook on me? It’s nice to know that people think me important enough to take down my thoughts and memorialize them.
You seem to be confusing to ideas. One is the idea that two years ago police departments would not have bothered much about shooting someone. The second is the government not telling us things. So, just for your clarification (and be sure to cut and paste this) it is only the federal government that I want to hid some things from me not the city government.
I have made my feeling known based on the tape we have available here. It appears there is a longer tape which shows him (this is anecdotal since I have not seen the longer tape) moving the object near him to near the body.
Police shootings are not all they are cracked up to be. Many people found that out with Darren Wilson. But I think the lessons of Darren Wilson and Ferguson were heard in this instance and there was a rush to judgement. Now, he could be guilty as hell. But in the time given he had no time to raise a defense for his firing. Darren would be the expert on this, but I think you are supposed to get like a mini-court martial.
Discharging a firearm with standard duty ammunition at a person is always considered deadly force for the purpose of department policies. The exceptions being the examples of bean bag rounds, simunitions for training or “rubber bullets”.
The act of intending to shoot someone in the leg to wound them still is considered deadly force.
Squeeky,
Just for you. 🙂
MANUFACTURING GUILT – A Short Film About Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Case
They are all in bed and sleeping the sleep of the righteous. It will do nothing but get worse until there is more change. This Pizza thing is too much though. I left a good comment over there I think was very insightful, Wade and Inga were playing on the SSD thread because they were tormenting Paul and defending Obama for giving social Security Disability to the Puerto Ricans that don’t pay tax for being unable to read English
I don’t care. I think everything is absurd. Of course they don’t deserve disability for that and to use up a whole thread for personal tormenting is ridiculous.
Sorry Paul,
You’re correct, it hit in some very vital places.
However I am perplexed at why I read your retort as a defense of rcocean’s comment that I replied to. I may be confused?
Paul C.
Tell the dead man your argument… I’m sure he’ll understand your logic.
Max-1 – I think the dead man took my point.
The man wasn’t a threat to the officer and posed no threat to society as a whole. Shooting him was careless and because of that, the officer is responsible.
The authority in charge must be the one using the best judgement in every situation. With out such caution of behavior, corruption replaces integrity. And society depends on the integrity of every officer. Otherwise, society see’s themselves pitted against a force that has the “law” on their side OR fear a force that takes the “law” into their hands.
America is burdened with officers who abuse their authority and make irrational decisions and choices. And, as a result, people are dying.
p.s.
It wasn’t like the officer didn’t get his ID at the original stop, or anything. Like he couldn’t have just gone to a Judge or Magistrate and have one of them produce an arrest warrant? Like the legal system couldn’t have figured out where the now dead man, lived so as to deliver the warrant under different circumstances?
rcocean
BTW, a bullet in the leg can be lethal if it hits a main artery
= = =
Are you suggesting that a shot to the back can be less lethal?
Max-1 – where the bullet hits is always the important thing.