Shot in the back
A white North Charleston police officer was arrested on a murder charge after a video surfaced Tuesday of the lawman shooting eight times at a 50-year-old black man as the man ran away.
Walter L. Scott, a Coast Guard veteran and father of four, died Saturday after Patrolman 1st Class Michael T. Slager, 33, shot him in the back.
Five of the eight bullets hit Scott, his family’s attorney said. Four of those struck his back. One hit an ear.
The footage filmed by a bystander, which The Post and Courier obtained Tuesday from a source who asked to remain anonymous, shows the end of the confrontation between the two on Saturday after Scott ran from a traffic stop. It was the first piece of evidence contradicting an account Slager gave earlier this week through his attorney.
The video is both disturbing and unequivocal. Whatever transpired beforehand, it seems clear that the victim was running away, and that there was no reason for the officer to imagine he had a gun or that he was threatening the officer. Did the officer think, as he had alleged earlier, that Scott had taken his taser? Perhaps:
The three-minute clip of Saturday morning’s shooting starts shaky, but it steadies as Slager and Scott appear to be grabbing at each other’s hands.
Slager has said through his attorney that Scott had wrested his Taser from him during a struggle.
The video appears to show Scott slapping at the officer’s hands as several objects fall to the ground. It’s not clear what the objects are.
Scott starts running away. Wires from Slager’s Taser stretch from Scott’s clothing to the officer’s hands.
With Scott more than 10 feet from Slager, the officer draws his pistol and fires seven times in rapid succession. After a brief pause, the officer fires one last time. Scott’s back bows, and he falls face first to the ground near a tree.
If a person grapples with a police officer without any sort of physical attack and perhaps gets a taser from him (perhaps not) and then starts running away, with his back to the officer, I don’t see how there can be any justification for the officer to shoot that person in the back, unless perhaps if the person is some sort of extremely dangerous felon (is a convicted murderer in the act of escaping from prison, to take an example). Nothing of the sort was happening here; Scott’s rap sheet (which Officer Slager may or may not have looked up during the traffic stop, depending on how far into it he was when the incident occurred) was relatively mild:
He had a history of arrests related to contempt of court charges for failing to pay child support. The only accusation of violence against Scott during his lifetime came through an assault and battery charge in 1987.
Charged but not convicted, over 24 years ago.
Slager says he “felt threatened.” Whether or not that’s true is unknowable at this point; it goes to Slager’s state of mind, which will be an issue when he faces murder charges. But the more important question now is whether he had objective reasons for feeling threatened, and it seems clear that the situation provided no justification for those feelings except to the very easily threatened.
And if someone feels that easily threatened, he or she has absolutely no business being a police officer.
A couple more observations:
I continue to believe it would be best if all officers wore body cameras. Even though in general I’m uneasy with the increasing documentation of every aspect of our lives, police camers would help all around to discourage bad behavior on all sides, and to get a better idea of the truth when something goes terribly wrong.
What if there had been no video at all?
Chris Stewart, an attorney for Scott’s relatives, also questioned during the family’s news conference whether Slager would have been charged.
“What happened today doesn’t happen all the time,” Stewart said. “What if there was no video? What if there was no witness? … This wouldn’t have happened.”
We’ll never known, of course. But I think he would have been charged. In this case the ballistic and autopsy evidence would dictate it. The man was shot in the back many times. I am not conversant with all the cases of police killing someone where there have been accusations of wrongdoing on the part of the officer, but as far as I know, if the person is shot in the back, forensics would reveal it rather easily and the officer is likely to be charged. That is exactly the sort of evidence that was lacking in the Brown/Wilson case, and in fact evidence of the opposite helped to exonerate Wilson (as did the eyewitness testimony).
I tried to find cases in which police officers had shot someone in the back while that person was fleeing and yet were exonerated. I haven’t been able to locate one, but I did find a very recent case in which the officer was indicted and is awaiting trial. In the James Ashby case, the suspect wasn’t fleeing; in fact, it appears the cop had pursued him to his home, and the policeman was off-duty.
Here’s a description of what had happened in the Ashby case. As far as I can tell, the victim was Hispanic:
…[W]hen a police officer on the job for five months stopped a 27-year-old resident skateboarding along the main drag, followed him to his home and shot him dead last fall, Rocky Ford’s residents were shocked and angry…
Officer James Ashby was charged with second-degree, non-premeditated murder after an investigation led by law enforcement from surrounding communities and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation…
Ashby told investigators that Jacquez mouthed off to him when he stopped him skateboarding on U.S. Highway 50. Ashby said he thought Jacquez was trying to burglarize what turned out to be his own home because he walked erratically before heading toward the home’s back entrance. Gallegos said break-ins have been on the rise in the town of about 4,000 due to a rise in heroin addiction…
However, the brother of a police officer who was on a ride-along with Ashby that night, Kyle Moore, contradicted Ashby’s account. He said Jacquez did not talk back to Ashby and walked straight from the street to a side entrance to his house, where his mother opened the door for him.
Ashby said Jacquez grabbed a baseball bat and was about to swing it at him when he fired. The coroner found that Jacquez was shot in the back, not a position he would be in if he was winding up for a swing.
An autopsy found that the shot passed through Jacquez’s spine, instantly paralyzing him. Ashby said Jacquez took another step or two before collapsing as his mother watched, leading Dr. Daniel Lingamfelter of the El Paso County coroner’s office to conclude that Jacquez was already moving away from Ashby when he was shot.
The contradictions and forensic evidence led state investigators to conclude that there was enough evidence to arrest Ashby.
No video in that case. But the autopsy had made it clear that Ashby’s story was very fishy, and he was charged with murder as a result.
Note that most of use have never heard of the Ashby case. I think it failed to become a cause célé¨bre, despite its outrageousness and the fairly clear evidence of wrongdoing by the officer, because the victim was not black.
There is no way to tell whether Slager’s actions had anything to do with the race of the victim, Scott. But it is an indisputable fact that Slager is white and Scott was black. Rest assured that many people will draw the conclusion that the killing was racially motivated.
[ADDENDUM: I see that the mayor has called for all police to wear body cameras. Good. I’m astounded that it hadn’t been the policy earlier in a city as big as Charleston.]
I would like to support police officers, but there is no question that too many are quick to shoot. This may be a natural reaction to the hatred spewed at them as a group, and probably individually. They probably do feel threatened. But, when we arm people and give them extraordinary authority, we can expect that the arms and the authority will be used with restraint.
I do caution that the video is one piece of evidence, capturing only a segment of the confrontation. I also suggest that the Cop did not know the history of Scott; he only knew of his actions at the moment of decision.
If you react violently to a cop, you certainly do so at some risk.
LEOs have been terminating veterans in the US for some time now. It hasn’t gotten much attention for obvious reasons.
Was the wrong thread before, on the last one.
I see where
1) the mayor has instituted a policy for all police to wear body camera’s.
2) the city fired the cop
3) they arrested the cop on a murder charge
And still the slimeballs at “Black Lives Matter” demonstrate.
Perhaps if they really agreed with their mantra they would demonstrate at a Chicago or NYC Planned Parenthood Clinic where 60% of Blacks in the womb fail to make it out alive.
Can we also postulate that “grappling with a police officer” is not the best way to deal with a traffic stop, and that running away is not conducive to civil relations with the officer? If Mr. Scott had simply stood still, listened to what the officer said, and taken whatever punishment was issued (deserved or not, that’s what traffic court is for), he’d still be alive. Why people insist on confronting officers when the results are often fatal is beyond me.
I’ve been following this story on other blogs today and I’ve been educating myself on the subject and as more facts have emerged, my thinking has evolved somewhat.
Initially I thought it a clear cut case of murder. I no longer think it likely. At this point, barring further evidence, I’d probably vote for voluntary manslaughter.
“Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
Thus, the cop used unjustified deadly force.
There are however extenuating circumstances that make a charge of murder, IMO unsustainable.
There was a outstanding warrant out for Scott’s arrest. It is not the cops duty to judge its seriousness but to enforce it.
Scoot fled, twice. Once away from his car and then after being tased.
He physically resisted arrest.
Of course planting a gun, destroyed the cops credibility.
But there’s a much larger issue here. In Tennessee v. Garner, Justice O’Connor in her dissent, pointed to the flaw in the premise that a cop shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is unjustified except in the most extreme of circumstances; “highlighted the fact that police officers must often make swift, spur-of-the-moment decisions while on patrol, and argued that the majority did not properly consider this aspect of the case.
Moreover, burglary is a serious crime which often leads to rape and murder, and the Tennessee statute represents the state legislature’s judgment that such crimes may require the use of deadly force in order to protect the public against those who commit such crimes.
She also disagreed that a suspect’s interest in his own life necessarily extends to the right to flee from the scene of a crime. The suspect believed he was in imminent danger and therefore fled the scene.”
Those points coupled with the media distortions and aftermath of Ferguson are creating a climate where cops cannot effectively do their jobs.
Cops should be held accountable for illegal actions and abuse under the color of authority.
At the same time, hamstringing cops under laws and regulations that prevent them from doing their jobs will ensure a more lawless society.
New York City is already starting to demonstrate that reality.
Stan,
There was an outstanding warrant for Scott’s arrest, he knew he was going to jail, that’s why he fled.
Stan Smith:
I agree (and I believe I wrote a previous post on the subject) that fighting with a police officer is asking for trouble. That said, this man probably did it because he was subject to an outstanding Family Court warrant:
It’s still not a good idea to resist and/or run away, but I think the warrant is why he panicked. He did not assault the officer; just tried to knock the taser out of his hands, at least that’s what it seems happened (we don’t know for sure).
Still a very bad idea, but once he ran away I don’t see how any of it could justify shooting him in the back.
Geoffrey Britain:
I haven’t seen any report that Scott was successfully tased by Slager. Where did you read that?
…
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…. Here:
Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
In some part there is an effort made to shoot fewer dogs:
Milwaukee police no longer shooting as many dogs, thanks in part to training
I can recall the old pre WW II black and white movies often had a scene where the cop says “Stop or I’ll shoot.”
I can recall as a kid being told if a cop ever says “Stop” you stop.
Those days are over for good or ill.
It certainly appears Scott is guilty of a wrongful death. Still, let the evidence be examined before passing judgment.
neo,
I did not read that Scott was successfully tased, the NYT video shows the wire stretched between the cop and Scott. Since Scott was at point blank range it seems highly unlikely (but possible) that the cop missed. Then again, the NYT video I saw did NOT show Scott slapping at the hands of the cop. Typical NYT propaganda editing of course. So perhaps it did miss and when Scott turned to run he stepped on it pulling it tight, giving the impression that he’d shrugged off the taser, which if rarely, can happen.
“he only knew of his actions at the moment of decision.”
Oldflyer,
You are correct in that his actions at the moment of decision to shoot are what matter. But, the video does not show imminence of any threat reasonable or not. And if he did “adjust” the evidence as it appears, then that is an indication that the officer himself did not consider his actions justifiable seconds after discharging his firearm. That raises a potential reasonable doubt as to any justifiable self defense claim.
The fact that the cop picked up the taser and dropped it near the victim is damning. There have been many, many, many stories over the years about cops planting drugs on suspects to justify an arrest, or planting a weapon to justify a shooting. To see it captured live on video is disturbing, to say the least. That sort of thing must happen more often than we’d like to believe.
We are very lucky that this incident was caught on video. In too many situations like this, the police department conducts an “internal investigation” and the officer is found to have “followed procedures”. Usually the worst that happens is a civil suit, in which case it’s the taxpayers who end up being punished.
As a citizen, if I caught someone breaking into my house, he turned and fled, and I shot him eight times in the back as he was running down the driveway, I would go to prison. (Not to mention the chance of stray bullets going into neighboring homes.)
This cop deserves no different. Fry ‘im. We cannot tolerate government employees executing citizens with impunity.
Do not resist arrest. Do not give a policeman lip. Do follow orders. If your rights are being violated, sort it out in court. Do not depend on a cop knowing exactly what to do in a confrontation.
I can sit here at my computer or watch the video and say, “Why shoot him when you know who he is and it’s a low level traffic beef?” I am not in a confrontation, I don’t have the adrenaline pumping, and I don’t know what transpired before the video begins.
The race grievance industry is on this like white on rice, even though it appears that the system is working – the policeman is in custody and will undoubtedly be charged. It appears the race hate-mongers don’t want it to work. They want law and order to devolve into vigilante justice (riots, looting, burning, and mayhem) and general anarchy. We are reliving the late 1960s and 70s. Only the people in charge are now the hippies and revolutionaries of that time. Not good, not good at all.
Personally, I favor limiting police to investigators who come into the scene of a crime to determine what has happened. Let every man and woman who so choses be armed and defend their selves and neighbors. I do not need police to defend me and none of mine need such protection. No law or statute or regulation constraints us.
You’re right, J.J.
Scott made some bad decisions that contributed to his demise. Still, that doesn’t excuse the police officer’s actions. In my hypothetical example at 11:20, I would certainly have adrenaline pumping, but I doubt that would get me off in court.
I’ve been stopped by police a few times in my life. Once for a burned-out headlight, and another time for a misaligned headlight a few days after a minor fender-bender (it was shining into oncoming traffic).
Then there was the time I was accosted by undercover cops in a health club parking lot they had staked out because of a rash of car break-ins. That time I was told, “Keep your hands where I can see them.”
Somehow I managed to survive all those encounters and am here to tell the tale. In both headlight cases they just gave me a warning and told me to get it fixed. In the health club incident I was wandering around the parking lot looking to get a glimpse of the moon as there was a lunar eclipse that evening. Apparently that seemed suspicious. Who knew?
This SC case looks like a definitely bad shooting. But the cop is being dealt with appropriately and toughly.
Re cameras: I was thinking about that. Almost always, they will exonerate the cops. BUT: like the IRA used to say about their little bomb-Margaret-Thatcher raids, “She has to be lucky ALL the time. We only have to be lucky ONCE.”
Cop encounter footage will be gone through with lice combs by the Social Justice Wankers for any and all even slightly dubious arrests/takedowns. Putting cameras on all cops, nationwide, given the statistical odds of finding a certain (albeit small) percentage of rogue cops like the current case, means an unending stream of propaganda videos for the Leftists.
Which is why their tongues are hanging out, panting for it.
No, no, no, no, no. They will win at this dirty little game: they won’t report the stats (note how they distorted and lied about the NFL players, whose likelihood of committing domestic violence is actually LESS than that of non-NFL men of matching age and background — all they needed was One Video and a Narrative on an Endless Media Loop).
Lots of cops called Mark Levin today, most of them deploring how this policeman handled the encounter, and saying it looked pretty bad to them, too. Like the cop was mad that the man had fought him off, defied him, then tried to flee, and that the cop was dead wrong for shooting the guy for that reason: should have had better control of his impulses.
But one policeman did say this: that there Are times when it’s lawful to shoot a suspect in the back. That is, when you know he has a weapon and is still a dire threat. This fellow said two cops he knows have been shot over-the-shoulder by fleeing suspects. So it’s not entirely cut and dried, this “in the back” business.
Beverly:
Actually, I think video is probably a good thing overall. In this case it was a passerby who recorded the shooting.
And there are countless police dashcam videos on YouTube showing perps behaving badly. Some of them are hilarious, especially DUI stops.
Instapundit has written repeatedly about the right of citizens to video the actions of police in public.
Police killings are a part of a more fundamental issue which is largely being ignored to our peril.
Police and other law enforcement officers at all levels and in all jurisdictions have become out of control, drunk on power and arrogance. The system has taught them over and over that there is virtually no downside to their illegal behavior.
Every day in many many ways officers violate the constitution and commit crimes (such as perjury) for which there is no punishment. It is simply politically inexpedient for those in a position to do something (for instance, district attorneys and judges), to do something.
The justice system is largely a take it or leave it system which hides police criminality. Woe to the defendant who does not take the deal, who dares to challenge. The surest way to extra harsh punishment is to challenge.
Keeping in mind the weakness of generalities, it is fair to say that officers regard citizens as assholes who need to be shown the beat down, from a broken tail light on up.
The disrespect for police and other law enforcement officers has correspondingly grown. After all (for instance) the people the officers are lying about know for a fact that the officer is lying.
The folks who see officers regularly commit offenses (such as driving drunk) with impunity, see the impunity.
And we are at or very near the day (helped very much by the retributive mentality of lawless leftist agenda and its constant retributive propaganda), where your everyday law abiding citizen feels like a chump.
Chump satori: if the law does not apply to the police, it does not apply to chumps.
I’m not going to defend this cop shooting 8(?) times at a guy’s back, but what is the precedent you’re trying to set here, Neo?
Are you claiming that if you’re not an “extremely dangerous felon” and the police are trying to detain you, if you get away from the cop, are unarmed, and have your back turned to the cop, you have the right to get away scot free? Basically, you’re saying if you can Run Away from a cop, you can get away with any crime because any effort to stop your pursuit using a weapon is unlawful and wrong.
… you can get away with any crime because any effort to stop your pursuit using a weapon is unlawful and wrong.
Yup! No need for weapons. Plenty of other ways to apprehend the suspect latter.
Mr. Scott wasn’t running very fast either.
This is running!
This is really running!
… Chump satori: if the law does not apply to the police, it does not apply to chumps.
Say ‘Have a good day, sir. God bless you.’ That’ll be a tongue lashing.”
Don’t consent! That’ll be a slapping.
Chumps now, sheeple latter.
Home of the docile.
The difference is that the white folk dont stick up for white criminals and black folk do… (not all of course)
I’m sure the Tea Party benefited by obeying the IRS court decisions. Obeying the IRS orders did quite well, after all. Isn’t that right.
Pingback:Slager | Walter Scott | fleeing | shooting | police
Pingback:On shooting fleeing suspects - Freedom's Floodgates