By Charles C. W. Cooke
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
There has been a murder in North Charleston, S.C. The
victim was a 50-year-old black man named Walter Scott. The killer was a
33-year-old white police officer named Michael T. Slager. The story, as we know
it, is harrowing. After Slager pulled Scott over for a broken taillight, the
New York Times reports, Scott fled the scene on foot. In pursuit, Slager
discharged his taser, which failed to work as intended. Undeterred, Scott
continued to run away, which – for some inexplicable reason – provoked Slager
into opening fire with his service pistol. Having been hit at least five times,
Scott fell to the ground and died.
The initial witness reports appear to have been wholly
incorrect. Calling in the incident, Officer Slager claimed brazenly that Scott
had tried to take his Taser, and that he had feared for his life. Offering
their account of events, local eyewitnesses suggested that the shots were fired
in the course of an ongoing fight. But the video footage tells a rather
different story. The available film, the Times confirms, “shows the officer
firing eight times” while Scott flees, unarmed. More disturbingly, having
finished shooting and holstered his weapon, Slager then appears to plant a
Taser by Scott’s side.
Quite what justification could possibly be marshaled in
defense of this behavior is unclear — to the point at which we might say
confidently, “There is none.” Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court case that
governs how police officers must treat those who flee, holds that an agent of
the state may use lethal force against an escaping suspect only in such cases
as he reasonably concludes that the suspect poses “a significant threat of
death or serious physical injury” to himself or to another. To watch the Times’
video is to understand that, at the time he was killed, Walter Scott posed no
threat to anybody at all. When Slager raises his gun to shoot, Scott is not
only a long, long way away from him, but he also seems to be unarmed. From his
position, there is simply no way that he could have delivered a meaningful blow
to Slager – or to anyone else, for that matter.
It has been suggested that there may have been a serious
fight before the camera started to roll, and that this may have clouded Officer
Slager’s judgment. Perhaps. Either way, though, this possibility seems to be
something of a red herring. By the standard rules of engagement, Scott’s
panicked flight legally concluded any ongoing altercation, his departure from
the fight signaling to Officer Slager that he no longer wanted to brawl. Police
officers have reasonable latitude. But they are not permitted to shoot later in
response to a threat that passed earlier, nor to stretch the definition of
“danger” to its breaking point. Frankly, the idea that Slager had somehow
“learned” that Scott was inherently dangerous is weak. Scott was unarmed and he
was running away. Who, exactly, was he intimidating?
Equally irrelevant are Scott’s various transgressions —
committed both before and during his murder. Should he have been running from
the officer in the first instance? No, obviously not. Should he have paid his
child support and responded to his many court summonses? Indeed he should. Is
it normal for motorists to foment imbroglios over tail-light violations.
Hardly. But men are imperfect, and this one made a few poor choices. He did not
deserve to be killed for them.
All in all, this seems to be the case that we have been
hearing about for a long, long while now — that
much-previewed-but-never-quite-forthcoming case in which the white cop
unnecessarily guns down the unarmed black man who is trying in earnest to get
away. This is that case in which the 80 percent white police force takes a life
from the 47 percent black city; in which the small infraction leads to the
fatal consequence; in which there are no wrinkles to complicate the complaint.
This, in other words, is what the shootings of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin
were not.
That being so, that Officer Slager was almost immediately
charged with murder should be noted with keen interest. Naturally, an
indictment will not bring Walter Scott back. Nor, indeed, will post hoc
punishments do much to dispel the fears of those among us who are convinced
that the United States is an irredeemably racist nation. But that a harsh
indictment was swiftly forthcoming should be recognized, and valued,
nevertheless. The claim that police officers in America are able to kill with
impunity has become a popular one of late – offered, usually, alongside the
false contention that whites have declared “open season” on black males. It
should not be casually endorsed. When there are no cameras, the advantage goes
to the shooter. That, I’m afraid, is the inevitable product of a system that
privileges the presumption of innocence, and, ultimately, it is an argument for
more cameras rather than less justice. Where there are cameras, however, the
playing field is leveled. In this case, with the evidence clear as day, the
powers-that-be were keen to assure all and sundry that there are consequences
for iniquities such as these, and that they are grave.
There has been a murder in North Charleston, S.C.. But
there have been punitive measures, too. For Officer Slager, crime will meet
punishment and decision will meet ramification. That’s something, at least.
No comments:
Post a Comment