Mike Kueber's Blog

April 9, 2015

The Walter Scott killing in SC

Filed under: Law/justice — Mike Kueber @ 6:50 pm
Tags: , , , ,

I had a Muslim friend who, whenever she heard of a terrorist incident, first hoped that the terrorists weren’t Muslim.  I confess to feeling the same way when hearing a report that a policeman killed an unarmed person – i.e., I hope the policeman wasn’t white and the deceased wasn’t black.  Well, this week in South Carolina, the policeman Michael Slager was white and the deceased Walter Scott was black.

Based on those facts, the New York Times was prepared to immediately jump to conclusions.  According to its editorial board:

  • The case underscores two problems that have become increasingly clear since the civic discord that erupted last year after the police killed black citizens in New York, Cleveland and Ferguson, Mo. The first, most pressing problem is that poorly trained and poorly supervised officers often use deadly force unnecessarily, particularly against minority citizens. The second is that the police get away with unjustly maiming or killing people by lying about the circumstances that prompted them to use force.  The shooting death of Walter Scott on Saturday would have passed into the annals of history unremarked upon had a bystander not used a cellphone to document what happened after Mr. Scott encountered the police officer, Michael Slager, after a routine traffic stop.”

Let me count the ways the editorial board in incorrect:

  1. The shooting in SC is dramatically different than the deaths in NY, Cleveland, and Ferguson, and the prompt criminal charges in SC reflect that.
  2. Poor training and poor supervision have nothing to do with the SC cop shooting a fleeing man.
  3. Police lying, just like any other variety of lying, must be exposed by conflicting evidence.
  4. The killing in Ferguson didn’t “pass into the annals of history unremarked” even though there was no video evidence, so why would the Times suggest that the Walter Scott shooting would?

As I read some of the hundreds of comments to the editorial, most readers scoffed at the suggestion that the shooting resulted from poor training and poor supervision.  Then the next day, NY Times columnist Charles Blow shied away from the training and supervision issue, but joined the growing consensus that this issue of white-cop/black-victim was systemic and would have escaped detection without the video:

  • This case is yet another in a horrifyingly familiar succession of cases that have elevated the issue of use of force, particularly deadly force, by officers against people of color and inflamed the conversation that surrounds it.
  • What would have happened if video of this incident had not surfaced? Would the officer’s version of events have stood? How many such cases must there be where there is no video?
  • But I would argue that the issue we are facing in these cases is not one of equipment, or even policy, but culture.

I suggest that the editorial board and columnist Blow should keep their powder dry until two unreported facts are developed:

  1. Resisting Arrest. The incidents in NY and Ferguson involved victims who resisted arrest, and one of the Lessons Learned that was noted in passing was that it is never a good idea to resist arrest.  In SC, we have been told that the incident was a routine traffic stop, and then the video picks up with a fleeing victim.  Apparently, a witness saw the cop and the victim fighting on the ground.  This missing link seems like an important component of the story for me, but the media seems to have minimal interest.
  2. Racial animus.  After the cop in Ferguson, Darren Wilson, was cleared by state authorities, the feds attempted to prove a civil-rights claim by checking the cop’s history for any evidence of racial animus.  The same thing should be done here before concluding that this was a race-based shooting in SC.

Incidentally, the Charles Blow column included some interesting information about the Ferguson shooting that I was not aware of:

  • One of the most disturbing features of the Department of Justice’s report on the killing of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson was the number of witnesses who said that they were afraid to come forward because their version of events contradicted what they saw as community consensus.”
Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. Mike,

    I agree with you. I have tried many police shooting cases. Since the South Carolina shooting, I have heard lawyers say that but for the video, the officer’s statement that he felt his life was in danger when he used deadly force would have gotten him off. That, of course, is not true. Forensic evidence would easily show that the wound was a “distant type” wound. That is proven easily by a visual inspection of the wound by the medical examiner and the absence of gunpowder residue and/or stippling around the entrance of the wound. Second, the wounds are all in the man’s back. Several distance wounds in a person’s back, while the person is upright, will prove that the person was, largely, facing away at the time of the shooting. Just based on those two facts, how does the video do anything but make the incident crystal clear?

    The quote, “The shooting death of Walter Scott on Saturday would have passed into the annals of history unremarked upon had a bystander not used a cellphone to document what happened after Mr. Scott encountered the police officer, Michael Slager, after a routine traffic stop,” is simply not true.

    Finally, I think a quick study of the number of white guys who get shot by officers would change the view of people who think that this only occurs to minorities. In the gallows humor of my profession, I tend to hear about white guys who get shot by officers and think, “well, there is no lawsuit coming from that,” because it is not a charged situation and the public tends to look at the surrounding circumstances (which often support the officer) much more cerebrally.

    Comment by Robert — April 10, 2015 @ 12:31 pm | Reply

    • Robert, thanks for articulating and expounding on what I was thinking. I’m disappointed that Columnist Blow and the NY Times editorial board failed to look at this situation “more cerebrally.”

      Comment by Mike Kueber — April 10, 2015 @ 5:20 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: