Shot in the Back
The killing of Walter Scott
On April 7, police in North Charleston, South Carolina, charged one of their own, Patrolman Michael Slager, with murder in the shooting death of a motorist named Walter Scott. Slager initially claimed through an attorney that he feared for his safety when he shot Scott. But video from a bystander shows Slager firing eight rounds at the fleeing man, striking him in the back.
"When you're wrong, you're wrong," North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said after viewing the recording. "When you make a bad decision, don't care if you're behind the shield or a citizen on the street, you have to live with that decision."
Slager, who is 33 and white, pulled over Scott, who was 50 and black, because the Mercedes-Benz sedan that Scott was driving had a broken brake light. Scott took off on foot, apparently because he had an outstanding warrant for failure to pay child support. Slager pursued him on foot and eventually drew his Taser. According to a statement the patrolman made through his lawyer, Scott grabbed the weapon during a struggle, at which point Slager "felt threatened." Yet in the three-minute video, which shows the end of the chase and the immediate aftermath, Scott is not menacing Slager—he's running away as the officer fires his gun.
In the 1985 case Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court said the Fourth Amendment allows police to shoot at a fleeing suspect only when he "poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others." It seems unlikely that Scott, a nonviolent offender who was armed at most with a Taser, and maybe not at all, fit that description. But without the video, Slager's version of events might have been accepted.
Two state legislators from the Charleston area say the shooting shows the need to move forward with a bill that would require police officers to wear body cameras. "My goal is to try to utilize modern-day technology to cut through the rumors and the lies when it comes to these unfortunate incidents," Rep. Wendell Gilliard (D–Charleston) told the Charleston Post and Courier. "Cameras don't lie."
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Shot in the Back."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Cameras don't lie"
Though they certainly can turn themselves off at the most opportune times.