- Oct 20, 2013
- 55,603
- 17,639
- 2,250
What an interesting comparison. Two cops both shoot a fleeing felon. One cop (Sgt Jay Cook, New York State Police) is hailed as a hero. The other (Michael Slager, Charleston, SC Police) is jailed on a charge of murder (South Carolina law has only one charge of murder, defined as "unlawful killing with malice aforethought"
Both felons were unarmed. Both were running away, and thus, shot in the back. In the New York case, David Sweat was a prison escapee, and a lifer convicted of murdering a cop. In the SC case, Walter Scott, had been previously arrested 10 times including for assault & battery, and had been fighting with the arresting officer.
Pretty clear that in both cases, these guys both were violent criminals, and were posing a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the community at large if they got away. So both were subject to the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner decision, which ruled that 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". This makes it justifiable for the officer to shoot the fleeing suspect in the back, as he's running away (as occured in both cases).
So if these two cases are so similar, why is one guy in jail on a murder charge, and the other is being praised for good police work ? (that he really did do) There is only one contrasting difference in these two cases. In the Cook shooting, the fleeing felon was White. In the Slager shooting, the fleeing felon was Black.
Could it be that the South Carolina grand jury (with a video to prove Slager's justification) that indicted Slager, did so only because of the fear of race rioting, as had recently occured in Ferguson, MO, and Baltimore, MD ? Maybe one ought to ask, could it not be that ?
Shooting of Walter Scott - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7682898.html
Both felons were unarmed. Both were running away, and thus, shot in the back. In the New York case, David Sweat was a prison escapee, and a lifer convicted of murdering a cop. In the SC case, Walter Scott, had been previously arrested 10 times including for assault & battery, and had been fighting with the arresting officer.
Pretty clear that in both cases, these guys both were violent criminals, and were posing a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the community at large if they got away. So both were subject to the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner decision, which ruled that 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". This makes it justifiable for the officer to shoot the fleeing suspect in the back, as he's running away (as occured in both cases).
So if these two cases are so similar, why is one guy in jail on a murder charge, and the other is being praised for good police work ? (that he really did do) There is only one contrasting difference in these two cases. In the Cook shooting, the fleeing felon was White. In the Slager shooting, the fleeing felon was Black.
Could it be that the South Carolina grand jury (with a video to prove Slager's justification) that indicted Slager, did so only because of the fear of race rioting, as had recently occured in Ferguson, MO, and Baltimore, MD ? Maybe one ought to ask, could it not be that ?
Shooting of Walter Scott - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7682898.html
