This is the first of what will no doubt be a good many blogs about the killing of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina by Police Officer Michael T. Slager.
Let me start with the most important point of all: that we do not yet know all the circumstances of this case. We have not heard Officer Slager\’s side, we have not seen the video angle provided by his patrol car, we do not know what he dropped next to Mr. Scott as he laid on the ground either dying or dead.
With that in mind, let\’s review the facts as we know them so far:
-Walter Scott was stopped by Officer Slager – we are told, for a broken tail light. Was there a broken tail light, or did Officer Slager just decide to invent a reason for stopping Mr. Scott?
-Once out of the car, the video shows that there was a brief physical tussle between the two men. The claim is that Mr. Scott was trying to take Officer Slager\’s taser. Did it happen that way? For that reason? And, if so, why would Scott want that taser? We can\’t ask and will never know.
-Then Mr. Scott started running from Officer Slager. Why? Why would someone pulled over for a minor traffic infraction physically attack an officer and then run from him Could there have been something more we do not yet know about?
-Officer Slager did not have the luxury of being able to check Mr. Scott\’s background to see if he had any criminal history (which he did – arrests for contempt of court regarding child support payments – but nothing violent).
-Similarly, Scott could not have known that, during his years on the force, Slager had one complaint against him (excessive force, but not gun related) which he was exonerated of.
-Why did Slager shoot? Why did he not pursue, and/or radio for assistance? He had a full description of Mr. Scott, who was at that point on foot, fully visible. And – assuming it was not stolen – he had Scott\’s car, with its license plates and possible ID inside. He had no reason at that point to believe Mr. Scott was armed.
-What did Officer Slager drop by Mr. Scott\’s body after the shooting took place? Was it the taser? And if so, did he drop it there because Slager was trying to concoct a reason for the shooting out of thin air?
-Was this a racially motivated shooting? Media have collectively decided it was. Based on what? The simple fact that Slager is White and Scott was Black? Did Slager make any racial reference during the interaction with Scott? Some kind of racial gesture? The video/audio we have seen shows no such thing occurred. So – other than the physical fact that they are of different races – the premise that this shooting was racially motivated, so far, has no evidence to back it up.
With the above in mind, can we PLEASE wait until we know more before passing judgment?
Oh, one other thing: Yesterday the larg-type headline on page one of the New York Times was:
OFFICER IS CHARGED WITH MURDER OF A BLACK MAN SHOT IN THE BACK
And not content with its effort to make good and sure this was immediately seen as a racial incident, the lead editorial in today\’s New York Times print edition:
-Is titled The Walter Scott Murder, and
-its first paragraph is “The horrifying video of a white police officer in North Charleston, S.C. shooting and killing an unarmed black man – while the man is running away – may still come as a shock to many Americans. But this heinous act, which the officer tried to explain away by claiming that he feared for his life, strikes a familiar chord in communities of color all across the United States.”
Evidently, the Times has already reviewed all the evidence – before any investigation has taken place – and come to the conclusion that Officer Slager is a racist and a murderer. Either that, or its editorial board is far more interested in creating a racial explosion than it is in due process, or learning all the facts before making final conclusions.
Congratulations, Times. al sharpton couldn\’t have done it better – though he is already trying.
I write a lot about the Times being a once-great paper that has devolved into something much, much less. That editorial headline stands as proof that I am right.
