Why police who shot Walter Scott won't face death penalty

Former North Charleston, S.C., officer Michael Slager is charged with murder in the death of Walter Scott. But under state law, the shooting isn't likely to warrant the death penalty, says the prosecutor. 

A prosecutor says it doesn't look like the death penalty can be sought in the case of a black South Carolina man who was fatally shot as he ran from a white police officer.

Former North Charleston officer Michael Slager is charged with murder in the death of Walter Scott. The April 4 shooting was captured on cellphone video and showed Slager firing eight shots at Scott as he ran after a traffic stop.

Solicitor Scarlett Wilson released a statement earlier this week saying that, based on the facts so far, the death penalty doesn't appear to apply. Under state law, death can only be sought in a killing with aggravating circumstances such as robbery or kidnapping.

In the meantime, court documents show the case has been assigned to a black judge: Clifton Newman of Kingstree.

The Washington Post reported that police officers are given substantial leeway in the use of force under US law.  

A pair of Supreme Court rulings handed down in the 1980s govern when officers can use lethal or potentially excessive force.

In 1985, the court ruled in Tennessee v. Garner that police could shoot at a violent felon who was fleeing and posed a significant threat to others. Four years later, the justices ruled in Graham v. Connor that officers can use force if they have an “objectively reasonable” belief that a suspect is a safety threat or is trying to evade arrest, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the court’s opinion. This “reasonable” standard has to allow for the reality that police often have to make rapid decisions “in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving,” as Rehnquist put it.

An analysis conducted by The Washington Post and researchers at Bowling Green Sate University found:

While thousands of officers shot and killed someone over the last decade, a small fraction of them — 55 officers as of this week — faced criminal charges. (That number includes a Tulsa reserve deputy charged with manslaughter this week after he shot and killed an unarmed man.) Most of the officers who were charged and had their cases resolved were acquitted or had the charges dropped; the officers who are convicted or plead guilty average four years behind bars, while some serve just a number of weeks.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why police who shot Walter Scott won't face death penalty
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0416/Why-police-who-shot-Walter-Scott-won-t-face-death-penalty
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe