A Shooting in South Carolina
While the police are supposed to protect and serve, recent incidents have raised grave concerns about policing in America. I am, of course, referring to the killing of unarmed black men by white police officers. In the most recent incident Patrolman Michael Thomas Slager shot Walter Lamer Scott to death after what should have been a routine traffic stop. What makes this case unusual is that there is video of the shooting. While the video does not show what happened before Scott started to flee, it clearly shows that Scott is no threat to Slager: he is unarmed and running away. Police are not allowed to shoot a suspect merely for fleeing. The video also show Slager dropping an object by Scott’s body—it appears to be Slager’s Taser. When Slager called in the incident, he described it as a justifiable shooting: Scott grabbed his Taser and he had to use his service weapon. Obviously Slager was unaware that he was being recorded as he shot the fleeing Scott.
Since I am friends with people who are ex-law enforcement (retired or moved on to other careers) I have reason to believe that the majority of officers would not engage in such behavior. As such, I will not engage in a sweeping condemnation of police—this would be both unjust and unfounded. However, this incident does raise many concerns about policing in the United States.
As noted above, what makes this incident unusual is not that a situation involving a black man and white officer escalated. It is also not very unusual that a black man was shot by a police officer. What is unusual is that the incident was videotaped and this allowed the public to see what really happened—as opposed to what was claimed by the officer. If the incident had not been recorded, this most likely would have gone down as the all-too-common scenario of a suspect attacking a police officer and being shot in self-defense. The tape, however, has transformed it from the usual to the unusual: a police officer being charged with murder for shooting a suspect.
Since I teach critical thinking, I am well aware that the story of one incident, however vivid, is but an anecdote. I am also well aware that to generalize broadly from one such incident is to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. That said, the videotape does provide legitimate grounds for being suspicious of other incidents in which suspects have been shot while (allegedly) trying to attack an officer. Since we know that it has happened, we clearly know that it can happen. The obvious and rather important concern is the extent to which this sort of thing has happened. That is, what needs to be determined is the extent to which officers have engaged in legitimate self-defense and to what extent have officers engaged in murder.
This videotape shows, rather dramatically, that requiring police to use body cameras is a good idea—at least from the standpoint of those who believe in justice. People are, obviously enough somewhat less likely to act badly if they know they are being recorded. There is also the fact that there would be clear evidence of any misdeeds. The cameras would also benefit officers: such video evidence would also show when the use of force was legitimate, thus helping to reduce suspicions. As it stands, we know that at least one police officer shot down a fleeing suspect who presented no threat. This, naturally enough, motivates suspicion about all shootings (and rightly so). The regular use of body cameras could be one small contribution to addressing legitimate questions about use of force incidents.
What is also usual about this incident is that there has been a focus on the fact that Scott had a criminal record and legal troubles involving child support. This is presumably intended to show that Scott was no angel and perhaps to suggest that the shooting was, in some manner, justified. Or, at the very least, not as bad as one might think. After all, the person killed was a criminal, right? However, Scott’s background has no relevance in this incident: his having legal troubles in the past in no manner justifies the shooting.
What was also usual was the reaction of Bill O’Reilly and some of the other fine folks at Fox, which I learned about from Professor Don Hubin’s reaction and criticism. Rather than focusing on the awfulness of the killing and what it suggests about other similar incidents, O’Reilly’s main worry seems to be that some people might use the killing to “further inflame racial tensions” and he adds that “there doesn’t seem to be, as some would have you believe, that police are trying to hunt down black men and take their lives.” While this is not a claim that has been seriously put forth, O’Reilly endeavors to “prove” his claim by engaging in a clever misleading comparison. He notes that “In 2012, last stats available, 123 blacks were killed by police 326 whites were killed.” While this shows that police kill more whites than blacks, the comparison is misleading because O’Reilly leaves out a critical piece of information: the population is about 77% white and about 13% black. This, obviously enough, sheds a rather different light on O’Reilly’s statistics: they are accurate, yet misleading.
Naturally, it might be countered that blacks commit more crimes than whites and thus it is no surprise that they get shot more often (when adjusting for inflation) than whites. After all, one might point out, Scott did have a criminal record. This reply has a certain irony to it. After all, people who claim that blacks are arrested (and shot) at a disproportionate level claim that the police are more likely to arrest blacks than whites and focus more on policing blacks. As evidence that blacks commit more crimes, people point to the fact that blacks are more likely (adjusting for proportions) than whites to be arrested. While one would obviously expect more blacks to be arrested in they committed more crimes (proportionally), to assume what is in doubt (that policing is fair) as evidence that it should not be doubted seems to involve reasoning in a circle.
O’Reilly also raised a stock defense for when bad thing are done: “You can’t … you can’t be a perfect system. There are going to be bad police officers; they’re going to make mistakes; um .. and then the mistakes are going to be on national television.” O’Reilly engages in what seems to be a perfectionist fallacy: the system cannot be perfect (which is true), therefore (it seems) we should not overly concerned that this could be evidence of systematic problems. Or perhaps he just means that in an imperfect system one must expect mistakes such as an officer shooting a fleeing suspect to death. O’Reilly also seems rather concerned that the mistakes will be on television—perhaps his concern is, as I myself noted, that people will fall victim to a hasty generalization from the misleading vividness of the incident. That would be a fair point. However, the message O’Reilly seems to be conveying is that this incident is (as per the usual Fox line) an isolated one that does not indicate a systemic problem. Despite the fact that these “isolated” incidents happen with terrible regularity.
I will close by noting that my objective is not to attack the police. Rather, my concern is that the justice system is just—that is rather important to me. It should also be important to all Americans—after all, most of us pledged allegiance to a nation that offers liberty and justice to all.
A Philosopher's Blog 
Isn’t it interesting that a society that never quits bragging about its technological achievements and the correlative advances in human welfare still finds the most effective way of resolving disputes the use of a rapid chemical reaction driving a metal pellet through the body of one of the disputants with possibly lethal effects, a methodology in common use since late medieval times? Or, maybe it’s possible that American humans, especially, regard murder as the best way of enforcing desired behavior. Regardless, by their own
admission, law enforcement agencies have procedures, not necessarily dictated by law but rather policy, which they are required to follow. When these policies are not followed, they are investigated by the agency itself, with predictable results. Cell phone videos show how often these policies are violated.
Another interesting aspect of the Slager case is perjury. When an ordinary citizen is arrested for a specific crime, second degree murder, let’s say, the legal system invariably charges the suspect with other crimes related to the incident, illegal possession of a firearm, driving without a license, terroristic threats, etc. But in cases where law enforcement officers are proven to have lied in arrest reports, written testimony and on the witness stand, they are never charged with perjury. Perjury, or filing a dishonest report, should also be one of the charges Slager faces.
Illegal law enforcement behavior is one of this country’s biggest problems. http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2015/04/sussex-county-virginia-sheriffs-dept.html http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2014/12/orange-county-sheriff-blames-illegal.html http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2014/10/anchorage-cops-want-more-part-time-work.html http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2012/12/anne-marie-rasmussen-update.html
It is also not very unusual that a black man was running from a police officer.
Mike, does this op ed approximate your position?
Indeed, Bill O’Reilly of Fox “News” has already invoked misleading statistics to assure his audience that, “There doesn’t seem to be, as some people would have you believe, that police are trying to hunt down young black men and take their lives.”
In other words, move on, nothing to see here.
We ought not be surprised. It is only human that a Bill O’Reilly would want to think of himself and of the culture in which he has flourished as decent and good. To acknowledge that there is bias in that culture is to put oneself into an unenviable moral squeeze: One must either bestir oneself to say or do something about it — or else stop thinking of oneself as decent and good.
It is easier simply to deny the bias, to say that what is, is not. Small wonder that’s the default position of conservatism on matters of race: Absent burning crosses and pointy white hoods, nothing is ever racism to them. And the more fervently one denies self-evident truth, the more emotionally invested one becomes in doing so.
Thus, every incident that illustrates the racism of our system, every statistic that quantifies it, every study that proves it, becomes just another “isolated incident.” There is never an accumulation of evidence pointing toward an irrefutable, irredeemable conclusion. They are a thousand trees, but no forest, a million raindrops, but no storm.
Rodney King, Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima? Isolated incidents.
Oscar Grant, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice? Isolated incidents.
Sean Bell, Levar Jones, Trayvon Martin? Isolated incidents.
A study co-authored by law professor David Baldus, a 1991 study by the San Jose Mercury News, a 1996 report from the National Criminal Justice Commission, a 2000 study co-sponsored by the Justice Department, a 2004 report by The Miami Herald, a 2010 book by reporter Joseph Collum, all documenting profound and pervasive racial bias in the justice system? Isolated incidents.
Sometimes, you have to wonder at our conservative friends: Where is conscience? Where are intellectual integrity and moral courage? Where is simple, human decency?
Because if you are a decent person, you are up in arms right now. You are demanding solutions — not making excuses.
And if you are not up in arms yet, then pray tell: How many more “isolated incidents” do you need? How much more obvious must this be? How many more bodies will it take?
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article18221003.html#storylink=cpy
Fox does seem to present a narrative that such incidents are isolated incidents and do not reflect an underlying problem. As the author and others have noted, given the statistical data it seems problematic to claim that these are isolated incidents (that is, rare anomalies). Assuming the stats are accurate (which can be questioned, of course), there does seem to be a systematic problem rather than just a few anomalies.
What is interesting is that Fox seems to engage in inconsistency in terms of classifying incidents. A few truly isolated (sometimes erroneously reported) incidents become evidence of a war on Christmas. As surfer dude who buys lobster and sushi becomes proof of systematic welfare abuse, and so on. Yet, repeated incidents and what seems to be accurate research are rejected in favor of the isolated incident narrative.
I also agree that those who claim to be decent people should be concerned about this matter.
TJ,
The best way to determine if there is a trend, is to do trend analysis. Studies of NYPD show officers shoot less than they did in the 70s. Also, I believe the average officer in NYPD would have to work 90 years as a cop to ever shoot his pistol on duty.
I’m with you in the basics of this argument, but scientific studies of police shooting do not show what some say they should. As for Islamic fundamentalism and violence, scientific inquiry DO show increased violence on the part of Islamic cultures (See Clash of Civilizations) .
Can anyone on here produce a scientific study that shows that cops are more violent than ever? Even out military is less violent than ever.
Magus
And as for Mike’s comment that these incidents occur with “terrible regularity”, what about the FBI statistics?
“Nationwide, law enforcement made an estimated 12,408,899 arrests in 2011. Of these arrests, 534,704 were for violent crimes, and 1,639,883 were for property crimes. (Note: the UCR Program does not collect data on citations for traffic violations.)”
Over 12 million arrests in a year but how many shooting are highly questionable?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/persons-arrested/persons-arrested
I have a solution to all of this. We turn off out TVs.
Magus
You are right about reduction in NYPD shootings. One factor, at least one that is discussed, is that the NYPD changed its rules so that officers were told not to shoot at moving vehicles.
In regards to the statistics, one glaring problem is that we do not actually have good data on the number of police shootings each year. Oddly, the feds don’t require police departments to report that. Without this data, there are some rough estimates and, of course, the news reports.
As you say, most police do not even fire their weapon while on duty let alone kill someone. However, we have had a series of high profile killings and investigations have shown clear patterns of bad policing and evidence of racism. Most cops are trying to do a good job, but there are systematic problems that need to be addressed.
There is, of course, the question of how many incidents are tolerable. After all, since we cannot have a perfect system we need to have a standard to judge the level of acceptable incidents relative to the cost of prevention. This is a principle I use consistently. For example, I am against the Republican tactics in regards to voter fraud: the incidents are incredibly rare and the methods proposed to counter fraud tend to ineffective and/or harmful (reducing voter turnout, etc.). If the wrongful shootings are at a tolerable level, then my principle would apply: the incidents are bad, but the number does not warrant the cost of lowering them more.
” the incidents are incredibly rare”
How do we know that?
” the methods proposed to counter fraud tend to ineffective and/or harmful (reducing voter turnout, etc.)”
Yeah, asking for a picture id is just too much of an inconvenience for whom, exactly? As if an individual vote really had any meaning in the first place. If it makes people feel good, OK, I guess. Especially in a presidential election when there are so many options and an electoral college as well. You’ll notice that in spite of the tremendous success of the US govt., nobody else uses the system, including the Iraqis, whose new government was designed by an American.
“How do we know that?”
Do you know differently?
Let’s see, corruption is now and always has been endemic in human society across every institution, government, the military, law enforcement, education, sports, business, banking, etc. But counting the votes to determine who gets the political favors and who dishes them out is somehow assumed to be unquestionably truthful. It is to laugh.
Mike, what exact fallacy is nailhead resorting to below? His basic argument is that since corruption is endemic to humans, bad shooting must be happening all the time by police. By this logic, bad shootings must be occurring everywhere, not just at PDs. Firefighters must be blowing people away at industrial rates.
Magus
Even if corruption were endemic, it would not follow that shooting would be happening all the time. One reason is that corruption takes many forms. It also seems reasonable to see the excessive use of force as different from corruption. An official on the take is corrupt. An official who is just whacking people would be murderous.
Welcome back, Magus. You left me here to defend the PO-lice all by myself (ok, TJ helped a little). I’ve got a question for you, and TJ if he’s not become afraid of answering my questions…of the two populations, police and non-STEM college professors, which do you think is more responsible? Which group is held accountable for their actions? And for this context, let’s put life and death situations aside. I’m saying in general citizen/cop interaction. Traffic tickets, noise complaints, minor property damage, stuff like that. Who has more eyes on the quality of their work and is held accountable?
And not to sound one sided, I myself have grown tired of the poor attitude and such I’ve seen in decline from the police community over the last several years. I think I do understand why that is, but just stating such because even in this context I’m not denying that there is a problem. But to here a college professor drone on about such is ridiculous. Pot/kettle. Though also, maybe I’m seeing anomalies but theres a good number of fat cops out there. And no, not due to the bullet proof vests…unless those vests somehow squeeze the fat up into their necks or down into their butts. Sorry, Magus, but it does need to be said and I suspect if you see such you’re just as disturbed by it, if not more.
WTP,
I’d say the police are held under more scrutiny than misunderstood anyone. I got very tired of it when I was on the job. I felt misunderstood by the community I served. Most cops did. Most people have no real concept of what police can legally do. Nor the case history that empowers them to do it.
Yes, many police have bad attitudes. I got one myself aft after a while. We used to joke that no one had any complaints about the fire department, who routinely posed for calenders and had cookouts. And yes, a lot of fat cops. Departments are having a very difficult time recruiting and keeping people now under the current atmosphere. Not to mention that many people are not in shape, cant write well and have criminal pasts. The recruiting pool is much smaller than it was 30 years ago. My old PD used to get hundreds of applicants for one open position back in the 70s. Now they get around 20, half of which are not even qualified to apply.
I’ve thought hard about going back to law enforcement, after the Army, but I’m not sure I can stomach what I see now.
And sorry for typoes; i’m typing on a HP ProBook laptop. The worst keyboard in history. DO NOT BUY ONE….
We don’t know with certainty, but the credible research indicates that voter fraud is very rare: https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/09/7-papers-4-government-inquiries-2-news-investigations-and-1-court-ruling-proving-voter-fraud-is-mostly-a-myth/
Having and ID is not a problem for you or me, but it is for some people-such as old folks and the poor. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/09/voter_id_laws_analysis_shows_they_could_make_fraud_worse_and_disenfranchise.html
Whether voting matters or not is another issue. Most of the folks who run the show certainly like apathy-they can count on getting re-elected over and over because those who might support real change seem to think voting does not matter.
‘Police are not allowed to shoot a suspect merely for fleeing.”
Depends what you mean by merely.
Read about the fleeing felon rule.
Magus
I did-police (in most jurisdictions) are not supposed to shoot a suspect who is simply running away. Deadly force “may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.”
Does anyone here believe blacks commit an almost-equal of less amount of crimes than whites?
It is stuff like this that makes me feel the police need *more* scrutiny, not less:
The FBI has identified for review roughly 2,500 cases in which the FBI Lab reported a hair match before 2000, when DNA testing of hair was routine. So far, reviewers have found that FBI examiners gave flawed testimony in 257 of 268 trials in which hair evidence was used again criminal defendants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/local/fbi-hair/
If the police and the prosecutors have to cheat in order to win the whole system loses credibility.
Isn’t this the FBI pointing out its own flaws? Would the KGB do this? And does this mean that an army of FBI forensic scientists falsified their findings?
Magus
Would it be that the FBI only pointed out its own flaws because it had no other choice? Damage control…….
From the article
“Federal authorities launched the investigation in 2012 after The Washington Post reported that flawed forensic hair matches might have led to the convictions of hundreds of potentially innocent people since at least the 1970s, typically for murder, rape and other violent crimes nationwide.”
Does anyone actually believe that some practice that has gone on for decades is suddenly admitted to without any connection to the newspaper investigation?
Seems like a problem with the science/court link as anything.
University of Virginia law professor Brandon L. Garrett said the results reveal a “mass disaster” inside the criminal justice system, one that it has been unable to self-correct because courts rely on outdated precedents admitting scientifically invalid testimony at trial andk-up, under the legal doctrine of finality, make it difficult for convicts to challenge old evidence.
“The tools don’t exist to handle systematic errors in our criminal justice system,” Garrett said. “The FBI deserves every recognition for doing something really remarkable here. The problem is there may be few judges, prosecutors or defense lawyers who are able or willing to do anything about it.”
With due deference to what Magus said, I agree this is bad for the system itself. Though with the onset of DNA analysis (which is by no means as perfect as widely believed) this is more a problem of the past and more of a learning opportunity than a problem of the future.
However, let us look at a problem of the past, present, and (hopefully just “near”) future. Given the source of this story is the WP, what makes you think their “conviction” rates in the world of public opinion are more evidence based? Where’s the hue and cry to shut down the Boston Globe, CBS, or the NYT given their recent track records. Not to mention rags like Rolling Stone or “the when-POTUS-is-a-Dem in-flight magazine of Air Force One” New Republic?
Does this not again point out the issues of scientific consensus?
It’s certainly similar. But much more frightening is this story, which is getting no attention from the MSM so must not have happened at all. While TSA agents touching your junk does get some attention, and this FBI hair analysis is concerning, this is more along the lines of KGB tactics than anything I’ve yet seen in this country.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french
This is targeted. This is intentional. This is thought out and planned. Quite a bit more concerning, wouldn’t you say, TJ?
You know I agree, WTP. Democrats at work.
Yeah, I know. Just saying it’s a matter of focus and priorities…and jerking your chain a little. 😉
From the same article. SWAT raids on political opponents? Check. Secret hearings? Check.
Inside every Democrat is a communist apparatchik itching to get out.
Most Americans have never heard of these raids, or of the lengthy criminal investigations of Wisconsin conservatives. For good reason. Bound by comprehensive secrecy orders, conservatives were left to suffer in silence as leaks ruined their reputations, as neighbors, looking through windows and dismayed at the massive police presence, the lights shining down on targets’ homes, wondered, no doubt, What on earth did that family do? This was the on-the-ground reality of the so-called John Doe investigations, expansive and secret criminal proceedings that directly targeted Wisconsin residents because of their relationship to Scott Walker, their support for Act 10, and their advocacy of conservative reform. Largely hidden from the public eye, this traumatic process, however, is now heading toward a legal climax, with two key rulings expected in the late spring or early summer. The first ruling, from the Wisconsin supreme court, could halt the investigations for good, in part by declaring that the “misconduct” being investigated isn’t misconduct at all but the simple exercise of First Amendment rights. The second ruling, from the United States Supreme Court, could grant review on a federal lawsuit brought by Wisconsin political activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, the first conservatives to challenge the investigations head-on. If the Court grants review, it could not only halt the investigations but also begin the process of holding accountable those public officials who have so abused their powers.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french
So are you saying Mike is a communist apparatchik waiting to get out? Because I would beg to disagree.
The Army under Leftist-Democrat industrial complex is headed in the same direction. When I have more time, i’ll expound more on this story. Don’t expect us to decisively win a war anytime soon. Multiple violations here, but all for the cause of PC.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/301448-controversy-after-rotc-cadets-allegedly-forced-to-march-in-event-wearing-questionable-footwear/
Magus above. Small bandwidth and problems logging.
You know Magus, I was jogging to post about that when I first saw it 2-3 days ago. But I hesitated because the Temple event happened on April 1 and there was some mystery about the ASU event being mandatory or not. Then read more about it here:
http://weaponsman.com/?p=22192
And had just come here to post this. See if it HAD been an April Fool’s joke, the Mikeomasses would be having a good belly laugh at the gullibility of the FauxNewsFauxNewsFauxNews!!!!!!!eleventy!!!!! crowd.
BTW, if you’re down there in my Old Man’s former (Jap) stomping grounds, keep your eye out for stragglers. Some didn’t surrender until the mid-70s, you know.
Jogging => going
Stupid spell correction.