National

Tired of Black Men Getting Shot Down, Killed in Cold Blood

Published

10 years ago

April 21, 2015

Muhiydin D'Baha leads a group protesting the shooting death of Walter Scott at city hall in North Charleston, S.C., Wednesday, April 8, 2015. Scott was killed by a North Charleston police office after a traffic stop on Saturday. The officer, Michael Thomas Slager, has been charged with murder. (AP Photo/Chuck Burton)

Muhiydin D’Baha leads a group protesting the shooting death of Walter Scott at city hall in North Charleston, S.C., Wednesday, April 8, 2015. (AP Photo/Chuck Burton)

by Brian E. Muhammad
Special to the NNPA from The Final Call

COLUMBIA, S.C. (FinalCall.com) – What began as a minor traffic stop apparently for a malfunctioning tail light ended with a homicide. Another Black man, another White cop and another video of a police officer killing an unarmed person.

The amateur recording showed Michael Slager, 33, a North Charleston, S.C., police officer calmly squeezing the trigger of his gun eight times—firing at the back of 50-year-old Walter Scott, a Black laborer, forklift operator and father of four.

“We’re tired of Black men getting shot down and killed in cold blood,” said DeAndre Muhammad, the Charleston representative of the Nation of Islam.

With the killing of Walter Scott, Trayvon Martin, Tanisha Anderson, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner and others—men and women—shot down by police, we must recognize we are not in a post racial America, said Student Minister Muhammad. “This is an outright war and attack on Black people in general and Black males in particular.”

The Charleston County Coroner’s Office declared Mr. Scott died from multiple gunshot wounds to the back, and ruled his death a homicide. Coroner Rae Wooten said an autopsy was performed one day after the shooting, according to media reports.

Footage from Mr. Slager’s vehicle DashCam released by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED)—the state agency that investigates police involved shootings—showed Mr. Scott exiting his car and running.

Mr. Scott was possibly concerned about an outstanding warrant related to back child support payments.

However an outraged community says being shot in the back as seen on the video is never justified.

The video from the camera phone recorded by Feidin Santana placed a spotlight on continued concern about police officers brutalizing, terrorizing and killing Black, Brown and poor people.

Using cell phone videos and swift online distribution has birthed a new tool for accountability independent of the criminal justice system, said social justice advocates.

“This technology in the hands of regular people is what alerts the citizenry of what’s going on,” saidThandisizwe Chimurenga, the Los Angeles-based author of “No Doubt: The Murder(s) of Oscar Grant.”

“It is a great tool in the hands of regular people to put a check on police officers’ actions and hold them accountable, but more is needed from a policy level,” she said.

Many also say without the video, the slaying of Walter Scott would have been logged as another justifiable homicide.

Originally Off. Slager told investigators he feared for his safety and Mr. Scott struggled to take his taser.

The video contradicted the Slager claim and showed him shooting Mr. Scott from a distance, as the man ran away.

The video caused authorities to change the story they initially circulated in the press. It resulted in Off. Slager’s arrest, said James Johnson of the National Action Network-North Charleston branch.

“The police chief defended the policeman for three days stating that we would see in evidence that Mr. Scott took the taser from the officer,” Mr. Johnson told The Final Call.

Only after receiving a copy of the tape did officials call a press conference “within an hour” announcing Off. Slager would be arrested and charged with murder, he explained.

The common practice in police incidents is to believe the word of the officer, said analysts.

Because of the video there are growing calls for to hold other officers involved in the Scott death accountable as initial versions of events appear false.

The National Bar Association, America’s largest Black lawyers group, is demanding the firing of some officers who showed up after the shooting.

“In light of the fabricated statements made by Officer Slager and the incomplete police report filed by Officer Clarence Harbersham, the National Bar Association is demanding the immediate termination and indictment of Officer Harbersham and any other North Charleston police officer who filed a false police report,” the group said April 13. Other media reports allege several officers, including officers Slager and Habersham, did not perform CPR on Mr. Scott.

Mr. Santana, who shot the video, told media outlets there were no attempts to provide medical care to Mr. Scott.

His video recorded Off. Slager handcuffing a mortally wounded Scott, leaving his body, and returning with an object he dropped next to Mr. Scott. Some believe the object to be a taser and an attempt to cover up a deadly crime.

According to a report of Columbia’s daily newspaper, The State, police in South Carolina fired their weapons at 209 people in the past five years. Few officers were accused of illegal shootings and none convicted of crimes, according to an analysis by The State.

The analysis also found at least 101 Blacks were shot resulting in 34 fatalities. In comparison 67 White suspects were shot at with 41 fatalities. Four other shooting victims were classified as Latino, Asian or Native American.

“I believe the police are part of the mechanism of control and containment, part of the record of terrorism and keeping certain populations in their place—people of color, immigrants, working class people.

“I believe they’re part of the hammer used to terrorize these types of populations,” said Ms. Chimurenga.

Mr. Johnson described North Charleston policing as suppressive with poor people regularly preyed upon. “(Police) are not immune to killing a Black person,” he remarked.

Unprecedented police arrests in S. Carolina?

Recently South Carolina authorities have arrested police officers for grave crimes—though none have been convicted yet. The state’s actions in charging and arresting officers runs counter to decisions other places to not charge officers or to pass the decision to charge or not grand juries—grand juries which refuse to come back with indictments.

What will happen with prosecutions of officers in South Carolina remains to be seen.

“We saw Oscar Grant in Oakland, Calif., being murdered and the convicted cop was given two years and actually did less than one year in prison. We all saw Eric Garner being murdered and the justice system didn’t bring forth an indictment on the police,” Ms. Chimurenga pointed out.

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division said the agency is following the law—whether infractions by police or the public.

“Our position is that we follow the law, and when someone violates the law, they’re to be held accountable, said SLED spokesman Thom Berry, in a telephone inquiry with The Final Call.

SLED would not comment on the calls for the arrests of other officers involved in Mr. Scott’s case.

On the same day of Off. Slager’s April 7 arrest, SLED announced the re-arrest of Justin Craven, 25, a White police officer from North Augusta, S.C., who allegedly shot through a car window killing Earnest Satterwhite, in February 2014. According to a copy of the arrest warrant provided by SLED, Off. Craven is charged with a felony, “discharging a firearm into a vehicle while occupied,” which if convicted carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $1,000 or both.

Media reports said the 68-year-old Black grandfather was killed after police followed him on a slow speed chase that ended in his driveway. Off. Craven fired into the closed car window and was outside his legal jurisdiction, according to accounts of other officers who picked up the pursuit after it crossed county lines. The arrest warrant also reveals the incident was recorded on video.

The new felony charge is stiffer than the “misconduct in office” charge meted from a grand jury that was significantly less than manslaughter charges initially sought by state prosecutors. Citing an active investigation, SLED spokesperson Berry declined to answer Final Call questions about the timing of the Craven arrest on the same day as Off. Slagen’s arrest and growing hostility stemming from the Scott killing.

Addressing the question of timing—in a defensive manner—Mr. Berry only said critics were “making an assumption.”

Asked if he was denying the Slagen charges had anything to do with timing in the other case, the spokesperson told this reporter, “you will have to talk to others about that.”

In another South Carolina case, former Highway Patrolman Sean Groubert, 31, released a barrage of bullets at Black motorist Lavar Jones at a Columbia, S.C., gas station during a traffic stop. Mr. Groubert was fired, arrested, and charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and released on bail last year.

Mr. Groubert’s case is currently going through the courts, said Gary Cross, a spokesman for South Carolina’s Fifth Circuit Court. Mr. Jones, the shooting victim, settled out of court with the state for $285,000. Scott family attorney Chris Stewart announced a wrongful death and civil rights violation lawsuit April 9.

But is the arrest of and murder charge Off. Slager faces enough?

“I think it’s a little too late,” said Charleston community activist and Pastor Thomas Ravenall. The relationship “has been horrible for years” between the police and the Black community, he said.

“Black people are fired up and angry,” said the pastor. Animosity has been brewing for a long time, he added.

According to the National Bar Association, just two percent of police officers are charged with use of excessive force and less than .002 percent are actually convicted.

Some advocates for justice in police brutality cases say stronger legislation is needed.

“Mr. Scott’s case is now the poster child for why there is an immediate need to pass legislation to establish a succinct definition and mandatory training for escalation of force,” said Pamela Meanes, president of the National Bar Association. Until Congress passes such laws “we will continue to see police officers murder African Americans and the ‘law’ deem it ‘justifiable’ or ‘self-defense,’ ” she said.

Other advocates are convinced that a new and revolutionary solution is needed.

“There is a climate of total dissatisfaction,” said Student Minister Muhammad, referring to the criminal justice system and law enforcement.

“We really need to start looking at these situations and see it as a wake-up call for us to do something for ourselves,” he said. “Because the justice system is corrupt to the core; it is racist to the core.”

In the aftermath of Walter Scott’s killing the state government released funds to equip North Charleston police officers with body cameras. Mayor Keith Summey announced the grant at an April 8 press conference.

The shooting accelerated the debate in South Carolina around body cameras and led to the grant for the equipment.

“It won’t make a difference,” predicted Student Minister Muhammad. “That was a move just to pacify Black people in North Charleston as if they are really doing something. It was a political move more than a sincere act to give justice or security to Black people.”

The system is corrupt and body cameras don’t address the attitude and mindset of Whites who control the city, he added.

For Ms. Chimurenga the structures that are supposed provide checks and balance deter civilians and protect law enforcement.

Black and Brown communities are capable of defending and protecting themselves and that kind of discussion needs to happen, she said.

“The police are a threat to Black and Brown public safety,” added Ms. Chimurenga.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Man Beaten by Police Cries After Fired Officer Charged

Don't Miss

Black Women Face Pay Gap

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Published

4 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

4 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

Published

4 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.

The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.

In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.

Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.

Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.

“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.