Seeing might not be believing
Troopers' tapes tell only part of story, prosecutors say
Video
Warning: This video contains a racial epithet and may not be suitable for all viewers. Watch »
Video
Lance Cpl. S.C. Garren hit a suspect with his car, the man flipped over and then landed in high weeds. Watch »
Video
After a car chase in February 2005, Lance Cpl. D.L. Chapman is seen kicking and stomping the area where the suspect Phong Van Nguyen is laying on the ground. As a second trooper helps Nguyen to his feet, Chapman strikes Nguyen on the head. Watch »
For past stories and videos on the Highway Patrol, go to Charleston.net/troopers
It's as good as a smoking gun to some people: The video shows a state trooper hitting a fleeing suspect with his cruiser, then records him telling other officers that "I was trying to hit him."
But after reviewing the case, prosecutors chose not to charge Lance Cpl. S.C. Garren with a crime. They called his admission "locker-room talk" that was proof of nothing.
"That was a no-brainer," 8th Circuit Solicitor Jerry Peace said. "All of the sudden, the guy just darted in front of him. There's nothing the officer could have done to avoid that, short of stopping."
While recently released videos of traffic stops show what appears to be abuse of suspects by state troopers, some prosecutors say that seeing isn't always believing. Other factors almost always play into investigations, things that happen outside the limited scope of a dashboard camera.
A videotape is merely one piece of evidence. Sometimes it shows enough to remove reasonable doubt, other times not.
"It depends on the tape," 2nd Circuit Solicitor Barbara Morgan said. "You take all things into consideration. And you have to use common sense."
Earlier this year, tapes that showed a state trooper using a racial slur with a suspect led to the ouster of Public Safety Director James K. Schweitzer and Highway Patrol Col. Russell Roark.
Since that time, state Highway Patrol videos obtained by The Post and Courier through the Freedom of Information Act have shown more than a half-dozen instances of actions by state troopers that were investigated by the agency's internal affairs office.
Some lawmakers are livid that many troopers featured in controversial videos have escaped criminal charges. State Rep. Leon Howard, chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, said problems in the Highway Patrol are deeper than he first thought, and now he questions how the judicial system treats law enforcement officers. He said if regular citizens hit somebody with a car, they'd be in jail.
"I think those cases are beyond a reasonable doubt," said Howard, D-Columbia. "When you see a trooper run over a suspect, how much doubt can you have?"
The publicity surrounding these instances has prompted a federal investigation and the interest of a state Senate committee. The Senate will use evidence from these investigations in questioning State Law Enforcement Division Chief of Staff Mark Keel, Gov. Mark Sanford's choice to replace Schweitzer.
Most solicitors seem to use a burden of proof similar to that of the U.S. Department of Justice, which is investigating allegations of trooper abuse. Erik Ablin in the agency's Office of Public Affairs said that by federal law standards, prosecutors would need to show that an officer willfully used excessive force.
That is the sticking point, it seems, for some solicitors. It is in those cases that subjectivity creeps into the equation. For other offenses, records show troopers are given no leeway.
In the last three years, several troopers have been indicted for actions taken while on duty. Solicitors charged two for taking money from motorists, often Hispanics. Both of those cases ended with the trooper fired and convicted of misconduct in office.
And the attorney general prosecuted Lance Cpl. David Chapman for a 2005 incident in which the trooper was accused of beating a suspect after he was in custody on a traffic violation.
All three received suspended sentences after pleading guilty.
Howard and other lawmakers say it is the cases that aren't prosecuted that make their blood boil. Howard went so far as to say that solicitors who refuse to prosecute officers who beat suspects should be voted out of office.
David Pascoe, the 1st Circuit solicitor, decided against filing charges against Cpl. Michael Tomson, who was demoted and had his salary cut by $5,000 after he struck a man in the face with his shotgun during a traffic stop in Orangeburg. Tomson said he was using the gun to motion for the suspect to put his head down so he could be handcuffed.
A letter in Highway Patrol internal affairs files said Pascoe saw no probable cause to charge Tomson with a crime. "There appears to be no criminal intent on his part to injure anyone," Pascoe wrote.
Some solicitors say charging fellow law enforcement officers with a crime is a difficult decision, especially in cases in which a suspect prompts the use of force.
Robert Ariail, the 13th Circuit solicitor in Greenville, said excessive force, which critics say some of the trooper videos show, is an especially tough call when weighing prosecution. Ariail, who hasn't had any videotaped cases of trooper abuse in his circuit, said the trouble comes when a trooper is forced to subdue someone who is resisting arrest or fleeing.
"Then you get into weighing how much is too much," Ariail said. "Too many police officers get shot. You can't be tippy-toeing around using force to subdue a suspect. I've seen too many defendants get the better of an officer and get their gun."
That's something that most solicitors say they don't want to see happening. And they won't change the methods of how they evaluate cases and said they will not show favoritism to someone just because they are in law enforcement.
"I'm not reluctant (to prosecute)," Peace said, "if it's warranted."
Reach Brian Hicks at 937-5561 or bhicks@postandcourier.com. Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 27 comment(s)
Posted by bustin_ur_lies on May 1, 2008 at 1:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oh come on, there is no such thing as locker room talk HE SAID HE TRIED TO HIT THE GUY, HE SHOULD GO TO PRISON FOR ATTEMPT AT VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER COP OR NOT NO SLAP ON THE WRIST, jesus law enforcement is so cheap, ever seen prisonbreak, that'll tell you how dirty cops are if you watch a few episodes well watch the first one..youll see how they get down in the riverjam gen. pop. but this is amazing, the infestation of bad law enforcement has reached out doors XD omg im glad goose creek cops are nice, id have a meltdown if a cop tried to run me over, im not kidding, if i were a cop id be a good cop, id never stave the rules and never take bribes,(*unless its a date with a hottie*)
Posted by Smart_Enough_2_Know_Better on May 1, 2008 at 1:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's be real- if most of us were put in a situation where someone pulled a gun on us and/or tried to kill us we might go a step or two further than using foul language (n-word or otherwise). Or if they tried to run us off the road during a high-speed chase we might be more than a little rough when we finally caught up with them.
If you resist arrest or run from the cops I have absolutely no sympathy for you when you aren't treated with the utmost courtesy at the time of your capture. I'm not saying the words cops use are always right or that they’ve never been guilty of excessive force. But I think we need to keep in mind the high-pressure situations our law enforcement officers are in, the criminal nature of many of the people with which they are dealing, and the public scrutiny of their work. I doubt there are very many people out there that would enjoy having the entirety of their daily work on video and audio for their bosses and the public to see. Or that, over time, their work would be 100% without embarrassing incident.
By all means, find the bad apples and get them out of the force. But just because someone looses their cool or makes a mistake in the heat of the moment doesn’t mean that they are rotten to the core. It takes a pattern of behavior to establish that. Outside of fatal or grossly offensive incidents (and I didn’t see anything like that in these videos), I wouldn’t be so quick to indict our officers either.
So sorry Leon, but that “suspect” DID run in front of the officer’s car. If private citizens had cameras mounted on their dashboard that showed the same thing, I’m sure they wouldn’t be in jail either. And keep in mind that sometimes it takes ugly to fight ugly, and that some of these "suspects" you are defending just might need a good running over to set their head back on straight anyway.
Posted by JohnS on May 1, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They say it saves alot of energy on not having to chase them on foot.
Posted by number1volsfan1 on May 1, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Our police officers deserve our support. If you run from the police, you deserve what you get, however, I do condemn use of the "n" word.
Posted by Clemsurf on May 1, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about this.....don't commit crimes and you won't have to worry about something happening to you. I have no sympathy for these criminals. I support the police 100%.
Posted by sbs920 on May 1, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yo Homes !
I think everyone should have the chance to get a "hood" ornament on their car! Maybe some spinners too !
Posted by charlene68 on May 1, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The only thing I can say is why question a video tape... cause what you see dont lie... that was the whole purpose of putting video tapes in these cars was so they can see what goes on and now they see it and try to question it.... well if video caught then it is the truth no matter how you slice it ......
Posted by BulldogTLC on May 1, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a problem with people objecting to the use of the "n" word when half of the hip-hop crowd uses it repeatedly. If you don't want other people calling you that, then object to it when your own people call you that too.
Posted by bkeelin on May 1, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I saw a man riding a bike across an intersection and as he rode across the intersection in front of a stopped van the light turned green, the lady who was about 30-50 feet away started speeding up because the light was green and she didn't see the guy on the bicycle and as he cleared the van she was crossing the intersection and hit him. If she had an onboard camera it would have caught nothing but this guy and his bike sliding across the hood of her car, but she was not at fault because this guy was crossing under a green light and her view was obstructed by the van, I know she wasn't charged because I stayed at the seen and told the police what happened and unfortunately it was just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Should she go to jail for hitting an innocent person and the police go to jail for stopping a fleeing criminal? Now if the police had ran the guy down while he was in the middle of the road running away and he had chased him down and ran him over that would be one thing, but the guy came across the front of the car trying to get in front of the car and didn't make it. People need to support the LEO's and quit trying to tear down a group of people who are not perfect just as any of us are not perfect. The police haters need to see things from another perspective and something tells me they will change their tone and their minds.
Posted by BravesFan on May 1, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The video caught a criminal running from the police and the police officer doing what he needed to do to get the job done. If society is stupid enough to punish the police for doing their job then more criminals will be born. Stop breaking the dang law and the cops will stop running you over. I thank God every day that we have cops like this guy who are brave enough to protect me and my family.
Posted by flinsc on May 1, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would become a cop just to hit people that committed a crime. I like the curb job on that one dude. Would you rather him have shot the guy running away then calling him by his name. This country is so soft. We are getting taken over in all aspects look around the world. Our economy is bad, kids dropping out of high school, got our butt kicked at the last Olympics in basketball. Look in the mirror everyone, before we start loosing more than we already have. Sack Up.
Posted by Roger1978 on May 1, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a clear cut case of Solicitors having more knowledge about these things than morons like say, raregar67, and that idiot Howard. The solicitors are the ones with the law degrees and deal with this sort of stuff. And raregar67 there's no need for us to send cops into those cesspools you named, the cops there have as much respect for the scum of society as cops anywhere else. You're an idiot, I'm sorry did I already say that?
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL STATE TROOPERS - SUPPORT THE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL - Cause believe it or not they DO have a dangerous job... even if they don't work at the Circle K.
Posted by Name_Withheld on May 1, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In the video, the police car angles off the roadway and toward the suspect to hit the suspect. Within seconds trooper Garren excitedly confesses that he was trying to hit him. This is evidence of a crime. This should be presented to the Grand Jury for indictment. A frame by frame analysis of the film will confirm Garren deliberately steered the car toward the suspect, and confirm the admission of Garren when he said, "I was trying to hit him". He used deadly force in an illegal way. Garren was not in fear of his safety by any action of the suspect. The State Prosecutor uses his words to diminish Garren's clear admission to locker room bravado and clebration of victory, but he cannot justify the use of deadly force under these circumstances with the existence of clear video evidence and an unambiguous admission. Those that are guilty of crime often boast of their skill and success of accomplishing their plan. The prosecutor is continuing the coverup, and he should now resign from this case.
Posted by BulldogTLC on May 1, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry allwoman, should have said "own race". Don't take what I am saying to be embracing the use of the word. There is no doubt it it derogitory and full of hate and it makes me sick when anyone uses it. I just grow tired of the objections to the use of the word being directed toward one race when the hip-hop singers spit it out like it's part of their common language.
Posted by smithdr2 on May 1, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You defy SC laws & try to defy the laws of physics (running infront of/from a police car) your going to get hit Dumb--- . You run from a minor traffic offence what else is an LEO suppose to think? My logic & reasoning is that you're on the lam/have an outstanding warrant for something worse. AS far as the language Please... The double standard that only a special select ethnic group can say it is BS. Those Choir boys looked so proper. I would never think they were up to something. I would feel so comfortable letting my daughter ride home with them if she was stranded on the side of the road at night.
Posted by scrisn on May 1, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Watching that video over and over again,
1- he did run in front of the cruiser.
2- yeah he said he was trying to hit him.
3- THE GUY WAS RUNNING FROM DA PO-PO
was he injured? I saw nothing of the sort in fact he ran a step faster after that.
The other day while making an arrest I witnessed a person swing and start fighting with a female officer as she was by herself. She was hit and ended up on the ground, after being kicked several times on the ground and defending her face and head she was unable to pull her gun, the person ran off as others including myself yelled and ran toward him. As he ran across the parking lot, and into a road a car did hit him, and he didn't run anymore. But that officer ran up and still cuffed him. then about 6 police cars came from everywhere to assist. EMS was called and a handcuffed person went in the ambulance. Now People had only seen the car hitting the guy, and her running up flipping him over and cuffing him, they started yelling and telling her she was abusing the guy. and wanted to complain and file charges against her. Remember there are always 2 sides to a story and you don't see the start of the chase or why it started.
Posted by blah_blah_blah on May 1, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Circuit Solicitor Jerry Peace said. "All of the sudden, the guy just darted in front of him. There's nothing the officer could have done to avoid that, short of stopping."
So, you are saying that the officer is innocent because he couldn't avoid the suspect unless he stopped?
Posted by Hey_U_Guys on May 1, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So, what's the problem here? I don't see anything wrong with treating a criminal as such.
Posted by Girleygirl on May 1, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BullDog- then when you see those people on TV use it, find them and say it to them....no need to offend the other half that does not use the word.
So when you see Nas, say it to him but it does not give anyone the right to keep saying it because of what you see on TV. I hear different races all the time calling each other names and the recent has been ....P.wood. by friends of mine. I don't like that word either and asked them not to saw it in front of me because it just seems wrong hearing it.
I'm not trying to sound mean Bulldog but I hate that word and a couple of other words so I'm sorry if this post looks like its attacking you, but I'm not.
Scrism- I like your point....good point!
Is COPS going to be filming here soon and if so maybe we need to use their videos!
Posted by blondjes on May 1, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What do you expect if you run from the cops? a kind gesture? DON'T RUN FROM THE COPS AND YOU WON'T GET HIT BY A POLICE CRUISER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i don't feel bad for criminals!
Posted by BulldogTLC on May 1, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Girley, I don't think that anyone should use the word. It has been used as form of degredation and meant to offend people for far to long for it to be "alright" for ANYONE to use it. That is what I find offensive. For some reason, it seems to be acceptable to many when one race uses it but not when others use it. It's the double standard that I have trouble with.
Posted by BravesFan on May 1, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen, Bulldog. If the word is offensive then it doesn't matter who says it. I'm not surprised at the reponse from the black community and people like Tom1776 about this story. The same people hounding the po-po are the same people who look up to people like Jeremiah Wright. You could swim in the ocean of double standard hypocrisy...but I'd take a shower afterward.
Posted by CHRISJIII on May 1, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is exactly why the feds need to take over this investigation. There can be no justice in S.C. 's system.
Posted by Girleygirl on May 1, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who looks up to Jeremiah Wright? Jeremiah Wright just became popular because of his stupid remarks and he is a pastor to Obama's church...noone else looks up to Reverend Wright but the media and the people that sits there and listen to him rant and rave.
Bulldog- when I hear any sterotypes or racist remarks I do say something to the person that has said it especially if my children are with me. I don't like it and I don't care what race you are. I am happy you and I are on the same page with that one.
Posted by abitskeptical on May 1, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Clemsurf-in response to your post, I refer you to the following site:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/Pre...
The sentiment you relayed in your post is the way things SHOULD BE of course--if you don't do anything wrong, you have no need to worry.
Taking it another way..people should have to worry about being charged & convicted of crimes they did not do.
Sadly, this happens occurs often enough that it does not seem to be the case of an isolated incident here & there.
Posted by BravesFan on May 1, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Feds are controlled by the NAACP. Sorry, no justice there either.
Posted by abitskeptical on May 1, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HeyUGuys:
The problem here is that while it certainly appears that the cops were chasing/dealing with "bad guys" at the time of the videos, they all were still only suspects.
The problem is that there have been enough incidents of "cops gone wild" on innocent people that none of us should be so smug as to think it never could happen to one of us. Again, I refer to http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/Pre...
Before anyone goes off...yes, police work is dangerous & stressfull. Yes, I know there are good cops & I feel bad for those who have done nothing to contribute to mistrust & the "bully" mentality & reputation that many departments are getting.