Tulsa police officer charged with manslaughter

[protectionist]

I have factual knowledge of this case.
I already posted the the thug was reaching into the window with his left arm.
He made a sudden move to pull his left arm from the OPEN window. At that instant he was shot in the left portion of his chest.
The LEO's repeatedly ordered him to get on the ground.
It's on all the video tapes.
I lived as a kid in S. Chicago. Schools were predominantly run and attended by negros.
You may as well have been in a lunatic asylum for violent inmates.
It was literally impossible to learn anything.
When you left the school the negro 'young men' were waiting to take away your school books and steal anything you had they wanted. To molest the little girls sexually.
The problem is now even worse.

1. get the kids out of the school fast.
2. If any of the adults come at you - shoot'm.

 

[protectionist]

It is to be expected...it is what happens....and whether or not you have a problem with this or anything else is irrelevant.

What is proper however and what is happening these days is entirely two different things...........why.?...because of political pressure from washington...anytime a negro is killed by a policeman these days....Washington immediately steps in and puts pressure on the local officials to indict....no matter how egregious the behavior or the criminal history of the negro that got hisself kilt may be and usually is.

Could be exactly what's happening in this Tulsa case. No doubt about the Obama/Sharpton race hustlers campaign. You described it right.

 

[protectionist]

This isn't the Zimmerman case and there is no looting and burning in OK.
There is a video that any honest person can see is questionable at best. The officer has already said herself that she was emotionally compromised at the time. Self described "tunnel vision" precludes the presence of reasoned judgement and makes the prosecution's case rather easy to prove. The fact that "she became emotionally involved to the point of over reacting" is the reason cited for the charges in his affidavit and makes this one a slam dunk.

It is a slam dunk for the defense. Every police shooting is emotional. That means nothing. All thaqt matters is that the officer and her lawyer calim self-defense. As in the Zimmermant case, that put the burden on the prosecution (which already has the burden of proof) to now show that it was NOT self-defense. The only thnhg shown by the video appears to indicate that it was self-defense,with Crutcher appearing to reach into the car with his left hand. There is nothing that gives any indication in the direction of th opposite of this. And without a clear-cut proof that Crutcher did not reach into the car, the prosecution simply has no case, period.

 

[protectionist]

Update and apology re: the above.

I just watched a re-broadcast of Thom Hartmann's program in which I see he actually said if Crutcher's right arm was in the window it would have been inconsistent . . . etc. I did research some other news reports and found that police said Crutcher's left arm was in the window (presuming the window was in fact open).

So based on what we've seen and heard thus far it seems Ptl. Shelby's fate depends entirely on whether it can be proved the car window was open or closed. If it can't be proved Shelby will walk, the city of Charlotte will experience a multi-million dollar riot -- and maybe a few more cops will be assassinated. For what? A broke-down car and some guy staggering around on (probably) PCP?

The bottom line, and my beef with this kind of incident, is this is not cost-effective policing. Not at all.

Policing isn't a business. There is no such thing as "cost-effective " policing/ You police according to the laws that the citizens have decided (through their legislators) that they want to be enforced. You enforce that law, and if riots ensue, your crush those riots, and make those rioters wish they were never born.

The only reason this isn't happening in many cities, is because of who is sitting in the White House. If Trump becomes president, we will see a complete transformation.

 

[protectionist]

Isn't Oklahoma a Right To Carry state? If so, then she has a reason to believe everyone she encounters under any circumstances has a weapon in their car -- or in a pocket.

Based on all we've seen and heard it would seem the only hope for acquittal or extreme leniency Shelby has is if her lawyer can identify a substantial flaw in the police training regimen that caused her to believe lethal force was called for.

Every cop anywhere has every reason to believe that a suspect could be carrying a gun, regardless of any gun laws. Shelby's hope for aquittal is that her trial does not go political. If it is not governed by politics, and thereby fixed, the prosecution has no way to convict.

 

[NoNukes]

It's what they do. Every unarmed black man shot and killed by a white police officer is a "thug."

Thug is the new knigger word.

Thug is a behavior, not a race, bigot.

Nobody calls Dr. Ben Carson a thug.

No but some liberal professor called him a coon. No outrage from the left.

You expect outrage over a name but defend a White cop shooting an unarmed Black man? And you expect to be taken seriously?

I haven't defended anyone! Because I don't have the facts! Would you be outraged if a black cop shot an unarmed black man? Is it the race that offends you? Or the fact that it is a cop?

You totally avoided the issue I raised.

 

[WillowTree]

Thug is the new knigger word.

Thug is a behavior, not a race, bigot.

Nobody calls Dr. Ben Carson a thug.

No but some liberal professor called him a coon. No outrage from the left.

You expect outrage over a name but defend a White cop shooting an unarmed Black man? And you expect to be taken seriously?

I haven't defended anyone! Because I don't have the facts! Would you be outraged if a black cop shot an unarmed black man? Is it the race that offends you? Or the fact that it is a cop?

You totally avoided the issue I raised.

I apologize. Refresh my memory.

 

[NoNukes]

Thug is a behavior, not a race, bigot.

Nobody calls Dr. Ben Carson a thug.

No but some liberal professor called him a coon. No outrage from the left.

You expect outrage over a name but defend a White cop shooting an unarmed Black man? And you expect to be taken seriously?

I haven't defended anyone! Because I don't have the facts! Would you be outraged if a black cop shot an unarmed black man? Is it the race that offends you? Or the fact that it is a cop?

You totally avoided the issue I raised.

I apologize. Refresh my memory.

It is all there in black and white. No pun intended.

 

[WillowTree]

No but some liberal professor called him a coon. No outrage from the left.

You expect outrage over a name but defend a White cop shooting an unarmed Black man? And you expect to be taken seriously?

I haven't defended anyone! Because I don't have the facts! Would you be outraged if a black cop shot an unarmed black man? Is it the race that offends you? Or the fact that it is a cop?

You totally avoided the issue I raised.

I apologize. Refresh my memory.

It is all there in black and white. No pun intended.

I am just too lazy to read back through the whole thread.

 

[MikeK]

Policing isn't a business. There is no such thing as "cost-effective " policing.

[...]

Neither is street cleaning a business, but it makes sense to adequately perform that service in the least costly manner.

Citing the example of New York City, alone, the vast majority of New York taxpayers have no idea how many lawsuits are filed against New York City police, Transit Police, Housing Police and Correction Officers. The average payouts in awards and settlements because of misconduct by NY cops typically averages a quarter billion dollars a year!

I know of one NYPD detective who racked up about thirty lawsuits (one guy!) for brutality and other misconducts in just one year which cost the City over a million dollars -- and the productive value of his activities does in no way compensate for that egregious waste of money. And he's not the only heavy-hitter whom the public can do without but who are protected by what I regard as excessively accommodating loopholes in the law which were gradually achieved via devious union negotiations. Getting rid of these loose cannons, or eliminating the loopholes they repeatedly exploit, or modifying obvious flaws in police training regimens certainly will bring about cost-effective changes in policing.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No but some liberal professor called him a coon. No outrage from the left.

You expect outrage over a name but defend a White cop shooting an unarmed Black man? And you expect to be taken seriously?

I haven't defended anyone! Because I don't have the facts! Would you be outraged if a black cop shot an unarmed black man? Is it the race that offends you? Or the fact that it is a cop?

You totally avoided the issue I raised.

I apologize. Refresh my memory.

It is all there in black and white. No pun intended.

So then he didn't avoid the issue.

That was a lie.

 

[MikeK]

Every cop anywhere has every reason to believe that a suspect could be carrying a gun, regardless of any gun laws.

In this I will assume you are obliquely referring to the "I thought he was reaching for a weapon" justification, which thus far has proven to be an effective defense for shooting an unarmed subject. As such, the same defense can be used by any ordinary citizen who has reason to believe an adversary "could be" carrying a gun. While this defense has not yet been employed by an ordinary citizen (that I am aware of) the precedent has been sufficiently established by a number of police shootings as to enable a proficient criminal trial lawyer to successfully test it on the basis of a civilian life being no less worthy of defense than that of a police officer.

Shelby's hope for aquittal is that her trial does not go political. If it is not governed by politics, and thereby fixed, the prosecution has no way to convict.

Under the present circumstances you probably are right. But this is one more in a series of police shootings which, depending on our immediate political future, could lead to reversal of an important change in the laws governing the use of deadly force by police.

Prior to the early 1960s (my reference is NYPD) police walked beats, had no radios, carried nightsticks and .38 revolvers. The "I thought he was reaching. . ." reason for using deadly force didn't work. The FOP had not yet managed to advance it. Instead, the training regimen held that a cop had to actually see the weapon or be subjected to some other otherwise unavoidable life-threatening circumstance to justify pulling the trigger.

 

[MikeK]

It is a slam dunk for the defense. Every police shooting is emotional. That means nothing. All thaqt matters is that the officer and her lawyer calim self-defense. As in the Zimmermant case, that put the burden on the prosecution (which already has the burden of proof) to now show that it was NOT self-defense. The only thnhg shown by the video appears to indicate that it was self-defense,with Crutcher appearing to reach into the car with his left hand. There is nothing that gives any indication in the direction of th opposite of this. And without a clear-cut proof that Crutcher did not reach into the car, the prosecution simply has no case, period.

The problem here is neither I nor, presumably, you have seen an indisputable image of Crutcher actually reaching through an open car window. Nor is there any tangible evidence that the cited car window was actually open. We are told that it was, and we are told that it wasn't.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Current breaking news being broadcast on CNN says that they are going to release a body cam recording as well as 2 recordings from the cars.

There are other recordings that they won't release however......................

 

[Sundance508]

Every cop anywhere has every reason to believe that a suspect could be carrying a gun, regardless of any gun laws.

In this I will assume you are obliquely referring to the "I thought he was reaching for a weapon" justification, which thus far has proven to be an effective defense for shooting an unarmed subject. As such, the same defense can be used by any ordinary citizen who has reason to believe an adversary "could be" carrying a gun. While this defense has not yet been employed by an ordinary citizen (that I am aware of) the precedent has been sufficiently established by a number of police shootings as to enable a proficient criminal trial lawyer to successfully test it on the basis of a civilian life being no less worthy of defense than that of a police officer.

Shelby's hope for aquittal is that her trial does not go political. If it is not governed by politics, and thereby fixed, the prosecution has no way to convict.

Under the present circumstances you probably are right. But this is one more in a series of police shootings which, depending on our immediate political future, could lead to reversal of an important change in the laws governing the use of deadly force by police.

Prior to the early 1960s (my reference is NYPD) police walked beats, had no radios, carried nightsticks and .38 revolvers. The "I thought he was reaching. . ." reason for using deadly force didn't work. The FOP had not yet managed to advance it. Instead, the training regimen held that a cop had to actually see the weapon or be subjected to some other otherwise unavoidable life-threatening circumstance to justify pulling the trigger.

There are no laws directed directly to police behavior in regards to self defense...that would be unconstitutional...all citizens are under the same self defense laws depending on which state you are in.

Now police depts. no doubt have guidelines and instructions for the police to follow...but if a cop is accused of murder and is brought to trial he is under the same law as everyone else.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Current breaking news being broadcast on CNN says that they are going to release a body cam recording as well as 2 recordings from the cars.

There are other recordings that they won't release however......................

That will stop the negros from looting and burning down their neighborhoods.

 

[protectionist]

Neither is street cleaning a business, but it makes sense to adequately perform that service in the least costly manner.

Citing the example of New York City, alone, the vast majority of New York taxpayers have no idea how many lawsuits are filed against New York City police, Transit Police, Housing Police and Correction Officers. The average payouts in awards and settlements because of misconduct by NY cops typically averages a quarter billion dollars a year!

I know of one NYPD detective who racked up about thirty lawsuits (one guy!) for brutality and other misconducts in just one year which cost the City over a million dollars -- and the productive value of his activities does in no way compensate for that egregious waste of money. And he's not the only heavy-hitter whom the public can do without but who are protected by what I regard as excessively accommodating loopholes in the law which were gradually achieved via devious union negotiations. Getting rid of these loose cannons, or eliminating the loopholes they repeatedly exploit, or modifying obvious flaws in police training regimens certainly will bring about cost-effective changes in policing.

But what is the point of all this in a thread that has nothing to do with brutality, loose cannons, or misconduct ? Also, Tulsa has nowhere near the number of police or lawsuits that News York City has.

 

[leftwinger]

Current breaking news being broadcast on CNN says that they are going to release a body cam recording as well as 2 recordings from the cars.

There are other recordings that they won't release however......................

with all due respect, you are referring to the other shooting video (Carolina). Tulsa video is out.

 

[Sundance508]

Isn't Oklahoma a Right To Carry state? If so, then she has a reason to believe everyone she encounters under any circumstances has a weapon in their car -- or in a pocket.

Based on all we've seen and heard it would seem the only hope for acquittal or extreme leniency Shelby has is if her lawyer can identify a substantial flaw in the police training regimen that caused her to believe lethal force was called for.

Every cop anywhere has every reason to believe that a suspect could be carrying a gun, regardless of any gun laws. Shelby's hope for aquittal is that her trial does not go political. If it is not governed by politics, and thereby fixed, the prosecution has no way to convict.

There is no trial in recent history that was more political than the Zimmerman case.....yet a jury was able to render a good and just verdict.

However, not all juries are the same....in a case like this...there will be politics involved...already Washington is launching an independent investigation into the matter....there will be political pressure brought to bear and no doubt already has been regarding the city and the prosecutor....but it is very difficult to rig a jury...pressure can be brought to bear in nebulous ways but if the defense is good at selecting jurors(jury selection is a science these days)...one should not have to worry too much about a biased jury.

 

[protectionist]

Under the present circumstances you probably are right. But this is one more in a series of police shootings which, depending on our immediate political future, could lead to reversal of an important change in the laws governing the use of deadly force by police.

Prior to the early 1960s (my reference is NYPD) police walked beats, had no radios, carried nightsticks and .38 revolvers. The "I thought he was reaching. . ." reason for using deadly force didn't work. The FOP had not yet managed to advance it. Instead, the training regimen held that a cop had to actually see the weapon or be subjected to some other otherwise unavoidable life-threatening circumstance to justify pulling the trigger.

Seeing the weapon, is equivalent to being shot dead. Police should not have to be killed in order to be free from guilt. If a cop orders a person to keep showing his hands, and the suspect goes into his pocket or car window, trunk, a desk drawer, etc. then that suspect has brought shooting upon himself. Suspect's fault not the cop.

I see no reason whatever to reverse this.