Tulsa police officer charged with manslaughter

[protectionist]

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.

And in cases of insufficient evidence, as always, the accused is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution. Prosecution can't prove it case, you have acquittal slam dunk.

 

[Sundance508]

All videos should be released in a timely fashion. That would help people see exactly what happened. No reason to to hide them.

These days in such cases of white cops, white security guards or any white person actually that kills a negro....irregardless of how justified it may be and usually is....Washington gets involved....unfortunately it is not because they are interested in justice....it is because they want to further the fallacious agenda of black victimhood...it serves their politics to continually promote the idea of white racism and black victimhood.

The feds can project tremendous pressure on cities and states to make them conform to the federal agenda....that is just how much power Washington has....many do not understand this but it is a fact.

 

[Sundance508]

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.

And in cases of insufficient evidence, as always, the accused is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution. Prosecution can't prove it case, you have acquittal slam dunk.

Yes, and being an officer of the court the lady in question will no doubt be in uniform with all the authority that will project to the jury....a lady doing her job, perhaps she squeezed the trigger a tad too soon....but she no doubt was in fear of her life.....her actions will without a doubt fall under the requisite requirements for the use of lethal force in her self defense...not even to mention the possibility that if the driver had been allowed to get in the car and take off...he could have killed others....thus he was a threat not only to the officers but to the civilian pop. as well.

 

[Sundance508]

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.

Yes, I agree the videos do not show clearly enough with certain proof that the windows were open or closed.

Now, no doubt it would help the defense if the windows were open and vice versa of course but even if the windows were all closed(highly doubtful since negroes do not usually like air conditioning) the defense still has a very legitimate argument....he disobeyed lawful police orders, he went to his car......why? The only logical reason for that would be to get something or to take off. Why else would he be going back to his car?.....especially when he was being ordered to get down.

Put yourself in the policemans shoes....if you had received training instructing you never let a perp get back in his car and the perp was disobeying all your orders and obviously was either going to get back in his care or get something out of the car....would you wait until you actually saw a gun...which....if you did...would put you in an exceedingly dangerous situation wherein depending on who was the quickest to pull the trigger would probably live and it might not be the police lady.

 

[Sundance508]

She would not have been indicted if there wasn't cause to indict her. So in this case proper action was taken and if after investigation she is innocent then that's fine. Obviously those higher up felt it was justified. Pretty cut and dry.

Not really....what are missing is two extremely important factors: federal political pressure brought to bear on the city and the D.A. and the fear of negro riots like in N.C., ferguson and elsewhere....so the D.A. is highly motivated to indict.

 

[MikeK]

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.

You are quite right and I apologize for my careless use of the word laws in place of the word rules, as in Rules of Procedure, in the quoted paragraph below.

"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."

Enough rioting as the result of the progression of police shootings which seem unnecessary could very well lead to resumption of the Rules of Procedure which governed the use of force by police in New York City (and probably most elsewhere) prior to the early 1960s. (The rules were changed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)

 

[MikeK]

Yes, I agree the videos do not show clearly enough with certain proof that the windows were open or closed.

Now, no doubt it would help the defense if the windows were open and vice versa of course but even if the windows were all closed(highly doubtful since negroes do not usually like air conditioning) the defense still has a very legitimate argument....he disobeyed lawful police orders, he went to his car......why? The only logical reason for that would be to get something or to take off. Why else would he be going back to his car?.....especially when he was being ordered to get down.

[...]

All of that is perfectly logical and well reasoned. But regardless of the pragmatic realities of these all-too-frequent police confrontations the pivotal factor in the minds of politicians under public pressure will be the initiating circumstances, which in the Crutcher example were pathetically benign.

Unlike Michael ("Big Mike") Brown, Crutcher had not committed some egregiously violent offense, nor was there anything in his general behavior which appeared menacing, or generally anti-social, or which indicated the will to violently confront the police. In fact, some will say he seemed to be disoriented and under the influence of alcohol or some other drug. In other words, to the average person there was nothing about Crutcher's behavior that called for extemporaneously killing him.

 

[MikeK]

And in cases of insufficient evidence, as always, the accused is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution. Prosecution can't prove it case, you have acquittal slam dunk.

A critical examination of this incident, which probably will end up costing the City of Tulsa a million dollars or more, as well as adding to an increasingly common impression of American police as trigger-happy goons, will involve much more than the basic elements of legal propriety. Regardless of your personal feelings, or mine, where Crutcher or people like Crutcher are concerned, there are political forces at work in American society which cannot be disregarded simply because we might want them to be. This is not 1930.

These anti-police demonstrations, which typically include the looting of local businesses and the malicious destruction of property, are not simple annoyances. They get the attention of prominent, politically powerful entities which undoubtedly are concerned with the reasons for some of the recent police shootings which are provoking these costly mini-riots.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Put yourself in the policemans shoes....if you had received training instructing you never let a perp get back in his car and the perp was disobeying all your orders and obviously was either going to get back in his care or get something out of the car....would you wait until you actually saw a gun...which....if you did...would put you in an exceedingly dangerous situation wherein depending on who was the quickest to pull the trigger would probably live and it might not be the police lady.

This is a difficult exercise because I don't think I would be a good cop anywhere but in some quiet little suburban community.

I watch COPS a lot (for a reason) and based on what I see in many of those sequences I know I would not last very long because I would simply refuse to conform with most of the Rules of Procedure. I simply could not, and would not, arrest people for some of the absurdly petty offenses I see being made a big deal of.

So in an example such as you've presented above I'm sure I would be mindful of the initial reason for my involvement with a Crutcher-type subject and, rather than risk having to shoot him and find out later that he is just some oddball or a relatively harmless stoner, I probably would just let him get back in his car and take it from there. In other words, if I were a cop I would not take myself too seriously.

Come to think of it I did know a cop (NYPD) who very much fits the profile I've just described. I don't know if he lasted long enough to retire but I hope he did and that he's doing okay. He was the kind of cop who would beat the hell out of a mugger or rapist but he never made a drug collar and the bosses were always on him about it.

 

[MikeK]

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.

It has to do with the simple fact that a lot of police misconduct and unnecessary aggression (in New York and proportionately elsewhere) goes by unnoticed by the average citizen who ends up paying through the nose for it. And many of the shootings that start out as petty nonsense are examples of the mentality that precipitates most of the avoidable nonsense.

 

[MikeK]

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.

In the example of Zimmerman v. Martin; Suppose that instead of having an injury to support his claim that Trayvon Martin had waylaid him, punched him, knocked him down, mounted and proceeded to pound him, Zimmerman said he shot Martin when Martin reached into a pocket, which turned out to contain a packet of Skittles, but which Zimmerman thought might be a gun. How do you think the jury would have ruled under those circumstances?

Compare that with a situation in which a motorist who is stopped for a broken tail-light hops out of his car and in spite of the cop's command to get back in the car this energetic fellow reaches for his wallet to produce ID and is shot by the nervous cop. How will the jury rule?

The initiating circumstances of both examples are similar but different. What is that pivotal difference?

 

[protectionist]

You are quite right and I apologize for my careless use of the word laws in place of the word rules, as in Rules of Procedure, in the quoted paragraph below.

"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."

Enough rioting as the result of the progression of police shootings which seem unnecessary could very well lead to resumption of the Rules of Procedure which governed the use of force by police in New York City (and probably most elsewhere) prior to the early 1960s. (The rules were changed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)

The rioting is NOT a "result of the progression of police shootings which seem unnecessary" The shootings that have been occuring all DID seem necessary. I don't recall seeing any unecessary ones.

 

[protectionist]

All of that is perfectly logical and well reasoned. But regardless of the pragmatic realities of these all-too-frequent police confrontations the pivotal factor in the minds of politicians under public pressure will be the initiating circumstances, which in the Crutcher example were pathetically benign.

Unlike Michael ("Big Mike") Brown, Crutcher had not committed some egregiously violent offense, nor was there anything in his general behavior which appeared menacing, or generally anti-social, or which indicated the will to violently confront the police. In fact, some will say he seemed to be disoriented and under the influence of alcohol or some other drug. In other words, to the average person there was nothing about Crutcher's behavior that called for extemporaneously killing him.

Yes there was. He appeared to be going for a gun in his car.

 

[protectionist]

A critical examination of this incident, which probably will end up costing the City of Tulsa a million dollars or more, as well as adding to an increasingly common impression of American police as trigger-happy goons, will involve much more than the basic elements of legal propriety. Regardless of your personal feelings, or mine, where Crutcher or people like Crutcher are concerned, there are political forces at work in American society which cannot be disregarded simply because we might want them to be. This is not 1930.

These anti-police demonstrations, which typically include the looting of local businesses and the malicious destruction of property, are not simple annoyances. They get the attention of prominent, politically powerful entities which undoubtedly are concerned with the reasons for some of the recent police shootings which are provoking these costly mini-riots.

Want to let us in on what you're talking about ?

 

[protectionist]

This is a difficult exercise because I don't think I would be a good cop anywhere but in some quiet little suburban community.

I watch COPS a lot (for a reason) and based on what I see in many of those sequences I know I would not last very long because I would simply refuse to conform with most of the Rules of Procedure. I simply could not, and would not, arrest people for some of the absurdly petty offenses I see being made a big deal of.

So in an example such as you've presented above I'm sure I would be mindful of the initial reason for my involvement with a Crutcher-type subject and, rather than risk having to shoot him and find out later that he is just some oddball or a relatively harmless stoner, I probably would just let him get back in his car and take it from there. In other words, if I were a cop I would not take myself too seriously.

Come to think of it I did know a cop (NYPD) who very much fits the profile I've just described. I don't know if he lasted long enough to retire but I hope he did and that he's doing okay. He was the kind of cop who would beat the hell out of a mugger or rapist but he never made a drug collar and the bosses were always on him about it.

Wasn't Crutcher's car stopped right in the middle of the road ? That's a traffic hazard and could possibly even cause a accident.

 

[protectionist]

It has to do with the simple fact that a lot of police misconduct and unnecessary aggression (in New York and proportionately elsewhere) goes by unnoticed by the average citizen who ends up paying through the nose for it. And many of the shootings that start out as petty nonsense are examples of the mentality that precipitates most of the avoidable nonsense.

I don't know what you're talking about. You have links to any examples ?

 

[protectionist]

In the example of Zimmerman v. Martin; Suppose that instead of having an injury to support his claim that Trayvon Martin had waylaid him, punched him, knocked him down, mounted and proceeded to pound him, Zimmerman said he shot Martin when Martin reached into a pocket, which turned out to contain a packet of Skittles, but which Zimmerman thought might be a gun. How do you think the jury would have ruled under those circumstances?

Compare that with a situation in which a motorist who is stopped for a broken tail-light hops out of his car and in spite of the cop's command to get back in the car this energetic fellow reaches for his wallet to produce ID and is shot by the nervous cop. How will the jury rule?

The initiating circumstances of both examples are similar but different. What is that pivotal difference?

There isn't any difference. The person with the gun, cop or not, should always tell the other person > I need to see your hands....and everyone should know that a hand in a pocket could bring instant death

 

[MikeK]

I don't know what you're talking about. You have links to any examples ?

The details of these lawsuits, the vast majority of which are settled, are not posted on the Internet. But if you'd like a closer look at the volume of suits lodged against New York City Police (Transit, Housing and Correction) and the multi-millions of dollars they cost taxpayers each year, just do a quick Google search under the basic keywords. You might be surprised.

Interestingly, I've never met an ordinary New York City taxpayer who realizes how many police misconduct lawsuits are filed and settled -- five days a week, 52 weeks a year. Not one. And it's never publicized.

 

[MikeK]

There isn't any difference. The person with the gun, cop or not, should always tell the other person > I need to see your hands....and everyone should know that a hand in a pocket could bring instant death

If Zimmerman had shot Martin without having that little gash on his forehead to support his self-defense story there is a very strong possibility a jury would have convicted him of murder.

An ordinary civilian does not get away with blowing someone away quite as easily as you are suggesting. Initiating circumstances, including provocation, unavoidable necessity and various peripheral factors, are critically important.

 

[MikeK]

Wasn't Crutcher's car stopped right in the middle of the road ? That's a traffic hazard and could possibly even cause a accident.

It's a traffic offense. Victimless. Possibly a breakdown. And Crutcher's erratic behavior could be the result of any number of mental or physical disorders. It's not like he was an armed robbery suspect.