http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/1...lty-in-deadly-shooting-unarmed-black-man.html
Fever, what are your thoughts? Fair Verdict?
Fever, what are your thoughts? Fair Verdict?
Tulsa Officer Found Not Guilty
- Thread starter Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM
- Start date
I've lost hope that a cop will ever get convicted of shooting an unarmed civilian with his hands up in the back a long time ago in America.
Still waiting for an official statement from Obama to start.
For the most part, I haven't blamed the police in most of these recent incidents. However, I am having trouble understanding how one could objectively watch the video of this one and think it is good/fair that the officer got off.
It isn't a question of "getting off". It's a question of if she followed her training. She did. Don't stick your hands back inside a car when a cop has a gun pointed at you, that will get you shot. And yes, even the "liberal media" now admits he did this, see the link below for "Crutcher was seen walking to his car with his hands up before reaching into the driver's side window." Remember when the story was he didn't, or the window wasn't down?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ficer-shooting-death-terence-crutcher-n761206
Agreed. As bad as the video appears he stuck his hands back in the car and, here is the important part, if an officer feels that his life or the public's life is in danger they have a right to use deadly force. In addition, they have a different set of guidelines than the general public or let's say a conceal carry permit holder. There is a different threshold for the use of deadly force.
Best thing you can do in that situation is hands up lay down spread out and obey commands. If not, you are likely to get your ass shot
I know a dumb ass that in his younger days thought he would fight a state trooper. He laughs about it now but he said he got one good punch in. But, then he said he was too drunk and dumb to realize he had already called for backup. He said it is hard to out run and beat up a radio. Then, he took an ass beating from about 10 cops. But, hey he got one good lick in..
A guy walks slowly away (we have no idea what is being said) with his hands up. His hand(s) enters the window, slowly, and he is shot within one second from that happening. There are multiple officers with their weapons drawn pointed at him, yet only one shot is fired. Clearly, the other officers didn't think there was a need for killing a guy at that point or else they would have also opened fire since they had their weapons drawn and pointed.
Why did the lone police officer feel that way? Further, after being shot, he didn't immediately fall. He was still standing there, hands in the window or close to where a weapon could have been, yet they nobody shot more than that one time.
There was no way this guy should have been shot. Tazed, perhaps. But shot knowing that officers shoot to kill? Not a chance. Didn't see a weapon, had no idea if the guy was grabbing his license, a badge to show he was law enforcement, or anything else. To shoot in that situation before seeing a weapon or being sure there is a lethal threat presented by him is gross negligence (according to many states' statutes).
Why did the lone police officer feel that way? Further, after being shot, he didn't immediately fall. He was still standing there, hands in the window or close to where a weapon could have been, yet they nobody shot more than that one time.
There was no way this guy should have been shot. Tazed, perhaps. But shot knowing that officers shoot to kill? Not a chance. Didn't see a weapon, had no idea if the guy was grabbing his license, a badge to show he was law enforcement, or anything else. To shoot in that situation before seeing a weapon or being sure there is a lethal threat presented by him is gross negligence (according to many states' statutes).
One officer used their stun gun at the same instant. After reviewing the video again I see why he got himself shot. Kept walking and reached into the car. The orders are not hey do want you want to and reach inside the car if you want to.
Again, if an officer feels threatened they have a right to shoot. He got shot and stunned at the same time.
Sorry pal, he should have obeyed the order.
You dont reach anywhere, much less into an area that cannot be clearly seen, when the police have you at gunpoint. I see no problem with what the officer did. Jury heard it and made their decision. Thats how our system works.
That is way too subjective from one officer to another. If an officer feels threatened by a 12 year old blowing a bubble, should that be enough?
There was no weapon. With that many guns drawn, the guy wouldn't have been able to get a shot off before he was blown away by the officers. His weapon would have had to come back out the window, be pointed, and shot. He would have been destroyed well before then.
You don't kill a guy for not obeying a command and reaching inside of the window without being sure there is a weapon and that is what he is going for.
Why do you think an officer deployed the taser? Because he knew it wasn't a call for lethal measures.
A jury found OJ not guilty.
Everyone is forgetting or not mentioning the guy was on pcp. There are some crazy videos of what people can do on pcp
There is nothing subjective. Training is training. She followed training. Other officers chose not to.
Reaching in to get a badge...did you say that for the lulz?
Reaching in to get a badge...did you say that for the lulz?
How do you know? First of all you were not in their shoes(the cops) and second you have no training or experience as an officer or in that situation. She followed the protocol she was trained for.
As for shooting to kill. Yes. Center Mass and if it kills them so be it. How do you shoot to wound? Try hitting a moving leg or hand or arm while it is moving and you are shitting in your pants in fear of your life. Hell, just go to the range and try it. Or see how good you are with a handgun.
Sad situation, but the individual made several mistakes not following officer's commands which got him killed. The officer was in the right.
Just more SJW (look at me charades).
Just more SJW (look at me charades).
And rightly so. The state did a terrible job in the investigation and prosecution of that case. If you can't put forward enough evidence to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the correct result.
In hindsight can we say he did it? No question. Did the state prove that at trial? No.
I completely disagree, the trial had absolutely zero to do with what the prosecution did or did not prove.
It was a case of a famous icon being in a completely high profile, high visibility trial. The jurors got caught up in OJ's fame his lawyers fame, the media circus that the judge let happen. He was innocent with that jury before the trial even started. Fame trumps all especially if you are perceived as a nice guy like OJ was at that time.
The biggest difference that I had with a lot of people trying to figure out how he got off was that many people thought it was race related but I thought it was more about his fame and the perception at the time OJ had publicly.
Because that is what the other officer had in their hands?
Come on, they should be sharpshooters with their handguns.
Honestly my question is this
Does Police training need to be looked at??
Also if your a cop, and your shitting in your pants, find a new profession. Enough of the "I feared for my life" BS. The cop with the taser should have taken control of the situation.
Oh and just because he had PCP in his system so they claim. Doesn't mean he was high on PCP at that moment.
Does Police training need to be looked at??
Also if your a cop, and your shitting in your pants, find a new profession. Enough of the "I feared for my life" BS. The cop with the taser should have taken control of the situation.
Oh and just because he had PCP in his system so they claim. Doesn't mean he was high on PCP at that moment.
Last edited:
Yes. The other officer stated if the lady cop had drawn her Taser he would have drawn his sidearm. As she was originally without backup, she chose the correct weapon for the situation.
Jesus Christ. You could be the baddest MoFo on the planet and you will still "fear for your life" in certain situations. For example, I consider myself proficient in the use of firearms, I don't believe I am some kind of chickenshit, but if someone breaks in here in the middle of the night I am going to rightfully fear for my life. I have no way of predicting the mindset or armed status of an intruder. My adrenaline is going to be sky-high during such an encounter. And I am still going to put shots on target, and not ask questions first, because better him than me. Being armed and training cannot change your natural biological and psychological reactions to certain situations. You can dull the effect of those reactions with training and experience, but it is still natural.
Police training? What do you value more, the lives of perps or of police? I will lean towards police, every time. Without looking at research, I am going to guess the reason LEO deaths have trended down since the 1970s IS training. Law enforcement has rightfully decided to train to draw a weapon early in dangerous confrontations. Fewer perps "get the drop" on cops now than then.
I have not seen the evidence on this man's PCP levels, but yeah labs can now pretty accurately determine if a sample shows someone was under the influence or not. It's a simple test of the level of the drug present. Of course, this is more costly than the piss test you are going to take to, say, get a job. I assume in a case like this the medical examiner didn't try to save a few bucks. I do know PCP has a fairly short half-life and doesn't stay in your system for long, it isn't like THC...and yes, testing can now tell if you are stoned on pot or smoked a couple of weeks ago. Again, this is more advanced lab work than the drug tests most of us have taken. And honestly, use some common sense, this guy was acting high AF.
The cop said initially that she thought he was high on pcp, sonthat kind of blows your doesn't mean he was high claim out of the water
As usual, you're trying to skate around the facts. The officer went through her protocol and suspect did not respond to her commands. In a very stressful situation she responded correctly. You always make it white versus black, which is clearly not the case. A very tragic outcome, but officer was not in the wrong.
Where did I make it a white vs. Black thing?
I still think she should have tazed the **** out of him instead of shooting him. If your first instinct is to pull your gun and shoot to kill, then police training needs to be re-examined.
I still think she should have tazed the **** out of him instead of shooting him. If your first instinct is to pull your gun and shoot to kill, then police training needs to be re-examined.
Someone that is High on PCP doesn't act like how he acted on the Video. Do you even know what someone looks like when they are high on PCP. With your own eyes, have you? I have and things would have been worst. I've always felt the PCP argument was just an excuse for her actions. A gun should have been the last resort not the first.
First resort was for the guy to listen to commands. Ultimately that's the problem
Someone has been watching too many Dirty Harry movies.
Do you believe she lucked out when the test results came out positive after she stated she thought he was high on PCP?
Lucked out??
No I don't think she lucked out because of the results. She lucked out by just the fact she is a police officer.
No I don't think she lucked out because of the results. She lucked out by just the fact she is a police officer.
I am not referring to the criminal case, I am referring to her claims of him being high on PCP were validated by the test results.
According to fever he wasn't high on pcp. He would know he's been around people high on pcp
Is Fever suggesting that Fred Zain works in the lab that oversaw the test?
