She decided to kill a man for specious reasons without due process. She deserves to be punished for this in exactly the same manner you or I would.
Your claim is that her judgement to kill him based on the information she had at the time is correct?
Her judgment that he might be on PCP is backed up by the evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
Really? I didn’t see that in her statement.
The thing is even if he was on PCP (and my guess is that he probably was) that isn’t a valid reason for the cops to shoot him. It’s been said before on this board, maybe even somewhere earlier in this thread, but what police departments need is more people like Sheriff Andy Taylor and fewer like Deputy Barney Fife. My guess is that almost all the officers involved in these shootings where it turned out the victim was not actually a threat are probably the Barney Fife type officers.
Please show me the law or regulation where this justifies straight up murder by the police.
Being high on PCP does not, under ANY law, entitle police to simple shoot you.
Well, you know, better safe than sorry. As one poster brought up, the Murder of Kyle Dinkheller
I can just imagine in these training sessions, recruits are told by their instructors it’s “better to be judged by 12, than carried by six”.
And this is what we have today.
And her judgement that he might have a weapon was not backed up by the evidence. Judgement-wise, I don’t think she’s getting a passing score here.
There isn’t any law that entitles police to shoot you simply because you are on PCP. There is a law that says police can shoot you if you are acting in a threatening manner when you are resisting arrest. Being on PCP makes it more likely to act in a threatening manner when resisting arrest, as Crutcher was convicted of doing earlier in his stellar career. Past behavior is a relatively good indicator of future behavior.
His being on PCP isn’t the reason he got shot - it is, to date, a possible explanation for why he might engage in behavior that appeared threatening, like refusing to obey orders to freeze, and walking back to his car as if to get something out of it, or escape, or lock himself inside, or run somebody over.
Regards,
Shodan
Is there such a law? If there is it should be changed. Police should only have the right to shoot if you actually are a threat, not just for acting in a threatening manner. As the Crutcher case and several other recent cases show, if you use a standard of “acting in a threatening manner” officers will sometimes shoot someone who wasn’t an actual threat.
<Citation needed>
<No, it isn’t.>
Regards,
Shodan
Seriously, if you can find a law that specifically spells out how this works, I would welcome it. Otherwise you’re making an unsupported assumption that this is allowed by LAW and not simply by procedure.
Or perhaps he was reaching for the door handle to tear the door off the car and beat the officers to death with it? Or pick up the car and throw it overhand at the police? Could smear out three, four of them at once that way!
How do you know he engaged in this behavior? The video doesn’t show this at all.
Given his previous history, Shodan’s statement that he doesn’t need to back up his facts should be given all the attention it…
Look! Kittens!
The bolded items are in no way indicative of Mr. Crutcher’s possibly having used PCP on the day he was killed.
No, my point was that this is not a serious request. You know perfectly well that it is legal. You’re just trolling.
A horse that won’t drink isn’t going to be convinced by a cite that water is wet. Or his ass, as the case may be.
Regards,
Shodan
Some in this thread are confusing his appearing to be on PCP as the reason he was shot vs. it being the reason Officer Shelby drew her gun on him in the first place. That, and his behavior once backup arrived, is the reason the rest of them drew their weapons. Crutcher was shot because he reached for the door (something every news video I’ve seen since the first day cuts away from just before it happens). Based on their training the officers perceived this as a threat. This is why one of the other officers fired his taser at the same time Shelby fired her gun. Both were reflexive actions the officers took based upon their training.
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! I love how you’re already trying to shift the blame for their actions away from the officers. It’s as if you know they fucked up but you’re trying hard to excuse the officers anyway: “It was their training. It’s the fault of the training, not the officers; they were just doing what they were trained to do.” :rolleyes: