What orders did Crutcher not comply with? I keep seeing this being treated as a given (because the cops said so?), but I still have yet to see what exactly the orders were supposed to be.
Drop to the ground? Put your hands behind your back? Surely those who keep insisting this matter of factly can share what they know.
If all we have to go by is video, would we conclude the man was not complying with orders? His arms were raised. He was walking slowly, away from the cops. And when he was shot, he was apparently putting his hands on either the roof or side of the car in the typically search stance. He was not reaching inside the vehicle.
The Authoritarians will tell you that it had to be something, that police are always justified in shooting people and bad cops are as rare as hens teeth.
Some black people do because of their personal experience and the experience of their families. I’m saying that some living black Americans grew up being personally brutalized by white supremacist police officers, and far more black Americans grew up with parents who were personally brutalized by white supremacist police officers. With this very obvious truth, then it makes absolute sense that some black people will reasonably look with the same sort of fear to police as they do to the KKK. Even if they recognize that things have changed at least to some degree, that primal terror can remain, because they’re humans, and sometimes that’s how human emotions work.
In my view police officers should keep this in mind and act as if the person they’re dealing with might be personally terrified of them for reasons unrelated to criminality, and in my understanding they rarely do so.
People are both good and bad. A cop cannot shoot someone with ill intent and escape justice. It is not our place to make these judgements. Watch Cspan and Escape Fox and CNN. They are possessed by the beast now…
IASNAL, but again, I was under the impression that things like being detained, being stopped, being arrested, and being investigated all have legal definitions and requirements. That is, they’re escalating (I think?) situations which can’t just be skipped through. A cop asking a question isn’t necessarily a stop, investigation requires reasonable suspicion, more in depth investigation requires more, and so on. And that not following those actually could well violating to the individual’s rights; so a cop couldn’t just frisk anyone they met, for example.
Which isn’t to say that you’re wrong about where things stand. I don’t know. But in your cite, the person you’re quoting later says that a cop not giving a reason to follow an order could (depending on state law) be a good defense to a charge of refusing to obey that order. They warn against adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to understanding these things, too.
Except when they manage to get behind that blue wall of protection. The recent spat of minimally justified, unjustified, and outright criminal shootings caught on video are simply confirming what’s been suspected for years. Even worse, some of those incidents have accompanying police reports that directly contradict what the video evidence presents.
There is no one organizing riots. There are organizations of protests those are different things. If you are saying that they shouldn’t protest against an at least perceived miscarriage of justice, then you don’t really agree with the founding principles of our country, or the ideals that went into crafting the first amendment, but that’s fine, that’s the principle that gives you the right to that opinion. Many people don’t respect the rights of groups that they are not a part of, it’s a fairly natural reaction, even if it is not a useful one.
Now riots are a different matter entirely. Now, I know that you consider all protesters to be hooligans because of the actions of a few, but that kind of prejudicial view will do nothing to help the situation. In fact, it is that type of prejudice that leads to the problems in the first place. But yeah, the riots are never justified, or justifiable, but they are a bit inevitable when the justice system has been perceived to have broken down and failed people to the extent that it has. And then there are those who simply take advantage of the situation, and think" Hey, I can break stuff!", or “Hey I could use a new TV!”, so they do some damage and looting. The have completely different motivations and desires than the protesters. They don’t benefit the protesters at all. And yet, you blame those who are engaging in their rights to peacefully respond to perceived miscarriages of justice for the actions of a few. A few, who, like I said, have no connection to the protest or its principles, are not people who can be fired or disciplined from the group for breaking the rules of the protest.
This is unlike the police, where officers who break rules could be subject to discipline, retraining, or dismissal, so the actions of an officer do in fact reflect the policies and training and temperament of the entire department.
Few protesters will back the rioters. Most will gladly turn them in. Is that true of cops turning on bad cops? I think not.
So, as long as more bad guys are being killed than innocents, you are okay with it?
You’ll probably her it about as many times as a cop could have de-escalated a situation rather than ending the life of another person. You want to stop hearing about it, maybe cops should stop using lethal force as their go-to for dealing with every situation.
That would be a good start. It may even be enough to make a difference. If cops know that what they do is a matter of public record, they may act with a bit more thought to how their actions affect the community they are in.
There is almost no way that you ha that many cops NOT telling him to drop to t ground. It was obvious to the helicopter pilot when he said that Terence was going to get tasered. It is obvious to any reasonable observer that Terence was not in fact obeying police orders and should have been tasered. The shooting does not seem justified but the tasering certainly does.
So we don’t have to hear any audio-We just assume that he was told to drop to the ground, because that’s the way it’s always done…and different and/or conflicting orders just don’t happen? If it’s all the same to you, I’d still like to hear the audio when things like this happen because, y’know, sometimes police get a bit…“confused”…when giving their side of the story.
They are justifying them, aren’t they? They are excusing them, aren’t they?
I have no problem with protest and I think its silly of you to imply that I do.
Here watch me do the same thing:
There are people that think that rioting and looting are inexcusable. If you are saying that they should look the other way when these protesters turn into rioters, looters and murderers then you don’t really agree with the notions of a civilized society, but that’s fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Many people think that they can do whatever the fuck they want to whoever the fuck they want whenever there is a perceived injustice to a group they belong to. A perception that is fueled largely by a media has blown things way out of proportion. Its a natural reaction, even if its not a useful one.
So when we saw someone at a tea party rally with a picture of Obama with bone through his nose, we would never attribute racism to the entire tea party movement would we? BLM can no more escape its ties with violent protesters than the Tea Party can escape its ties with racists.
BLM needs to clean up its act and start getting more selective about which deaths they protest and how they conduct themselves.
So why so much excuse making for the rioters and looters?
Sure, I agree. The guy that tackled that 12 year old in a bikini and drew his gun on a bunch of other teenagers could not have done that without the tacit approval of all the other officers at the scene. The guy that choked Eric Garner to death could not have gotten away with it if there was not a permissive attitude for police brutality among the NYPD. The police would not leave victims to bleed to death from bullet wounds while they consoled the cop that did the shooting if there wasn’t a departmental disregard for the lives of victims.
So then why do we hear that protests have “turned into” riots? Not that riots broke out in other parts of the city during the peaceful protest by BLM. No, many of these protesters are among the rioters.
How many rioters have been turned in by BLM? I haven’t seen much in the news about that.
No, my point is that BLM spends too much time protesting the deaths of people that probably deserved to get shot, starting with Michael Brown. Ruining the lives of innocent cops and ruining their own credibility in the process.
The criteria for using lethal force is the imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury. So when a cop is being threatened with imminent death or grave bodily injury, you are saying that we should make the cop try to de-escalate? That’s a pretty big ask. How about we instead ask that people obey lawful police commands or is THAT too much to ask because in almost every case (not all) where the police could have de-escalated, the victim could have obeyed a police command?
I think training and counseling are probably important as well but those are really big dollar items compared with something as fucking cheap easy and simple as body cams. I would go so far as to say that at this point in our history, the lack of body cams is incriminating, its almost an admission that your officers do not meet standards that would survive public scrutiny.
Sure, I’d like some audio as well. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I think we can reasonably rely on police testimony that is consistent with the video and with common police procedure.
Do you think there is incriminating audio that is being withheld?
Or are you saying that in the absence of audio we should assume the half a dozen cops are lying murderers who were just silently following Terence Crutcher with their guns trained on him just waiting for an excuse to kill him; but they never told him to get down on the ground?
Perhaps Bricker or another of the Great Legal Minds of the SDMB will be along to explain this better than I could, and it is going to vary by jurisdiction, but yes, they all have requirements.
No, they can’t just frisk you because they feel like it, but no, it isn’t a series of steps that they have to run thru.
Cops can try to talk to you any time, anywhere, for any reason or no reason at all. You do not have to talk to them. You can ignore them, say “I don’t talk to cops”, continue along your merry way, tell them your life story, whatever you want. The correct phraseology is “Officer, am I free to go?” If the cops says No, or by his actions (he puts his hand on you to keep you from walking away, handcuffs you, Tasers you, etc.) shows that you are not free to go, you have reached the next level, which is called (I believe) a Terry stop. The officer has what he believes is a reasonable suspicion of you, and is briefly detaining you while he or she investigates the situation. You do not have to answer any questions beyond your name, address, and birthdate. In many but not all jurisdictions, if you have ID, you must produce it. You are not under arrest - you are being detained. The courts have avoided defining how “brief” is “briefly detained”.
The officer is entitled to take reasonable steps to ensure his safety, your safety, and the safety of the general public. This includes patting you down for weapons - you do not have to consent to being patted down for weapons - perhaps being handcuffed, and also being told things like “stand still”, “do not get into your car”, “keep your hands in sight”, etc. Those are generally considered reasonable commands. You must obey them. This is where many Dopers go wrong - yes, you do.
The cop then investigates to see if his reasonable suspicion is founded. You do not have to answer any questions, period. Most criminals, fortunately, are stupid, and answer questions. Even if they don’t, it is common for investigation to produce probable cause for arrest - for instance, he runs your driver’s license thru the courthouse database, and finds that yours is the car stalled in the middle of the road that two 911 callers have reported, and that you are acting crazy, as if you are on drugs, or both. Now, you are under arrest. You still do not have to answer any questions, but he has to warn you of your Miranda rights. If you have answered any questions before this, whatever you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You do, however, have to do what the police say, including “get into the squad car” or “turn around and put your hands behind you” if he hasn’t already cuffed you. Again, you don’t get to say No. You don’t get to struggle, run away, put your hands into your pockets, run to your car for a last hit of PCP (or to grab your gun), or anything like that.
Mr. Crutcher, as mentioned, was reported by two different 911 callers, one of whom mentioned that he had been smoking a little something, and when the police arrived on the scene, he was behaving erratically. They therefore decided to detain him while they figured out if he was drunk/wasted/stupid/in communion with the undead spirits of the planet Zorko/all of the above. He refused their commands to show his hands, not run into traffic, and so forth. He was thus Taser’ed, which seems a minimalist approach to gaining his attention, and almost immediately shot, which seems somewhat less so.
And here we are.
As previously mentioned, IANAL. YMMV, BYOB, LS/MFT, void where taxed or prohibited, may contain peanuts.
As usual(and I am FUCKING TIRED of repeating this to folks that like to make wild extrapolations to argue with), what I am saying are the words I put in my post. I never said that any audio was withheld. I just find it problematic that audio isn’t available when it really matters. BTW, what the helicopter pilot claims is usually said doesn’t matter one flying fuck because he didn’t actually hear anything-his guess is as good as anyone elses. What the all other cops said and at what time and in what order are what matters, but what usually happens is that ranks are closed and a common story is agreed upon. It doesn’t take half a dozen cops that are lying murderers-it just takes one or two fuck-ups and the cooperation of “good” cops that don’t do the deed themselves but either back up their fellow cop(s) or just stay quiet and say nothing. No vast conspiracy needed-just business as usual for the “Us against Them” mentality.
No, the helicopter pilot’s guess is MUCH MUCH better than yours. He is familiar with standard operating procedure and what cops would normally do in that sort of situation.
I don’t see how anyone who isn’t actively looking to find fault can reasonably doubt the testimony that the cops followed standard procedures and ordered Terence Crutcher to get on the round. It would be a deviation for ONE cop not to follow that procedure, it is really unlikely that half a dozen cops all failed to follow that procedure.
Certainly not anything close to the wild exaggerations you wrote. From now on why don’t you just respond to what I write, and save the imaginary conversations for the next book you write?
Unless he is an incredible lip reader and had binoculars in hand at the time, his testimony as to what was actually said is about as useful as a desk sergeant’s.
You would find it really unlikely that a group of cops would deviate from standard procedure and/or give mixed signals to a suspect and/or cover up their mess afterwards?
I apologize-I didn’t know you were new to this thread and hadn’t read any of the previous posts. :rolleyes:
Lol. No it’s not obvious. You have to do a good deal of assuming to reach the conclusions you’ve drawn. Ordering a man suffering from car problems to drop to the ground–in the middle of the highway, on a hot day–only is reasonable in a fascist dystopia. Calling it “obvious” that they ordered him to do this implies this is par the course, typical for these kinds of stops. It’s not. There was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime evident at all.
You know what’s obvious? The absence of any public statements from the cops specifically describing what order Crutcher failed to comply with. Funny that. I was hoping you’d treat us to cites showing this, but alas, all I’ve seen is inferences seemingly based on the naive premise that cops don’t shoot people unless noncompliance is involved.