Why do you assume the police are telling the truth?
Why are you assuming anything about this event?
Because cops are honest heroes and if one is lying, they’re an aberration that would never find support among other cops?
Seems their usual polyanna answer.
He didn’t have ‘car problems’. He left his car parked over the center line with the engine running and the doors open.
He had been refusing the first officer’s lawful commands, which is why she called for backup. He then continued to walk away from the police and toward his car with his hands up and his back to the officers. Such refusal to comply is sufficient on its own to warrant police commands to halt and/or to get on the ground.
Ahem, is it really not blindingly obvious he was failing to comply with police commands? As I just said, it was his refusal to comply that resulted in backup being called in the first place, and he was obviously not complying as he continued to walk to his car trailing a cadre of police with weapons drawn behind him.
No, you are incorrect on this point.
Then what are you saying about the protesters. You keep saying that they need better justifications that make your standards before they are allowed to protest. I am not implying that you have a problem with the protest. You are stating that you have a problem with the protests. Bit silly, yeah.
Ummm, was that supposed to be mocking my statement? I see you used similar phrasing and words, but I was pointing out that protests are constitutionally protected, I am not sure what you are trying to do with that tripe.
Your insistence on equating peaceful protest with riots is part of the problem.
No, but we can say the guy holding that poster is probably a racist. And the guy next to the guy with the poster, egging him on and cheering, probably a racist. The guy over there looking at the guy with the poster with disgust, probably not a racist.
The charge was never made that all tea parties are racists, just that the tea party attracted racists.
The rioters and looters are not BLM employees. They are not BLM contracters. BLM has no control over them. Do you feel it is the same way with police. That police departments have no control over their officers?
And are you saying that a death at the hands of police needs to meet with your approval before the community is allowed to express its opinion on the matter? Even many of the deaths that are “justified” could have been avoided if the officer was willing to allow a situation to de-escelate.
Umm, “so much excuse making”? Where? I believe pretty much everyone in this thread has condemned the rioting and looting. Pointing out that it is in many cases inevitable when the justice system is non-functional, and society is breaking down is not the same as excuse making, it is simply pointing out the realities. Just like it doesn’t excuse an arsonist to point out that fire is hot, pointing out the inevitable reaction to injustice is not making excuses, it is trying to show how to avoid such situations in the future.
You agree. You agree with what? That they shouldn’t have done it? Then why do you defend the culture that condones such action? You see numerous examples of cops abusing their authority and their community, and you defend them for it. The occasioanl really grievous attacks you admit that they shouldn’t have done it, but if nothing else, you still were defending the police torturing the girl in the video with the mace. It’s not just the lives of the victims of police abuse and brutality, it is their dignity, their modesty, their very humanity that is stripped away by the police actions. Killing them is just the tip of the iceberg.
Usually because rioters find the cover of a large crowd a good place to commit crimes. It wouldn’t do any good to riot by yourself, now would it?
I have seen plenty in the news about rioters arrested.
Here you are, telling them that their protests are not justified. And you are saying that these people deserved to be shot. I mean I can get behind the idea that an officer thought his life was in danger, but you are saying that the officers judge people, and shoot the ones that deserve it? If cops are shooting people that “deserve” to get shot, that’s a pretty good reason for protests right there.
No. If you read what I typed, you would see that your paragraph there is completely missing the point. If an officer is in imminent threat, of course they should defend themselves.
The problem is that often, an officer “defends” them self from a situation that is not a threat. Many times an officer escalates a situation to the point where they become justified as their victim has become “threatening” due to their lack of respect for a bully with a badge. There are many situations that could have been deescalated much sooner, or never had to be escalated in the first place, that end up as “justified” shootings.
The problem with this, is that even when we see police shooting people that the didn’t need to, people like yourself and SA come to defend them. Only in the most blatant examples will you agree that a cop was out of line. You even make jokes about the girl pepper sprayed in the face, rather than condemning the actions of the officer.
With that many cops, one of them may have been telling him to get on the ground. Another may have been telling him to put his hands up. Another may have been telling him to freeze, and not move, and the last telling him to spread up against the car. That’s the point, without audio, we don’t know what kinds of commands he was given. We don’t know if the commands given were intelligible enough that you or I, perfectly happy to comply, would have gotten it right. Now, your assumption that a bunch of cops would all be yelling in perfect unison and harmony in such a way that a victim would perfectly understand the commands is actually a bit of a stretch.
Even if they are all yelling the same thing, it can still be hard to make out what it is they want, if they are yelling at out of unison. He made no sudden movements, but only slow motions. They may not have been what the cops were yelling, but they also were not in any way threatening (except that you point out [when it’s convenient, you deny it when it is not] that being non-compliant is threatening.)
How often are you stopped by the police, I wonder? If you were stopped nearly every day, sometimes multiple times a day, for doing absolutely nothing wrong, would you keep a “Yes, Officer,” “No, Officer” attitude, or do you think it would be possible that you may take a “Fuck you, Pig” attitude after being dehumanized and degraded enough. Even if they don’t get physical. Even if they aren’t beating you, or spraying you in the face with mace, or filling your body full of little lead ingots, they are still setting themselves up as the enemy of the population by their actions. If someone is stopped regularly for “Stop and Frisk”, and stops being compliant, is that because he is a criminal, or because he lives in an unjust environment? If you then beat him, arrest him, or kill him for not being complaint, is that really on him? Is that really on the community that these police are supposed to be protecting?
Or could the cops receive training and reviewed policies to not escalate the situation? I think that would be the more just and fair solution. But if you really think that those who are oppressed are the ones to blame, the ones who need to make changes in their interactions with their oppressors, well, you certainly are not part of the solution.
Not Bob Munden, me. I submit your laser exercise was completely different from what I’m talking about. This isn’t a quick draw or “quick shoot” contest where you know the other guy is going to try to pull a gun and shoot you. If that were the case the officers could shoot at the first flinch of the suspect and might (probably?) get the first shot off. In our scenario the officers are searching a large dark building for a possible burglary suspect(s) with no idea whether there is one, more than one or no suspects present. The suspect is located in a second floor room so by the time the officers encounter him they are fairly stressed out with heavy breathing and elevated heart rates. By the way, they know that suspects can shoot and, if they do so accurately, it hurts quite a bit. Blood is regularly drawn on hits to exposed skin. (This is called “fear induced stress” and is a completely different animal than doing some push ups or running before shooting exercises. Not even close.) Once they do encounter him they have “rules of engagement” to follow (i.e, law and policy). They are giving commands and waiting for a reaction from the suspect while “watching their six” for other threats. I’m willing to bet that your laser game has none of that. If you ask anyone familiar with this type of training they will tell you that even the best simulators come nowhere near facing an actual opponent that can shoot back. I suggest you find a local department that demos this kind of training with public participation. I think it will open your eyes.
P.S. - I didn’t even know who Bob Munden was until I looked him up. What he does has absolutely nothing in common with being involved in a confrontation in which losers might die. Well, there are guns involved. I’ll give you that.
Who closed the doors then? In the videos, the doors are clearly closed. When Mr. Crutcher was tased and killed, the car doors are closed. Who closed them? :dubious:
So then scenarios you are talking about are in no way related to the encounters we are talking about. Good to know. Did you have anything else to add?
This is a red herring. Crutcher was clearly making no attempt whatever to try to determine what the police wanted him to do. He didn’t follow orders when Shelby was the only officer there and the only one whose orders he had to comprehend, and he was making no effort whatsoever to comply by turning his back on them and walking to his vehicle.
Look, there’s a 99.9% chance the guy was stoned out of his gourd on PCP and pretty much in a world of his own. Whatever police commands were given were probably just background noise and whatever concentration he was able to muster was focused on getting into his car and driving away. Unfortunately for him, his reaching for the door was a trigger for mortal danger to the police and they responded accordingly. The video I posted upthread shows clearly how quickly someone can momentarily go out of sight and come up shooting, firing several shots before the cop can even react.
So in reality, Crutcher’s shooting was just one of those unfortunate instances in life where ‘shit happens’. In his mind he was just an out of it druggie not wanting to be arrested, and in the minds of the officers involved he was an out of it druggie who was liable to do anything and was potentially very dangerous, and that dangerousness reached a critical level when he reached for the door.
So Crutcher wasn’t shot because he was black, he wasn’t shot because his car broke down, he wasn’t shot for not complying (up to the point his behavior became threatening) and he wasn’t shot for being on PCP. He was shot because he inadvertently made a move that the cops had been trained to regard as a deadly threat. So not his fault really (apart from the fact he was on PCP to begin with) and not the cops’ fault for acting upon their training which was based on deadly experience. It was just one of those unfortunate things that occasionally happen in an imperfect world.
Clearly you’ve arrived late to the party. Officer Shelby closed them when she arrived on the scene to investigate why the car was sitting there and prior to locating Crutcher. She turned off the ignition, checked the back seat for possible occupants/victims and then closed the doors. She was then approached by Crutcher who responded intelligibly when she asked if it was his car. He kept putting his hands in his pockets, then putting them over his head, then going for his pockets, etc. She called for backup and things went downhill from there.
You’re willing to give the benefit of the doubt and make all these assumptions in favor of the cops. Others aren’t. You’re saying things like “in reality” and “clearly” when you really mean “assuming all my assumptions that are favorable to the cops are true, then in reality/clearly…”
This is a choice you’re making that makes it easier for cops to get away with mistakes as long as they aren’t incredibly obvious.
No, I’m saying things like “in reality” and “clearly” because that’s what they are.
ETA: I’m happy to see that you’re granting the police made a mistake in the case of Crutcher’s shooting rather than blaming it on his being black, on PCP, having a stalled car, etc., like so many of the thread’s other posters have been so quick to claim.
For those willing to make a bunch of assumptions favorable to the cops, sure. Many of us are not so willing to make these assumptions.
So she already knew there was no weapon for him to grab? Did the other officers know the vehicle was checked out already and knew that it was clean? Sounds like murder to me.
It has been nearly three weeks since the Crutcher shooting. No tox info. Curious.
What assumptions? I said he clearly wasn’t making an attempt to determine what the police wanted him to do and he wasn’t. How is this even in question?
And I said in reality Crutcher’s shooting was just one of those unfortunate instances in life where ‘shit happens’. And it was. Crutcher mistakenly made a movement that made it look like he was going for a gun and the cops mistakenly thought that going for a gun is what he was doing. Again, how is this even in question?
No, she made a cursory check for occupants and turned off the ignition. She didn’t examine every nook and cranny where a gun might be located.
Shelby herself didn’t know it was ‘clean’ so I doubt they did.
No surprise there.
Abby only has two hands, dammmit!!!
We have no idea what words were exchanged – what orders were given by police and whether they were contradictory or otherwise unclear, and what Crutcher’s response was (if any).
This is what the shooter says. The video doesn’t show a “movement that made it look like he was going for a gun”. If Crutcher made such a movement (and reaching for a door handle doesn’t count), it’s not clear in the video.
The Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, and Sean Groubert shootings all make it clear to me that the statements of cops should not be treated as if they are inherently more likely to be accurate after a shooting than the statement of witnesses or even the statement of the one who was shot.
Thank you for the explanations. I won’t accept it pat, but I would guess you would expect that given our shared NAL-ness. I do have a couple of things I’d appreciate being clarified, as well of course as a legal mind to come in and agree/disagree with your explanation.
I’m a little confused by your use of “correct” here. You give several suggestions as to what you can do, but then say that a particular phrase is “correct”. Would then ignoring them, saying “I don’t talk to cops”, continuing on your merry way etc. *not *be correct options, and if so what do you mean by “correct” given that you give them also as possibilities that you can seemingly do?
And also, in this case, when you say “must obey” - what do you mean? Is noncompliance with those orders a crime in and of itself, regardless of anything else that might then/have occurred? Does it of itself provide reason for further investigation or arrest?
BTW, the shooter’s testimony as to what other officers might also have yelled at the victim is less than useless, since she is claiming temporary deafness due to stress during that period of time and was supposedly incapable of hearing anything they, or the victim, said. For she knows one of the other cops might have been yelling at him to put his palms against the car and spread his legs.
çWe have no idea what words were exchanged – what orders were given by police and whether they were contradictory or otherwise unclear…
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter. Because…
To turn his back on and ignore them, walk to his car, and attempt to open the door.
Yes, reaching for the door does count, and his reaching for it was clear in the early videos. You know, the ones that were seen early on before the media began cutting away just before he reached for it.
Doesn’t matter in this case. Crutcher was clearly non-compliant, he clearly reached for the door, and the police clearly took that as a threat, given that both a taser and a gun were fired at the exact moment he did that. We don’t need a single word from or by the cops to know exactly what happened.