Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

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.

Tons of assumptions that you’re making by choice. We don’t know if Crutcher ignored instructions because we don’t know what was said. He may have been replying back. If reaching for a door is going for a gun, then every human goes for a gun multiple times per day.

Yes, we do need to know what was said to get a full understanding of what happened. Crutcher may have been shouting for help or for clarification or a million other things. A cop may have been telling him to get his identification. That you’re willing to eliminate all these possibilities with complete certainty shows that you have no interest in anything but excusing cops.

[Starving_Artist]

@Czarcasm

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.

I suspect the fact he attempted to do neither would weigh against this possibility, unless you intend to argue that despite Crutcher’s arrest record he wouldn’t know that one doesn’t ‘assume the position’ by reaching for the handles of a car’s door.

Besides which, the police in my experience don’t usually tell miscreants to assume the position while said miscreant is walking away from them. Rather, it’s a procedure intended for stationary suspects in order to facilitate a search, and not for suspects walking away and attempting to get into their cars.

[kayaker]

@Starving_Artist

Besides which, the police in my experience don’t usually tell miscreants to assume the position while said miscreant is walking away from them. Rather, it’s a procedure intended for stationary suspects in order to facilitate a search, and not for suspects walking away and attempting to get into their cars.

You done time?

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

I suspect the fact he attempted to do neither would weigh against this possibility, unless you intend to argue that despite Crutcher’s arrest record he wouldn’t know that one doesn’t ‘assume the position’ by reaching for the handles of a car’s door.

Besides which, the police in my experience don’t usually tell miscreants to assume the position while said miscreant is walking away from them. Rather, it’s a procedure intended for stationary suspects in order to facilitate a search, and not for suspects walking away and attempting to get into their cars.

Why didn’t you say so? That this is your experience should remove any and all uncertainty from everyone’s mind that there might be a slight chance that there was something done wrong here.

[Czarcasm]

@Starving_Artist

I suspect the fact he attempted to do neither would weigh against this possibility, unless you intend to argue that despite Crutcher’s arrest record he wouldn’t know that one doesn’t ‘assume the position’ by reaching for the handles of a car’s door.

Besides which, the police in my experience don’t usually tell miscreants to assume the position while said miscreant is walking away from them. Rather, it’s a procedure intended for stationary suspects in order to facilitate a search, and not for suspects walking away and attempting to get into their cars.

When you assume, you make a big ass of yourself.
Or something like that-it might not be an exact quote.

[Starving_Artist]

@iiandyiiii

Tons of assumptions that you’re making by choice. We don’t know if Crutcher ignored instructions because we don’t know what was said. He may have been replying back.

I’d say that since he wasn’t hollering back over his shoulder as he walked away it’s a pretty fair bet he wasn’t replying back.

@iiandyiiii

reaching for a door is going for a gun, then every human goes for a gun multiple times per day.

You left out the part about them doing so while defying police orders.

@iiandyiiii

Yes, we do need to know what was said to get a full understanding of what happened. Crutcher may have been shouting for help or for clarification or a million other things. A cop may have been telling him to get his identification. That you’re willing to eliminate all these possibilities with complete certainty shows that you have no interest in anything but excusing cops.

Oh, bullshit. Crutcher was so incoherent he couldn’t even answer as to whether the car was his or even who he was, and now you’ve suddenly got him pleading for instructions and clarification and even calling for help (just who’s supposed to help when someone’s being arrested anyway?). It is to laugh.

[MikeF]

“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?” says K9befriender.

Yes, I do.

You are correct in that none of the encounters you are talking about involved searching dark buildings, if that’s the nit you want to pick. The point you are missing is this: dark building or broad daylight on a street, officers have to react to what a suspect does. Whatever the suspect does the officer has to observe it, process it, consider options, pick one and then act. The reality is that this all takes time, maybe a second or two. And in that second or two a suspect can draw and fire a weapon.

So, let’s take a hypothetical. The non-compliant, appears to be under the influence driver returns to his vehicle, at gunpoint, where he does have a gun on the front seat. At what point would say the officer is justified in shooting? Once the door is open? Once he reaches in? Once he begins to back out of the car? Once the officer sees the gun? Once the gun begins to come up? Once the gun is pointed at the officer? Once he has fired a shot?

There seems to be a fair amount of “How do we know the officer gave commands since there’s no audio tape?” I guess its possible she said “Go ahead and get your stuff from the car but I’ll shoot you if you come out with a gun.” I guess its possible that she said nothing at all. I guess its also possible that, at the last wedding I attended, the couple didn’t really say “I do” since I couldn’t actually hear it, the priest is now dead and its not on tape. I did more than 25 years on the job and not once did I ever see an officer point a weapon at someone without commands being given. And those commands were never “keep on doing what you are doing”.

The fact that this female officer was charged is not necessarily conclusive that she acted unreasonably. Its one person’s (D.A. or whatever they have in OK) opinion. If you really think that these decisions are not influenced by public opinion and media attention, I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in. Even an indictment doesn’t really mean that much. You know the saying about the ham sandwich. Maybe this officer completely screwed up. Maybe not. I certainly haven’t seen the evidence, other than the tape. For some of you that seems to be enough.

Finally, Damuri seems to have a problem with an officer who suffers from auditory exclusion during a critical incident and, basically, proposes that that should be enough to end an officer’s career. You might be interested to know that this is one of the most common phenomena (along with time distortion) in police shootings and other critical incidents. I don’t have that stats handy but I believe that more than 50% of officers involved in shootings don’t remember hearing their own or other officer’s gunshots, radio calls, sirens…you name it. Its completely normal. We are visual animals and when a threat is present we tend to, literally, focus on it, often at the expense of our other senses. To suggest an officer lose his job over this is ludicrous.

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

I’d say that since he wasn’t hollering back over his shoulder as he walked away it’s a pretty fair bet he wasn’t replying back.

You left out the part about them doing so while defying police orders.

Oh, bullshit. Crutcher was so incoherent he couldn’t even answer as to whether the car was his or even who he was, and now you’ve suddenly got him pleading for instructions and clarification and even calling for help (just who’s supposed to help when someone’s being arrested anyway?). It is to laugh.

How do you know he was incoherent? And which is it, a “pretty fair bet”, or you’re absolutely certain and no one can question it?

Just more and more assumptions you’re making by choice.

[Czarcasm]

@Starving_Artist

Oh, bullshit. Crutcher was so incoherent he couldn’t even answer as to whether the car was his or even who he was, and now you’ve suddenly got him pleading for instructions and clarification and even calling for help (just who’s supposed to help when someone’s being arrested anyway?). It is to laugh.

The shooter who is claiming hysterical deafness is also claiming that he was incoherent and unresponsive?

How the holy fuck would she know? SHE WAS SUPPOSEDLY DEAF!!

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Czarcasm

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?

:rolleyes: I suppose its possible you were just asking questions. I doubt it but its possible.

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.

Yes!!! And that desk sargeant’s guess is MUCH MUCH more useful than yours. Any cop who was familiar with standard procedures would be MUCH MUCH better at guessing what was said than you.

I don’t know how this went from comparing his well informed guess to your half assed ignorant guess - all the way to testimony about what was actually said.

But since you moved the goal posts, let me try to get it through the uprights nonetheless. At trial, if there is any doubt that the command to get don was given, just about any cop would be able to testify that the standard operating procedure in that situation would be to order the suspect to get on the ground. They could testify that this was such a well followed (almost reflexive) procedure that it would be unusual for one cop on the scene to neglect giving the order and that it would beggar belief that half a dozen cops all forgot to give that order.

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 find it almost impossible that a group of cops wouldn’t all be yelling “get on the ground, get on the fucking ground right now” or something to that effect.

I find it almost impossible to believe that in that situation, some of the cops would be yelling “get back in your car”

I apologize-I didn’t know you were new to this thread and hadn’t read any of the previous posts. :rolleyes:

You are losing credibility with every post you make. Almost with every word.

[Evil_Economist]

@Starving_Artist

I’d say that since he wasn’t hollering back over his shoulder as he walked away it’s a pretty fair bet he wasn’t replying back.

I’ve noticed that ever single time you’ve made an assumption, where the facts were available, your assumptions turned out to be wrong. Most people would learn from that. I also seem to remember that last time you made assumptions they caused you to argue that a man couldn’t rape a boy, which is a pretty stupid thing to assume. I also remember that someone in that thread pointed out that he had been raped as a boy in exactly the way you said couldn’t happen, and you called him a liar. Your behavior in that thread was extremely odd, and word of caution if you continue to make assumptions in this thread you’ll end up acting the same way: having sex with paper tubes and claiming you’re winning.

[Czarcasm]

@Damuri_Ajashi

:rolleyes: I suppose its possible you were just asking questions. I doubt it but its possible.

Yes!!! And that desk sargeant’s guess is MUCH MUCH more useful than yours. Any cop who was familiar with standard procedures would be MUCH MUCH better at guessing what was said than you.

I don’t know how this went from comparing his well informed guess to your half assed ignorant guess - all the way to testimony about what was actually said.

But since you moved the goal posts, let me try to get it through the uprights nonetheless. At trial, if there is any doubt that the command to get don was given, just about any cop would be able to testify that the standard operating procedure in that situation would be to order the suspect to get on the ground. They could testify that this was such a well followed (almost reflexive) procedure that it would be unusual for one cop on the scene to neglect giving the order and that it would beggar belief that half a dozen cops all forgot to give that order.

I find it almost impossible that a group of cops wouldn’t all be yelling “get on the ground, get on the fucking ground right now” or something to that effect.

I find it almost impossible to believe that in that situation, some of the cops would be yelling “get back in your car”

You are losing credibility with every post you make. Almost with every word.

Considering what you do find credible about this clusterfuck, I don’t think I’m going to lose any sleep about your particular lose of confidence in my credibility.

[Starving_Artist]

@Czarcasm

The shooter who is claiming hysterical deafness is also claiming that he was incoherent and unresponsive?

How the holy fuck would she know? SHE WAS SUPPOSEDLY DEAF!!

Czarcasm, you need to back slowly away from the thread and stay away until you can compose yourself. You’ve apparently lost all sense of the timing of events, what was said when and where, and what it is you’re responding to.

Or stick around, it’s more amusing that way.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@you_with_the_face

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.

Well I did say it was obvious to any REASONABLE observer.

I don’t think you have the foggiest clue what reasonable suspicion is.

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.

And if the cops made a public statement, that would convince you? Of course not, so why do you find that relevant at all?

[iiandyiiii]

Assumptions based on assumptions, with total and utter certainty that nothing was done wrong.

Sorry if assumptions aren’t enough, and if I lack your certainty. Further investigation is warranted.

[Czarcasm]

@Starving_Artist

Czarcasm, you need to back slowly away from the thread and stay away until you can compose yourself. You’ve apparently lost all sense of the timing of events, what was said when and where, and what it is you’re responding to.

Or stick around, it’s more amusing that way.

Do you know what would be even more amusing? You getting anything right…even accidentally.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Why do you assume the police are telling the truth?

The truth about what? That there wasn’t a gun found at the scene? That the cop that killed Terence Crutcher is being charged with first degree manslaughter?

What is it that you think the cops aren’t telling the truth about?

That at least one of the half dozen cops that were on the scene and had their guns out were following the most basic procedure and ordering the victim to get on the ground? What incredulous thing am I believing on faith that only a staunch apologist of the police could possibly believe?

Why are you assuming anything about this event?

Because some things are obvious.

Why are so many people assuming that the cops are lying? If they’re such fucking ass covering scumbags, why didn’t someone drop a gun in the back seat of his car? I agree that cops don’t deserve some special benefit of the doubt but you are bending over backwards to look for far fetched narratives that might maybe possibly be consistent with the video evidence when the most plausible story is the one that he cops are telling us:

Cops get a call about a car in the middle of the road. Cops show up, suspect doesn’t obey commands and heads back towards his car with his hands up, one cop tasers him as he tries to get into his car, and Barney Fife cop shoots him dead. So the Barney Fife cop is being charged with first degree manslaughter. What part of that storyline that results in manslaughter charges being filed against the shooting officer seems unlikely to you?

[Starving_Artist]

@Evil_Economist

I’ve noticed that ever single time you’ve made an assumption, where the facts were available, your assumptions turned out to be wrong. Most people would learn from that. I also seem to remember that last time you made assumptions they caused you to argue that a man couldn’t rape a boy, which is a pretty stupid thing to assume. I also remember that someone in that thread pointed out that he had been raped as a boy in exactly the way you said couldn’t happen, and you called him a liar. Your behavior in that thread was extremely odd, and word of caution if you continue to make assumptions in this thread you’ll end up acting the same way: having sex with paper tubes and claiming you’re winning.

And I’ve noticed that at every opportunity you keep up with this lie about what I’ve allegedly said, distorting it into a stupid claim which is easily ridiculed rather than the much more specific one I made in regard to the two people supposedly involved. It’s also worthy of note that the attorney of the alleged victim has stated that the crime you and others are so sure took place did not in fact happen, the dislikelihood of which gave rise to my argument in the first place. I’m sorry for the frustration you feel over having repeatedly been shown wrong in your…wait for it…assumptions in this regard, but I’ve long made it a practice to argue the issue in the appropriate thread. I’ll be happy to meet you there if discussing it is really what you want to do, thought I suspect it is not.

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

And I’ve noticed that at every opportunity you keep up with this lie about what I’ve allegedly said, distorting it into a stupid claim which is easily ridiculed rather than the much more specific one I made in regard to the two people supposedly involved. It’s also worthy of note that the attorney of the alleged victim has stated that the crime you and others are so sure took place did not in fact happen, the dislikelihood of which gave rise to my argument in the first place. I’m sorry for the frustration you feel over having repeatedly been shown wrong in your…wait for it…assumptions in this regard, but I’ve long made it a practice to argue the issue in the appropriate thread. I’ll be happy to meet you there if discussing it is really what you want to do, thought I suspect it is not.

In this discussion your conclusions require assumptions on top of assumptions. It’s not reasonable to be as certain as you are in this case.

[Evil_Economist]

@Starving_Artist

And I’ve noticed that at every opportunity you keep up with this lie about what I’ve allegedly said, distorting it into a stupid claim which is easily ridiculed rather than the much more specific one I made in regard to the two people supposedly involved.

I’ve noticed that I gave you a polite opportunity to admit you were wrong earlier in this thread, and you ignored it. Maybe you should consider examining the facts, and if they differ from your assumptions, then maybe consider that your assumptions are wrong? Refusing to admit error has in the past led you down an increasingly crazy trail.

It’s also worthy of note that the attorney of the alleged victim has stated that the crime you and others are so sure took place did not in fact happen, the dislikelihood of which gave rise to my argument in the first place. I’m sorry for the frustration you feel over having repeatedly been shown wrong in your…wait for it…assumptions in this regard, but I’ve long made it a practice to argue the issue in the appropriate thread. I’ll be happy to meet you there if discussing it is really what you want to do, thought I suspect it is not.

I remember that you claimed that it wasn’t physically possible. Remember that? When you claimed it wasn’t physically possible? Remember when you made assumptions and those assumptions led you to claim that the physical act wasn’t physically possible? Remember the crazy path that you went down, caused by the stupid assumptions you made and your inability to admit error? Welcome to the exact same path.