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

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Because some things are obvious.

No, they aren’t “obvious”.

@Damuri_Ajashi

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?

“Suspect”? Mr. Crutcher was a suspect? Suspected of what? When did he become a suspect? Who considered him a suspect and of what? :dubious:

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Starving_Artist

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?

So you know what was going thru Mr. Crutcher’s mind at that point in time? You have some sort of time-delay telepathy or something? :dubious:

If someone doesn’t immediately begin to weep when told a family member has passed away, are they “clearly” happy about the news, or simply uncaring and hostile? :dubious:

[Starving_Artist]

@Evil_Economist

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.
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.

So what ‘crazy’ assumptions do you think I’m making here, where by and large I’m merely relating the facts. I would think the crazy assumptions were being made by those who submit that Crutcher may have been trying to assume the position or he might have been calling out for help or asking how to comply, when the reality is that he continually refused or was unable to comply from the very beginning.

[Starving_Artist]

@Snowboarder_Bo

No, they aren’t “obvious”.
“Suspect”? Mr. Crutcher was a suspect? Suspected of what? When did he become a suspect? Who considered him a suspect and of what? :dubious:

As the result of his behavior, which included abandoning his car in the middle of the road, he was suspected of being high on PCP, an illegal drug. He was also guilty of failing to follow police orders and eventually of resisting arrest.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@k9bfriender

No, you are incorrect on this point.

Post 9196 seems to think that there are excuses for rioting;
Post 9231 seems to think that riots can be excused;
Post 9256 seems to think rioting is a symptom of a disease, you know, something not in the control of the rioters;
Post 9328 seems to acknowledge that rioting is bad but ask us to focus on the core message of BLM as neighborhoods burn and stores get looted;
Post 9361 seems to call rioting the inevitable result of injustice;

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.

I have no problems with people peacefully protesting against anything. But I reserve the right to disagree with and even ridicule people protesting things that I don’t think ought to be protested.

In my opinion BLM should exercise a bit more discretion when it chooses which deaths to protest. YMMV

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.

You were putting words into my mouth and implying that I don’t believe that people have a right to protest things. You were implying that part of my position was based on the fact this particular brand of injustice doesn’t really affect me or anyone I know very much so that might be why I don’t support it.

Your insistence on equating peaceful protest with riots is part of the problem.

I don’t but when those peaceful protesters also some of the violent rioters, its hard not to connect the protest with the rioting.

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.

Wait, WHAT!?!?! The charge was never made that the tea party was racist? Of course it was made. Half the board, including me, has made that charge.

The rioters and looters are not BLM employees. They are not BLM contracters. BLM has no control over them.

Racists in the Republican party are not employees of the Republican party, they cannot fire them. They have 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.

And risk his life in the process.

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.

AKA making excuses for rioting

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.

I defend what now?

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.

I did what now? I’m starting to think you may have me confused for someone else.

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.

Sure I agree. We should record it all and make sure they are behaving in a manner deserving of our respect.

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.

And they were turned in my BLM folks?
Because I think that’s what you said.

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.

Yes I think their protest was not justified in that case and if you threaten a police officer or anyone else for that matter, you deserve to get shot.

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.

An officer is not obligated to back down and we probably don’t want them to. I don’t see how you criticize an officer that failed to de-escalate before shooting a guy that threatens his life.

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.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don’t defend bad cops. I don’t assume they are all bad either.

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.)

Even if all you say is true, there was STILL enough there to taser the guy.

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?

I think you have a media fueled hysterical view of what is happening.

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.

Neither are you.

[Evil_Economist]

@Starving_Artist

So what ‘crazy’ assumptions do you think I’m making here, where by and large I’m merely relating the facts. I would think the crazy assumptions were being made by those who submit that Crutcher may have been trying to assume the position or he might have been calling out for help or asking how to comply, when the reality is that he continually refused or was unable to comply from the very beginning.

Do me a favor: on a recent post of yours, please point out the specific statements that you think represent facts. Actual, verifiable, knowable, known to you, facts.

Every other statement will be either an assumption or a conclusion, correct?

Here’s the post I’d like you to look at. Please change to red text the statements which you believe are actual facts:

@Starving_Artist

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.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Starving_Artist

As the result of his behavior, which included abandoning his car in the middle of the road, he was suspected of being high on PCP, an illegal drug.

LMFAO no he was not suspected of being high on PCP. PCP was never brought up until after he was dead.

I can hardly believe you’d try and pass this off as actual information.

@Starving_Artist

He was also guilty of failing to follow police orders and eventually of resisting arrest.

No, he was not guilty of resisting arrest; you can’t resist arrest if you are dead, since only living people can be arrested.

And as we keep trying to point out to you (and others), failing to follow police orders is NOT punishable by a summary execution.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Damuri_Ajashi

AKA making excuses for rioting

So any attempt to understand or explain cause-and-effect is “making excuses”? Because the post you quoted before you made this reply was, IMO, in no way attempting to excuse any rioting.

So when you post here, you’re just making excuses for your shitty attitudes and behavior? Well, that’s good to know because now we can all be as dismissive of them as you seem to be towards BLM, I suppose.

[VinylTurnip]

@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.

Oh? So you’re saying that Andrew Shubin, the attorney for “Victim 2,” has publicly stated that Sandusky did not actually rape his client— and you can provide a cite for that, right? Because that sounds like a pretty extraordinary claim.

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

So what ‘crazy’ assumptions do you think I’m making here, where by and large I’m merely relating the facts. I would think the crazy assumptions were being made by those who submit that Crutcher may have been trying to assume the position or he might have been calling out for help or asking how to comply, when the reality is that he continually refused or was unable to comply from the very beginning.

Some examples of your assumptions: you’re assuming that any orders or instructions were clear and not contradictory; you’re assuming that Crutcher ignored orders/instructions (which you assume exist) and didn’t try to respond or ask for clarification; and you’re assuming that police “don’t usually tell miscreants to assume the position while said miscreant is walking away from them” and that this therefore means that the police in this scenario definitely didn’t do this.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Czarcasm

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.

And what exactly is it that you think I am naively finding credible?

That the cops told a suspect to get on the ground?

I suppose its possible, anything is possible, but it is not a reasonable possibility.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@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.

What assumption am I making on assumption?

I am pretty sure I am reaching conclusions about what is reasonably certain to have occurred based on the video and and standard procedures.

Noone is standing in the way of further investigation but you and a few people on SDMB seem to be the only people who (don’t stand to make money out of this) that are asking for this investigation.

So I just want to be clear, you guys all think that the police might very well be lying about giving Terence Crutcher an order to get on the ground. And therefore the use of the taser was police brutality or something, right?

[iiandyiiii]

@Damuri_Ajashi

What assumption am I making on assumption?

I am pretty sure I am reaching conclusions about what is reasonably certain to have occurred based on the video and and standard procedures.

Noone is standing in the way of further investigation but you and a few people on SDMB seem to be the only people who (don’t stand to make money out of this) that are asking for this investigation.

So I just want to be clear, you guys all think that the police might very well be lying about giving Terence Crutcher an order to get on the ground. And therefore the use of the taser was police brutality or something, right?

That wasn’t directed at you, sorry for not specifying. And the investigation is happening, in the form of a manslaughter trial.

[you_with_the_face]

@Damuri_Ajashi

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

Not to reasonable observers not biased against big black men shot dead in the street by cops.

According to Snopes:

An initial report published by Tulsa World contained the basic facts of the incident: Crutcher’s SUV stalled in the street, and after an encounter with police,** he was shot and killed when he failed to comply with demands to put his hands up and instead attempted to reach into his vehicle:**

Since the video clearly shows this to be false–we clearly see his arms raised to the sky almost the whole time–what else should we assume? That the cops actually ordered him to drop to the ground but for some grossly stupid reason told the reporters the wrong thing?

What “obvious” conclusion should be drawn about the discrepancy between what was reported to the press and what is evident in the video? Was his raised arms just an illusion caused by a trick of light and shadow? Or perhaps we are all suffering from a mass hallucination when we see in that tape what “obviously” looks like a man with his arms raised. Or it could it be that the cops took a gamble on there not being any video, so put forth a false claim in the hopes they’d fool dopes like you?

The sad scary thing is that * even in the presence of video evidence that clearly contradicts stated claims about Crutcher*, dopes like you are still creating false explanations to defend the cops’ actions. Like, they must have–must have, I say–ordered him to the ground. Never mind that none of the cops have asserted such a thing. It is an obvious fact that this must have happened. It has to be, certainly. Just like it’s certain that Santa is real. Because otherwise we’d have to believe the unthinkable happened: that cops held a man at gun point completely unnecessarily after his car broke down, ordered him to raise his arms as if there was reason to perceive him as a criminal when there was not, tasered and then shot him after he obeyed their order and showed no signs of menancing conduct or ill will, and then lied to cover up their actions rather than holding themselves accountable.

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

I don’t think you know what critical thinking is.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Snowboarder_Bo

No, they aren’t “obvious”.

So nothing is ever obvious?

What is it that you think I am assuming?

“Suspect”? Mr. Crutcher was a suspect? Suspected of what? When did he become a suspect? Who considered him a suspect and of what? :dubious:

I know you want to quibble semantics and say that he wasn’t actually a suspect and should have been treated like a distressed motorist or something but he was a suspect.

He became a suspect as soon as there was a reasonable suspicion that an offense had occurred. Do you think there was never reasonable suspicion?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Snowboarder_Bo

So any attempt to understand or explain cause-and-effect is “making excuses”? Because the post you quoted before you made this reply was, IMO, in no way attempting to excuse any rioting.

So when you post here, you’re just making excuses for your shitty attitudes and behavior? Well, that’s good to know because now we can all be as dismissive of them as you seem to be towards BLM, I suppose.

The post was saying that rioting is not exactly the fault of the rioters but the fault of some underlying conditions that practically force (FORCED I tell you) to riot.

The riots are the fault of noone but the rioters.

Other than not agreeing with you, what shitty attitudes and behaviour have I exhibited? You have a lot of trouble understanding people that don’t agree with you, don’t you? Its a sign of stupidity. You should get that looked at.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@you_with_the_face

Not to reasonable observers not biased against big black men shot dead in the street by cops.

According to Snopes:

Since the video clearly shows this to be false–we clearly see his arms raised to the sky almost the whole time–what else should we assume? That the cops actually ordered him to drop to the ground but for some grossly stupid reason told the reporters the wrong thing?

You realize that all the evidence that you are using to discredit the police is the stuff provided to you by the police, right? So yes I am going with “initial reports” were wrong. If you want to argue that there might have even been an initial attempt to try and cover up the excessive use of lethal force by officer Shelby, I would want to question the other officers at the scene and the officers that gave the initial reports but it would take something more than “you can’t trust the pigs maaaannn” to say that there wasn’t an order given to stop and get on the ground. It would take actual evidence to counter the apparently justified use of a taser.

What “obvious” conclusion should be drawn about the discrepancy between what was reported to the press and what is evident in the video? Was his raised arms just an illusion caused by a trick of light and shadow? Or perhaps we are all suffering from a mass hallucination when we see in that tape what “obviously” looks like a man with his arms raised. Or it could it be that the cops took a gamble on there not being any video, so put forth a false claim in the hopes they’d fool dopes like you?

Once again, the video provided to you courtesy of the Tulsa Police Department.

The sad scary thing is that * even in the presence of video evidence that clearly contradicts stated claims about Crutcher*, dopes like you are still creating false explanations to defend the cops’ actions. Like, they must have–must have, I say–ordered him to the ground. Never mind that none of the cops have asserted such a thing.

The scary thing is that you think that all those cops with guns trained on Terence Crutcher were just silently waiting for him to do something so they could kill another black man.

It is an obvious fact that this must have happened. It has to be, certainly. Just like it’s certain that Santa is real. Because otherwise we’d have to believe the unthinkable happened: that cops held a man at gun point completely unnecessarily after his car broke down, ordered him to raise his arms as if there was reason to perceive him as a criminal when there was not, tasered and then shot him after he obeyed their order and showed no signs of menancing conduct or ill will, and then lied to cover up their actions rather than holding themselves accountable.

Once again, you have the luxury of making these accusations because of video evidence provided to you by the Tulsa Police department.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don’t know what reasonable suspicion is.

Everything up to the actual shooting (including the tasering) seem justified.

I don’t think you know what critical thinking is.

Why would you say that? Because I don’t think all cops are pigs?

[Evil_Economist]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So I just want to be clear, you guys all think that the police might very well be lying about giving Terence Crutcher an order to get on the ground. And therefore the use of the taser was police brutality or something, right?

Since we’re being clear: please list all the people you think are arguing against the tasering of Terence Crutcher, rather than the shooting of Terence Crutcher.

[BigT]

Damuri Ajashi you are defending the indefensible. We have the video. We know that the initial reports of what happened were lies. Now they have another story only after the video came out. The truth doesn’t change. Lies do.

It doesn’t matter that the video came from the cops unless this cop gets punished. Right now, even cops we have on camera admitting to planting evidence and saying they had no reason to stop someone are not only not being prosecuted, but actually keeping their job due to laws passed to protect them or police unions.

You have refused to update to the current reality, when we know that cops are not inherently to be trusted. You assume they are, and look for every reason why they could be right, no matter how implausible. You assume that the cop is innocent, which means you assume the victim is guilty.

You’re exactly like the people who presume the rape accusation is a lie, or that the person who cries racism is lying. This is what you do that is horrible. You lack the basic ethics to realize this.

I’m not even saying you have to presume innocence for the civilian until proven otherwise. You could just be neutral. But you aren’t. You know one side lied, but rather than allow that to damage their credibility, you look for reasons that it’s okay.

That’s wrong, and that is what you do that is fucked up.

[you_with_the_face]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You realize that all the evidence that you are using to discredit the police is the stuff provided to you by the police, right? So yes I am going with “initial reports” were wrong.

Wow.