I never thought you were possibly an unkind and inhumane person before this post – I always thought you were just a good guy who really thought about things differently than me. I’m sad to see that I might have been wrong. 
Well, doesn’t that at least undermine the notion that this is all a police cover-up?
A bad Terry stop is not a reason to fire a cop, but can you please provide a link to the case where a cop admits to planting evidence on video and got to keep his job? Because that sounds pretty bad without knowing more.
I don’t inherently trust cops any more than anyone else. I give them the EXACT SAME benefits of the doubt that I give to ordinary citizens with the understanding that they have police powers and no duty to retreat (or de-escalate as some people like to call it). So yes I give the cops the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You seem to want cops to be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Ohio is the only state where self defense is an affirmative defense and Terence Crutcher was tasered in Oklahoma. I have had to get used to THAT new reality after the Treyvon Martin case made it clear that the law has changed since my law school days.
I am making reasonable assumption based on the video. I guess YMMV but from what I can tell, it is VERY unlikely that the cops were not screaming orders at Terence Crutcher to get down or to stop where he is. And that unlikelihood is enough to create a reasonable doubt that the cop that tasered him was engaging in police brutality.
That is retarded and offensive. I presume innocence until guilt is proven but I don’t assume that rape accusations are lies. IIRC I got hammered on the Duke rape allegations AND the UVA rape allegation because I was too quick and willing to believe rape allegations. So if anything I have been wrong in being overly willing to believe rape allegation.
As a minority I am familiar with the many faces of racism and while most of it real and sometimes people bring race into conversations where it does not belong. And other times, things that seem like racism prove to be the result of socioeconomic variables that can be traced back to historical racism but is not the result of current racism.
Who lied in a manner that is damaging to credibility?
You’re wrong. I am being neutral, you are on a witch hunt. You are practically requiring that police prove their innocence rather than putting forward the effort to prove their guilt. That is not how our justice system works. You sound more like an angry vigilante who thinks SOMEONE’S GOT TO PAY GODDAMIT!!!
Obstructing traffic, being intoxicated while operating a vehicle are two things that come to mind.
Both of these are sufficient to warrant a terry stop.
I was responding directly to Shodan who said the victim was headed to his car where he might have a weapon. So I was protesting the shooting.
Of course it was. Its also known as making excuses for rioting. You don’t like being called a rioter? Don’t riot.
Truth hurts sometimes. You’ll get over it.
No, why would I be mad. I am sad that a guy got killed because a trigger happy cop shot a suspect that wasn’t following directions.
AFAICT, the only people who are mad are the BLM rioters (looters don’t seem quite as mad, just criminal) and some of the people on this board who insist that police must be presumed guilty until proven innocent. AFAICT, the only people who are mad are the people who think that any criticism of BLM means that I must be a racist or something.
Tasers require that you be fairly close to the subject before tasering, most likely well within range to be charged at and stabbed before you can fire it. Additionally, tasering doesn’t always have an effect, especially on drug-addled maniacs, of which this guy was one, meaning the officer would still be within range and stab-able after firing the taser.
So for all the times in which knife-wielders were tased (or otherwise dealt with non-lethally), the cops were wrong and should have shot them?
Unless the guy was shooting at the officers while they were driving up, I don’t know how you defend that. Even then I’d probably say the cops should stop and get behind cover and shoot him rather than try to run him over.
Yeah not good enough. Reports of an armed suspect are not enough to shoot them on sight or run them over as soon as you get to the scene.
If a civilian can’t kill him in that situation, then neither can a cop. The only time I think a cop might get a little more leeway is when they are acting in the defense of others but even then you need a clear and imminent threat.
Shodan says I’m stupid for questioning the attempted-running-over and successful shooting.
I don’t get how someone can be so certain about these kinds of things.
What directions?
Shodan, what are your feelings about the Walter Scott and Sean Groubert shootings?
I just wonder when you think it’s not “stupid” to be concerned or questioning about a police involved shooting (or other incident).
See, here’s the problem: the police cause riots. I have observed it. They find themselves very uncomfortable having to deal with large protest marches, especially unscheduled ones that have not been orchestrated with permits and paperwork. So they show up in riot gear, raising the overall tension of the situation. Then one officer gets mad at one of the marchers, gets into an altercation, and that sets off the flying tear gas canisters, flash-bangs and general mayhem. Most protesters typically do not want to get caught up in a riot, but having a riot makes it much easier for the police to act in the manner they are familiar with.
And how many times were those? Were the cops who did so acting according to their training? Were there specific circumstances involved that would make tasering less of a threat to others than gunfire? Etc., etc.
And how were these knife-wielders dealt with non-lethally? My guess would be that they eventually dropped the knife rather than being shot.
As far as the use of the car, seems to me the cops decided to use it as armor to bring down a fleeing suspect who had a knife rather than trying to tackle him and sustain stabbings themselves. Makes sense to me.
And they likely knew from radio transmissions that the guy had already assaulted the first pair of officers, was running away, was dangerous, and was determined to continue to be…wait for it…non-compliant.
So, you are able to differentiate someone being “drug-addled” vs being mentally ill?
If they are so flippant, why didn’t they just shoot him, or run him over, the instant they arrived on the scene four minutes after the first pair? Answer: because Mann ran away, thus demonstrating that de-escalation wasn’t working, and Mann was fleeing the scene, thus presenting a danger to the public.
Did you happen to read the quote I cited, about the drivers of other stopped vehicles, and pedestrians, on the busy thoroughfare along which Mr. Mann was attempting to flee?
I would phrase it as saying that I am at least as certain that using lethal force to stop a drug-addled maniac with a knife is appropriate as you are that saying “fuck this guy” and “I’m going to run him over” demonstrates a callous eagerness to kill or injure. Especially after de-escalation has been shown not to work.
Sure, there’s a chance. Do you have any facts to indicate this, to counter the facts that indicate otherwise?
Is it the video that shows other pedestrians and drivers being endangered? Is the audio that indicates, albeit crudely, that the two cops recognize that attempts at a hands-off, stay-in-the-car-and-give-orders approach hadn’t worked? Is it Mr. Mann’s history of mental illness? Is it the toxicology report showing that he had been using meth? Is it the fact that he had a knife?
It’s the Pit. If you can’t handle snark, go off to GD.
Although I stand by my assertion - claiming a meth-head maniac with a knife charging thru the streets isn’t an imminent danger is stupid.
Regards,
Shodan
There is no need for such a differentiation - Mann was both.
Regards,
Shodan
“Very sad life. Probably have very sad death. But, at least there is symmetry.”
Funny thing about the video: the suspect was right next to the first police vehicle when the second one showed up. That is a really odd definition of “fleeing”.
Okay then, in that case I’ll amend my comment about radio transmission from fleeing to belligerent, assaultive, and determinedly non-compliant.