Was he armed? Did he have a gun in the car? Nope, and nope.
Black. Unarmed. Shot and killed. By police.
Exactly what I said.
No, he did not. I have seen the video. He never opened the door, and the window was up. Either the officer making the report lied or someone needs their eyes checked.
From your own cite, including the words you deliberately omitted:
(bolding mine).
So, if some drug-addled dipshit keeps reaching into his pocket, refuses to show his hands, goes back to his vehicle and refuses to stop, and the police under the stress of the situation say that he reached into his vehicle instead of for his vehicle, then it is cold-blooded murder. Gotcha.
Were you always this stupid, or did it come on gradually?
Regards,
Shodan
You believe the same police that obviously lied about him reaching into the car, so it’s not my intelligence that is in question here.
You are right. Too bad there isn’t some sort of non-lethal remedies that police could try before just opening up on an unarmed person.
Shodan, Were you always this dishonest, or did it come on gradually?
You could’ve said …"and maybe reached "… and everything would’ve been fine, but no, you decided to mislead. A smart person would’ve known that it won’t work here.
Sometimes it doesn’t fucking matter if you obey police instructions: A cop empties his weapon into a suspect that is crawling on his hands and knees as directed. The cop is acquitted, of course.
You literally left out a refuting part of the story that was the immediate next line from your source.
Personally, I consider that a lie, but while I’m not sure most would agree with that, I think generally people would agree that was a dishonest thing to do.
Why were you dishonest there?
No one who has ever read your posts has any questions about your intelligence.
Regards,
Shodan
From what I have observed, it’s the latter.
OMG, I wish I hadn’t watched that. That is disturbing to the nth degree. How the fuck was that cop acquitted? That was cold blooded murder.
That exactly illustrates how (at least sometimes) cops escalate situations instead of diffusing them. How they fail to recognize that people don’t always react as they wish when being screamed at, bullied and intimidated. That cop deserves to spend several years behind bars for murder, plain and simple. I’m almost sick after watching that.
You could at least acknowledge that you were wrong.
Suspect was shot because ‘it looked like he was going for a gun’. He ‘looked like he was going for a gun’ because his pants were falling down. His pants were falling down because they were loose fitting AND he was crawling on his hands and knees.
Having trouble understanding why he was instructed to crawl on his hands and knees. How could this possibly be correct procedure??? What ever happened to ‘Lay on your belly and put your hands behind your head and interlock your fingers’? Wouldn’t that be a lot safer?
Telling someone to crawl like that sounds more like ‘respect my authortah!!!’ than officer safety.
Many of the cop apologists (I can’t remember if you’ve done this so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt) often trot out the Graham condition which says that you cannot use 20/20 hindsight to judge whether a shooting is justifiable or not, and in the same breath say something like “and besides, he (the victim) was high at the time, so his actions warranted shooting.” You can’t have it both ways. If we’re only allowed to use the info the cop had prior to the shooting to judge the cops actions, then the same applies to the victim. Crutcher did not appear to be intoxicated. there was no info passed to the cop prior to the shoot that he was intoxicated. so, therefore, whether or not he actually was intoxicated is irrelevant to the shooting.
So, which is it? Are all the facts of the case relevant (ie as to whether there actually was a threat) when judging whether a shoot is good or not. or are only the facts the cop had prior to the shooting relevant?
mc
Actually, he was asked to crawl forward with hands over his head and legs crossed.
Reed Richards would have had trouble trying that one.
I would like to see the cop attempt that. In court. While being screamed at with a rifle aimed at him.
The police could tell from the helicopter that he was on something, and one of the officers had been trained in spotting drug abusers.
So yes, all of the facts of the case are relevant. The distinction between “he appeared to be on drugs, refused to stop or show his hands, kept reaching for his pocket, and veered off and reached into his car window” and he appeared to be on drugs, refused to stop or show his hands, kept reaching for his pocket, and veered off and reached towards his car window" - probably not so much.
The fact that he was intoxicated is relevant. “They shot him for no reason” vs. “they shot him because he was acting erratic and threatening” - that he was high on drugs makes the first less likely and the second more.
Regards,
Shodan
I would really love to see some proof of this. From a helicopter somebody can tell if you are intoxicated on PCP? :dubious: