On the other hand, if you want to use things that we know now, he did not have a gun and was probably not a serious danger to anyone. Heads everyone loses, tails everyone else loses.
“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?”
How many times does this need repeating? When judging the officers actions one may only consider what he reasonably believed the circumstances to be at the time. Not only that, its not what you or someone else would believe or do but what an officer with similar training and experience would believe and do.
So the toxicology report is completely irrelevant, as they did not have access to it at the time, correct?
We have far more advanced and dangerous detached shower fixtures.
Too subjective. Since cops have demonstrated terrible judgement regarding threat levels, just limit them to firing when fired upon.
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. Do you just maybe think the “similar training and experience” might be part of the problem? And that using a (mis)trained officer as the yardstick might not be as fair as using the “reasonable man” benchmark?
One cop thought a tazing would be good enough. Another one thought shooting the guy was necessary. Which one was right?
So, if a person is unarmed and black there are no circumstances that would warrant deadly force being used?
manson - You are the one who asserted the window was up. Where is your proof of this? Show me the video or picture (or testimony) that’s shows it is up all the way. I’ll be waiting.
What about another cop who was there? His training and experience made him believe that a tazing might be good enough. Was there additional information the other cop on site had that made her believe and do something different?
Did I? That’s news to me. Please quote the post where I assert the window was up. I’ll be waiting.
Being black should be irrelevant. As for being unarmed, do you mean not holding a gun or knife or pipe or chain or anything like that? Then I would say using deadly force should be down the list of options after conversation, pepper spray, taser, baton and perhaps other techniques I am unaware of.
What if the person is armed with a flat white iPhone?
edited to add: …and he is actually using it??
Suppose he’s got a pointed stick?
Regards,
Shodan
At least tased for using a crappy Apple product.
No…let’s just suppose he is “armed” with what was actually in his hand, instead?
How about a swimming pool ?
Of course not, as he is apparently also made of straw.
No. that’s not what I said. what I said was that the fact that cops go-to response when confronted with erratic behavior (that could be explained by any number of factors) is to assume that the suspect is high, and further that being high automatically means they are a deadly threat is IMHO problematic. And, yes, the cops are in a tricky position - It could seem like “damned if I do, damned if I don’t.” And yes it turns out Shelby was correct, Crutcher was on PCP and TCP, but did his actions warrant deadly force? Let’s review the case. . .
There were two cops actively on the scene. Both cops (presumably) assessed that the person was acting erratic and needed to be approached with caution. Shelby “says” that she believed he was on PCP and subsequently believed that shooting was necessary. Officer Turnbough, who was standing right next to Shelby, observed the situation from the same vantage, didn’t feel that Crutcher needed shooting but used a taser instead. So, clearly, deadly force was not necessary! One cop acted appropriately, one cop didn’t!
And You didn’t ask but I’ll say anyway: The fact that one officer came to the conclusion that deadly force was necessary when clearly it wasn’t says to me that either the training the two officers received was inadequate to prepare them both for the rigors of their job or one of the the officers was not competent enough to follow her training in this situation and properly assess a significant deadly threat.
And this is completely my opinion, but I believe that Shelby did not assess Crutcher to be on PCP but used the fact that the drug was found in the car after the shooting as a ready excuse for her misinterpreting his behavior. And that might not be fair of me to come to that conclusion, but at least I’m not shooting her dead because of my unfair or inaccurate assessment.
mc
It would appear that the UK police aren’t burdened with an indifference to the value of the life of a black person. American cops, and enough American people to render this issue moot do carry this burden. It sucks to label all Amerian cops with this, but they sure do sound like a field full of crickets with their criticism of the killers, and their lack of sympathy for the loved ones of the killed.
So, in the Crutcher case the autopsy report is irrelevant, and the actual actions of “an officer with similar training and experience would believe and do” are relevant.
Shelby had no knowledge of Crutcher’s PCP use, and Turnbough, (standing right there) believed deadly force was not necessary. And yet Shelby was found not guilty of ANYTHING. Care to give your opinion on this? for mine see above
mc