quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

JURY LETTER EXPLAINS

Shelby said she thought he had a gun. She didn't have time to pull out her taser. Her partner did however.

Some jurors “could never get comfortable” with saying Shelby was blameless in the death because it appeared she could have used a Taser in the moments before Crutcher reached into the vehicle, the letter said.

“However, there was no evidence presented that her extensive training allowed such an option,” the letter said. “The jury could not, beyond a reasonable doubt, conclude that she did anything outside of her duties and training as a police officer in that situation.”

Are you fucking kidding me? She could have used a taser but her extensive training did not allow such an action. You have to be kidding me. Nine hours and they found a way to let another white cop get away with killing an unarmed black guy.

shit.

end of story.

The averaged individual takes approximately 5 seconds to make safe and holster a side arm and draw and make ready an alternative weapon, be it baton, pepper spray, or Taser. Training can shave that down to 3 seconds depending on your dexterity, but you're looking at high end competition shooters.

at 10 feet, it takes an untrained individual less then 1 second to turn, rush, and tackle you to the ground (some gun people and knife fighters like to say it is ~0.7 seconds). That 1 second opening is created the instant you holster your side arm - at which point you are completely unarmed and it will take you over 1 second to draw and bring to bare any weapon you have on your position. The average draw time for a trained individual is ~1.5 seconds, again becoming shorter if you heavily train with it to competition levels.

So, unless if you're going to say she had Olympic Athlete level of reaction time and dexterity, the ability to holster and draw an alternative weapon was simply not a viable option during the period of time she was alone which is the window of time in which she would of viably tasered the suspect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

A. When they got the call it said he had rigged the car to explode so they didn't make it up.
B. PCP doesn't work that way.
C Suicide bombers are usually calm.
D. You know for ba fact that he was trying to comply, did he contcat you from the "other side"?

a. should have called the bomb squad. Did they? No. Not a factor.
b. i will defer to your experience but the video was clear. His hands were empty. He dropped his arms, she panicked and fired.
c. calm? friends of yours? Did they find a bomb? NO, you silly shit. No bomb, no gun, no threat.
d. yes, he did. very disappointed. didn't get his virgins.
e. what did they talk about for nine hours? Simple case according to you lot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

Explain then, the value of your input that only one in three people accumulating bullets actually die from the experience, and relevance to the matter at hand.

Why don't you see if you can figure it out for yourself....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

It would have been a simple matter of trying the less lethal method first instead of just choosing to execute the guy.

You're going a bit over the top there, Igor. As far as I can see, she never chose to "execute" anybody. Only about one in three gunshot wounds are fatal. Absent a reason to believe that she intentionally fatally wounded him, all you can accuse her of is choosing to fire.

Take your time, it's a tough one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Why did she have her gun out at all? Other than his lack of response to her commands he made no move toward her. He walked away from her. Recall that this was a traffic situation with an erratically acting individual. At no time that Crutcher moved toward his car did he threaten anyone. What is the rational for drawing a police weapon on a citizen, white or poc, if his actions are non-threatening? Suspicion? Suspicion of what?

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Why did she have her gun out at all? Other than his lack of response to her commands he made no move toward her. He walked away from her. Recall that this was a traffic situation with an erratically acting individual. At no time that Crutcher moved toward his car did he threaten anyone. What is the rational for drawing a police weapon on a citizen, white or poc, if his actions are non-threatening? Suspicion? Suspicion of what?

He placed his hands in his pockets several times, despite being told by Shelby to not. Glock makes a .357 caliber compact handgun capable of fitting in one's pocket (Glock 33) this fire arm can shoot rounds which can defeat the police issued body armor. By placing his hands in his pockets with out it being confirmed that he was unarmed is a threatening action, and Shelby reacted properly by drawing her firearm.

The act of moving towards his car is against police order threatening action. Not only is it a 2 ton vehicle which has enough horsepower and torque that it could crush a human with ease, but the cabin of the vehicle is large enough to hide a weapon as large as a long rifle. Not to mention that the dispatch implied that the car was 'going to blow up' something which could be initiated by the individual if he got to the car.



Tell me - how are these actions non-threatening?
Because you're looking at this through the lens of hindsight?

I would remind you:
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (1989)

US Supreme Court Case handling the use of deadly force by police:
The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

You must judge the use of force from the perspective of the officer during the event. meaning you cannot use facts or evidence discovered afterwords as part of your argument.

quote:

The 'Bomb Squad' is not a police force. It is a specialized emergency responding force. As such - it is dependent on the police to secure the scene so that they can work. This is the same for Fire Fighters and Paramedics, those Emergency Workers are NOT Police - they are not trained nor equipped to detain or arrest a suspicious individuals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Why did she have her gun out at all? Other than his lack of response to her commands he made no move toward her. He walked away from her. Recall that this was a traffic situation with an erratically acting individual. At no time that Crutcher moved toward his car did he threaten anyone. What is the rational for drawing a police weapon on a citizen, white or poc, if his actions are non-threatening? Suspicion? Suspicion of what?

He placed his hands in his pockets several times, despite being told by Shelby to not. Glock makes a .357 caliber compact handgun capable of fitting in one's pocket (Glock 33) this fire arm can shoot rounds which can defeat the police issued body armor. By placing his hands in his pockets with out it being confirmed that he was unarmed is a threatening action, and Shelby reacted properly by drawing her firearm.

The act of moving towards his car is against police order threatening action. Not only is it a 2 ton vehicle which has enough horsepower and torque that it could crush a human with ease, but the cabin of the vehicle is large enough to hide a weapon as large as a long rifle. Not to mention that the dispatch implied that the car was 'going to blow up' something which could be initiated by the individual if he got to the car.



Tell me - how are these actions non-threatening?
Because you're looking at this through the lens of hindsight?

I would remind you:
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (1989)

US Supreme Court Case handling the use of deadly force by police:
The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

You must judge the use of force from the perspective of the officer during the event. meaning you cannot use facts or evidence discovered afterwords as part of your argument.

I understand and appreciate Graham v. Conner. She could have tasered him at any time he began moving toward his car while refusing her order. There was another cop next to her. He could have drawn his gun in anticipation that the taser might not be effective. The car does not become a weapon until there is a driver inside. If there was fear of a bomb the bomb squad would have been there. You are making shit up in defense of taking the life of a confused but basically non-threatening human being. Pretty shameful.

quote:

You are trying to make the connection that an individual about to do something aggressive will show physical outliers which betray their intent.... but this is incorrect. Suicide Bombers show no sign of emotion just before they detonate a bomb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so wasting someone out of 'fear' is SOP for officer training.

I have to laugh, the vehicle was supposedly set to explode and the cops are only a couple feet from it.

this doesnt even pass the smell test ffs

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The 'Bomb Squad' is not a police force. It is a specialized emergency responding force. As such - it is dependent on the police to secure the scene so that they can work. This is the same for Fire Fighters and Paramedics, those Emergency Workers are NOT Police - they are not trained nor equipped to detain or arrest a suspicious individuals.

True enough, but the fact they were never mentioned indicates clearly there was no serious concern of a bomb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so wasting someone out of 'fear' is SOP for officer training.

I have to laugh, the vehicle was supposedly set to explode and the cops are only a couple feet from it.

this doesnt even pass the smell test ffs

I agree, RO. It is preposterous. It is amazing how citizens will defend the action of authorities even when it is stupid and accelerates the situation. The additional police could have surrounded the car and taken him out if he got into it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

You are trying to make the connection that an individual about to do something aggressive will show physical outliers which betray their intent.... but this is incorrect. Suicide Bombers show no sign of emotion just before they detonate a bomb.

Her lawyer informs us that she had already judged him to be on PCP or some other drug. Why would she even get up close without sufficient support? Clearly, if that was her judgment she should have waited for further police assistance. You can see in the video she completely ignores the other police who had just arrived on the scene and continues to demand obedience to her authority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Why did she have her gun out at all? Other than his lack of response to her commands he made no move toward her. He walked away from her. Recall that this was a traffic situation with an erratically acting individual. At no time that Crutcher moved toward his car did he threaten anyone. What is the rational for drawing a police weapon on a citizen, white or poc, if his actions are non-threatening? Suspicion? Suspicion of what?

He placed his hands in his pockets several times, despite being told by Shelby to not. Glock makes a .357 caliber compact handgun capable of fitting in one's pocket (Glock 33) this fire arm can shoot rounds which can defeat the police issued body armor. By placing his hands in his pockets with out it being confirmed that he was unarmed is a threatening action, and Shelby reacted properly by drawing her firearm.

The act of moving towards his car is against police order threatening action. Not only is it a 2 ton vehicle which has enough horsepower and torque that it could crush a human with ease, but the cabin of the vehicle is large enough to hide a weapon as large as a long rifle. Not to mention that the dispatch implied that the car was 'going to blow up' something which could be initiated by the individual if he got to the car.



Tell me - how are these actions non-threatening?
Because you're looking at this through the lens of hindsight?

I would remind you:
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (1989)

US Supreme Court Case handling the use of deadly force by police:
The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

You must judge the use of force from the perspective of the officer during the event. meaning you cannot use facts or evidence discovered afterwords as part of your argument.

I understand and appreciate Graham v. Conner. She could have tasered him at any time he began moving toward his car while refusing her order. There was another cop next to her. He could have drawn his gun in anticipation that the taser might not be effective. The car does not become a weapon until there is a driver inside. If there was fear of a bomb the bomb squad would have been there. You are making shit up in defense of taking the life of a confused but basically non-threatening human being. Pretty shameful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

You are trying to make the connection that an individual about to do something aggressive will show physical outliers which betray their intent.... but this is incorrect. Suicide Bombers show no sign of emotion just before they detonate a bomb.

Her lawyer informs us that she had already judged him to be on PCP or some other drug. Why would she even get up close without sufficient support? Clearly, if that was her judgment she should have waited for further police assistance. You can see in the video she completely ignores the other police who had just arrived on the scene and continues to demand obedience to her authority.

And yet you have stated a dozen times that she was in a state of panic.

quote:

Using a tazer against someone on PCP is like throwing a Hershy bar at them, at best it is a waste of time, how many times do you need to have this explained to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so wasting someone out of 'fear' is SOP for officer training.

I have to laugh, the vehicle was supposedly set to explode and the cops are only a couple feet from it.

this doesnt even pass the smell test ffs

I agree, RO. It is preposterous. It is amazing how citizens will defend the action of authorities even when it is stupid and accelerates the situation. The additional police could have surrounded the car and taken him out if he got into it.

Because they would be strong enough to keep the car from moving , yeah right.