quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I did check the case.
I am not convinced that she is innocent.
However he disobeyed directions and tried to get something out of his vehical.
We don't know what he was after, but we do know he was on PCP so he was more dangerous than a man with a gun.
This may well have created a legitimate reasonable doubt.

Oh yeah, there are huge questions here... like why she didn't wait for some one to tazer the guy?

but ultimately there is enough there to imply that she and the other officers where in imminent danger, which does make the shooting justified.

There was?

To a hyper-emotional 12 year old girl, maybe.

Emotionally, you are not a grown man and never will be, so just STFU on the matter.

But apparently the required psychological profile to enter the police academy for the last 20 years or so is that they completely freak out at the slightest sensory input and start firing.

The rules have been re-written to accommodate the lower standards for street execution, and the hiring criteria to that end adjusted thuswise.

I wonder why we might be doing that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Emotionally, you are not a grown man and never will be, so just STFU on the matter.

Says the person that has to reduce to insults rather then attempting to come up with a logical or reasonable counter point.

SUV was on - that's a 2 ton vehicle, with 200 hp at the wheels and 300 ft/lbs of torque. Him getting into that vehicle in his condition is not a threat?
The suspicious behavior? the potential that the car might explode? the non-compliance of a person that might be high on PCP? None of those are threats?

how about instead of simply saying 'there is no threat' you try and explain HOW.

No evidence he was getting into the vehicle. If he did, then there might be justification for shooting. If he could get the car started and drive straight. Shit, he couldn't even walk straight.

And exploding car? Really? Where did that come from? From what part of your disoriented imagination? You lost a lot of credibility with that overreach.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yarashii1

You are right. Hindsight makes everything clearer. In real time, she saw no weapon. She was probably justifiably scared. Being scared is understandable but it is not justification for shooting someone. She may have suspected a weapon or a bomb but suspicion does not justify lethal action. You don't have to trust me on this. NONE of the other officers there were so terrified. They were in the exact same situation she was.

I could recount the series of events to prove just how out of line her reaction was but if we are going to disregard facts because they are "hindsight" we are still led back to the simple result. She used lethal force when it was not necessary. Fear is not justification. If you cannot judge them on hindsight, how can you judge them? Real time, a professional shot an unarmed civilian. The professional obviously made an understandable mistake. The profession was not held to a standard that most amateurs would be held to. Real-time there was NO immediate threat of serious harm to anyone. Lethal force was not justified. If we, as Americans, now feel that lethal force is justifiable for misdemeanors, I will support that. I am a law and order person. If police can make these mistakes real-time and not be held accountable regardless of hindsight proof, we must admit that we live in a police state. If you, however, believe in law and order, you have to agree that those same laws must apply to those who enforce the law.

Cops do not and cannot play by the same rules as the rest of us.
For example non officers are not expected to put themselves in harms way.

Shelby could have taken cover behind Crutcher's vehicle. Officers are not expected to put themselves in harm's way as you allege, if there are alternatives. And there were alternatives. But she panicked, clearly.

Ok vincent. Even if she panicked... what does that have to do with the fact that the guy was black?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Emotionally, you are not a grown man and never will be, so just STFU on the matter.

Says the person that has to reduce to insults rather then attempting to come up with a logical or reasonable counter point.

SUV was on - that's a 2 ton vehicle, with 200 hp at the wheels and 300 ft/lbs of torque. Him getting into that vehicle in his condition is not a threat?
The suspicious behavior? the potential that the car might explode? the non-compliance of a person that might be high on PCP? None of those are threats?

how about instead of simply saying 'there is no threat' you try and explain HOW.

Theree is the implication that she was wrong because the other officers didn't see him as being high, to bad the corenor found PCP in his system which means that her assessment of the situation was the best one there.

The PCP in his system does not automatically make him dangerous. Where is that written? It simply makes his behavior irrational. Being irrational is not an invitation for blue cap assassination in America. If Shelby was taught how to recognize PCP or any other erratic behavior I would bet she was given protocol on how to deal with it. I doubt she was following that protocol. She lost her composure and needlessly took the life of another human being. Unless of course it is your position that being under the influence of a drug, acting weird from alcohol, or being mentally deranged, all without a weapon, is just cause and license to be shot dead in the street like a rabid dog. Is that your position, mister? Hey???

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

If he was high on pcp the tazer would.t affect him.
For someone who pretends to know so much about these things I am amazed you didn't know that.
Don't forget the coroner said he was high on PCP and you have already (in the op) said he was high.

No, she said through her lawyer that Crutcher was high on PCP. That was her judgment. He showed no weapon. The window to his car was closed. Shelby panicked and took away the life of a man who was no threat to anyone. That is simply not justifiable. It took the jury nine hours to convince themselves otherwise with a tape of the event at their disposal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TthfvZzN40U
Man high on PCP is continually tasered and still manages to beat a female officer half to death.
While being Tazered.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/09/08/shock-video-man-high-on-pcp-tasered-twice-hit-with-a-baton-and-pepper-sprayed-and-police-say-it-had-no-effect/
A man high on PCP who continues to act belligerently and cohesively despite being Tasered and Pepper Sprayed multiple times.

PCP is a powerful drug.
Simply suspecting it in an individual is technically acceptable grounds for an escalation of the use of force, as it is medically proven that those on PCP are unpredictable, very powerful, highly violent, and capable of resisting traditional non-lethal devices - making them a viable threat to those around them. Yeah he may of not had a weapon... but if you locked yourself in a room with an unrestrained person high on PCP... see how long he remains as 'no threat'.

Sometimes, a person on PCP may not be effectively stopped with a taser. Can you show that this is ALWAYS the case?

Here are the numbers as I see it (so yes, it just makes it my opinion). There were four cops lined up against one "bad dude". If one of those four cops had deployed a taser, and it didn't work, then there would have still been three cops with standard firearms as backup. I know this thread is about one cop in particular. But if the group had used different tactics, maybe she would not have panicked, and the "bad dude' would still be alive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Emotionally, you are not a grown man and never will be, so just STFU on the matter.

Says the person that has to reduce to insults rather then attempting to come up with a logical or reasonable counter point.

SUV was on - that's a 2 ton vehicle, with 200 hp at the wheels and 300 ft/lbs of torque. Him getting into that vehicle in his condition is not a threat?
The suspicious behavior? the potential that the car might explode? the non-compliance of a person that might be high on PCP? None of those are threats?

how about instead of simply saying 'there is no threat' you try and explain HOW.

Theree is the implication that she was wrong because the other officers didn't see him as being high, to bad the corenor found PCP in his system which means that her assessment of the situation was the best one there.

The PCP in his system does not automatically make him dangerous. Where is that written? It simply makes his behavior irrational. Being irrational is not an invitation for blue cap assassination in America. If Shelby was taught how to recognize PCP or any other erratic behavior I would bet she was given protocol on how to deal with it. I doubt she was following that protocol. She lost her composure and needlessly took the life of another human being. Unless of course it is your position that being under the influence of a drug, acting weird from alcohol, or being mentally deranged, all without a weapon, is just cause and license to be shot dead in the street like a rabid dog. Is that your position, mister? Hey???

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Emotionally, you are not a grown man and never will be, so just STFU on the matter.

Says the person that has to reduce to insults rather then attempting to come up with a logical or reasonable counter point.

SUV was on - that's a 2 ton vehicle, with 200 hp at the wheels and 300 ft/lbs of torque. Him getting into that vehicle in his condition is not a threat?
The suspicious behavior? the potential that the car might explode? the non-compliance of a person that might be high on PCP? None of those are threats?

how about instead of simply saying 'there is no threat' you try and explain HOW.

Theree is the implication that she was wrong because the other officers didn't see him as being high, to bad the corenor found PCP in his system which means that her assessment of the situation was the best one there.

The PCP in his system does not automatically make him dangerous. Where is that written? It simply makes his behavior irrational. Being irrational is not an invitation for blue cap assassination in America. If Shelby was taught how to recognize PCP or any other erratic behavior I would bet she was given protocol on how to deal with it. I doubt she was following that protocol. She lost her composure and needlessly took the life of another human being. Unless of course it is your position that being under the influence of a drug, acting weird from alcohol, or being mentally deranged, all without a weapon, is just cause and license to be shot dead in the street like a rabid dog. Is that your position, mister? Hey???

You would bet she was told what to do, there are to things you do know
1 If she was and
2 what she was told
You "doubt she was following protocol
A Just a wag on your part
B You don't even know what it was.
You pretend that the only evidence he was on PCP was her accusation when you
know (or should know) that this was confirmed by the coroner.

As for the rest of you post it is tipical of your attempts to brand anyone who diagres with you as a raist monster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I did check the case.
I am not convinced that she is innocent.
However he disobeyed directions and tried to get something out of his vehical.
We don't know what he was after, but we do know he was on PCP so he was more dangerous than a man with a gun.
This may well have created a legitimate reasonable doubt.

Oh yeah, there are huge questions here... like why she didn't wait for some one to tazer the guy?

but ultimately there is enough there to imply that she and the other officers where in imminent danger, which does make the shooting justified.

There was?

To a hyper-emotional 12 year old girl, maybe.

Emotionally, you are not a grown man and never will be, so just STFU on the matter.

But apparently the required psychological profile to enter the police academy for the last 20 years or so is that they completely freak out at the slightest sensory input and start firing.

The rules have been re-written to accommodate the lower standards for street execution, and the hiring criteria to that end adjusted thuswise.

I wonder why we might be doing that.

In case you ever need a job, tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yarashii1

You are right. Hindsight makes everything clearer. In real time, she saw no weapon. She was probably justifiably scared. Being scared is understandable but it is not justification for shooting someone. She may have suspected a weapon or a bomb but suspicion does not justify lethal action. You don't have to trust me on this. NONE of the other officers there were so terrified. They were in the exact same situation she was.

I could recount the series of events to prove just how out of line her reaction was but if we are going to disregard facts because they are "hindsight" we are still led back to the simple result. She used lethal force when it was not necessary. Fear is not justification. If you cannot judge them on hindsight, how can you judge them? Real time, a professional shot an unarmed civilian. The professional obviously made an understandable mistake. The profession was not held to a standard that most amateurs would be held to. Real-time there was NO immediate threat of serious harm to anyone. Lethal force was not justified. If we, as Americans, now feel that lethal force is justifiable for misdemeanors, I will support that. I am a law and order person. If police can make these mistakes real-time and not be held accountable regardless of hindsight proof, we must admit that we live in a police state. If you, however, believe in law and order, you have to agree that those same laws must apply to those who enforce the law.

Cops do not and cannot play by the same rules as the rest of us.
For example non officers are not expected to put themselves in harms way.

Shelby could have taken cover behind Crutcher's vehicle. Officers are not expected to put themselves in harm's way as you allege, if there are alternatives. And there were alternatives. But she panicked, clearly.

Ok vincent. Even if she panicked... what does that have to do with the fact that the guy was black?

I thought you'd never ask, tamaka. Research with a test called the Weapons Identification Task helps us understand that many people carry a stronger IMPLICIT racism than do others.

At NYU, David Amodio sat me down to take another test called the Weapons Identification Task. I had no idea what I was in for.

In this test, like on the IAT, you have two buttons that you can push. Images flash rapidly on the screen, and your task is to push the left shift key if you see a tool (a wrench, or a power drill, say) and the right shift key if you see a gun. You have to go super fast—if you don't respond within half a second, the screen blares at you, in giant red letters, "TOO SLOW."

"It does that to keep you from thinking too much," Amodio would later explain.

But it's not just guns and tools flashing on the screen: Before each object you see a face, either white or black. The faces appear for a split second, the objects for a split second, and then you have to press a key. If you are faster and more accurate at identifying guns after you see a black face than after you see a white face, that would suggest your brain associates guns (and threat) more with the former. You might also be more inclined to wrongly think you see a gun, when it's actually just a tool, right after seeing a black face. (The weapons task was created by psychologist Keith Payne of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in response to the tragic 1999 death of Amadou Diallo, a Guinean immigrant shot by New York City police after the officers mistook the wallet in his hand for a weapon.)

I'm sorry to ruin the suspense: I don't know what my score was on the Weapons Identification Task. The test ruffled me so much that I messed up badly. It is stressful to have to answer quickly to avoid being rebuked by the game. And it's even more upsetting to realize that you've just "seen" a gun that wasn't actually there, right after a black face flashed.

The Science of Why Cops Shoot Young Black Men

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You mean that someone is coming at you, you half to choose between two weapons, one sometimes doesn't stop them and the other frequently doesn't you would choose the less effective one. You are saying that unless there is a gaurentee that the tazer will not work you should take your chanses, sounds good but get real.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yarashii1

You are right. Hindsight makes everything clearer. In real time, she saw no weapon. She was probably justifiably scared. Being scared is understandable but it is not justification for shooting someone. She may have suspected a weapon or a bomb but suspicion does not justify lethal action. You don't have to trust me on this. NONE of the other officers there were so terrified. They were in the exact same situation she was.

I could recount the series of events to prove just how out of line her reaction was but if we are going to disregard facts because they are "hindsight" we are still led back to the simple result. She used lethal force when it was not necessary. Fear is not justification. If you cannot judge them on hindsight, how can you judge them? Real time, a professional shot an unarmed civilian. The professional obviously made an understandable mistake. The profession was not held to a standard that most amateurs would be held to. Real-time there was NO immediate threat of serious harm to anyone. Lethal force was not justified. If we, as Americans, now feel that lethal force is justifiable for misdemeanors, I will support that. I am a law and order person. If police can make these mistakes real-time and not be held accountable regardless of hindsight proof, we must admit that we live in a police state. If you, however, believe in law and order, you have to agree that those same laws must apply to those who enforce the law.

Cops do not and cannot play by the same rules as the rest of us.
For example non officers are not expected to put themselves in harms way.

Shelby could have taken cover behind Crutcher's vehicle. Officers are not expected to put themselves in harm's way as you allege, if there are alternatives. And there were alternatives. But she panicked, clearly.

Ok vincent. Even if she panicked... what does that have to do with the fact that the guy was black?

I thought you'd never ask, tamaka. Research with a test called the Weapons Identification Task helps us understand that many people carry a stronger IMPLICIT racism than do others.

At NYU, David Amodio sat me down to take another test called the Weapons Identification Task. I had no idea what I was in for.

In this test, like on the IAT, you have two buttons that you can push. Images flash rapidly on the screen, and your task is to push the left shift key if you see a tool (a wrench, or a power drill, say) and the right shift key if you see a gun. You have to go super fast—if you don't respond within half a second, the screen blares at you, in giant red letters, "TOO SLOW."

"It does that to keep you from thinking too much," Amodio would later explain.

But it's not just guns and tools flashing on the screen: Before each object you see a face, either white or black. The faces appear for a split second, the objects for a split second, and then you have to press a key. If you are faster and more accurate at identifying guns after you see a black face than after you see a white face, that would suggest your brain associates guns (and threat) more with the former. You might also be more inclined to wrongly think you see a gun, when it's actually just a tool, right after seeing a black face. (The weapons task was created by psychologist Keith Payne of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in response to the tragic 1999 death of Amadou Diallo, a Guinean immigrant shot by New York City police after the officers mistook the wallet in his hand for a weapon.)

I'm sorry to ruin the suspense: I don't know what my score was on the Weapons Identification Task. The test ruffled me so much that I messed up badly. It is stressful to have to answer quickly to avoid being rebuked by the game. And it's even more upsetting to realize that you've just "seen" a gun that wasn't actually there, right after a black face flashed.

The Science of Why Cops Shoot Young Black Men

That doesn't have any correlation to what happened. I see what you are trying to say but it doesn't play here. Did she feel more threatened because he was black? Maybe. I would think it was because he was acting the way that he was acting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You mean that someone is coming at you, you half to choose between two weapons, one sometimes doesn't stop them and the other frequently doesn't you would choose the less effective one. You are saying that unless there is a gaurentee that the tazer will not work you should take your chanses, sounds good but get real.

He wasn't "coming at" anyone at the time. You are the one that needs to "get real". Also, there wouldn't have been any choosing between the two. If both were available, and if lethal weapons were trained on the "bad dude" 3 to 1 over non-lethal, it wouldn't have been an "if/or" situation. It would have been a simple matter of trying the less lethal method first instead of just choosing to execute the guy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You mean that someone is coming at you, you half to choose between two weapons, one sometimes doesn't stop them and the other frequently doesn't you would choose the less effective one. You are saying that unless there is a gaurentee that the tazer will not work you should take your chanses, sounds good but get real.

He wasn't "coming at" anyone at the time. You are the one that needs to "get real". Also, there wouldn't have been any choosing between the two. If both were available, and if lethal weapons were trained on the "bad dude" 3 to 1 over non-lethal, it wouldn't have been an "if/or" situation. It would have been a simple matter of trying the less lethal method first instead of just choosing to execute the guy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Simply suspecting it [PCP] in an individual is technically acceptable grounds for an escalation of the use of force,

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

If black lives mattered so much - then why is it that a predominant number of black homicides are perpetrated by other blacks?
Also - considering that Blacks perpetraters account for over ~50% of the homicides per year... that means blacks also kill more whites on average too.

What's more - while there is an estimate of ~1000 lethal shootings by police each year in 2016 specifically - there where roughly 260 blacks lethally shot by police officers...
so what is that other 740? Well, ~500 of them are whites... So shouldn't we be more concerned about the Whites as they are killed at roughly twice the rate then blacks by police?


I find it some what saddening that MLK's dream continues to go on unrealized, not because of white oppression, but because of BLM.

By your numbers to be racially equal there would need to be over 2000 whites killed by cops. there being 8 times as many whites as there are blacks.

Law enforcement as a rule is being allowed to shoot first (even kill) and ask questions later.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yarashii1

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I would agree that cops are risking their lives every day to deal with thugs, criminals and junkies for us. Are there a few bad apples, sure.. such is the nature of humanity.

I too would like to support the overall police efforts. I agree they signed up for a dangerous job. A job to bring people to justice. Not a job to dispense justice. This particular guy we are talking about today was guilty of 2 misdemeanors. Very minor and could have been handled with slaps on the wrist or fines. No other cop on-scene was of the mindset that lethal force was needed. Yet here you are not only defending the cops actions but somehow throwing this guy into a bin of "thugs, criminals, and junkies". The problem for some people is that what they saw was a thug, criminal, or junkie. They didn't see a man in distress, a citizen who needed help. You may be a racist but I don't know you well enough to make that judgment so I will not call you one. The fact of the matter is that some people see black men, especially ones of his complexion and stature and conclude that he is somehow a danger to society.

Also lest we not forget; thugs, criminals, and junkies are hazards of their jobs but their job is to keep the peace and do so by placing the unruly and dangerous into custody and bringing them for their day in court. There may have been better ways to do it. The BLM argument: If the guy had been a 20-year-old white girl doing exactly the same thing, the public outrage would have been a bit more serious. We see black people getting shot and we say "what did that thug do?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yarashii1

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I would agree that cops are risking their lives every day to deal with thugs, criminals and junkies for us. Are there a few bad apples, sure.. such is the nature of humanity.

I too would like to support the overall police efforts. I agree they signed up for a dangerous job. A job to bring people to justice. Not a job to dispense justice. This particular guy we are talking about today was guilty of 2 misdemeanors. Very minor and could have been handled with slaps on the wrist or fines. No other cop on-scene was of the mindset that lethal force was needed. Yet here you are not only defending the cops actions but somehow throwing this guy into a bin of "thugs, criminals, and junkies". The problem for some people is that what they saw was a thug, criminal, or junkie. They didn't see a man in distress, a citizen who needed help. You may be a racist but I don't know you well enough to make that judgment so I will not call you one. The fact of the matter is that some people see black men, especially ones of his complexion and stature and conclude that he is somehow a danger to society.

Also lest we not forget; thugs, criminals, and junkies are hazards of their jobs but their job is to keep the peace and do so by placing the unruly and dangerous into custody and bringing them for their day in court. There may have been better ways to do it. The BLM argument: If the guy had been a 20-year-old white girl doing exactly the same thing, the public outrage would have been a bit more serious. We see black people getting shot and we say "what did that thug do?"

If it had been a white person there would have been little outrage because there would have been little coverage.
Google white people getting shot by the police and you get stories about the police killing blacks.
From the press coverage white lives don't matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Simply suspecting it [PCP] in an individual is technically acceptable grounds for an escalation of the use of force,

So now, mere 'suspicion' of something is grounds for use of lethal response.

The fact that it's in the nature of the job for police to suspect everything to begin with . . .

You've explained yourself quite well, here.

And yet we waste all this money on the courts and legal system.