http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/us/oklahoma-tulsa-police-shooting/index.html

I've been following this for a couple days. Seems to me like the cop really fucked up.
Apparently her boss also finds the shooting disturbing.

"Fucked up" is the most merciful way it could be put for her. She flat out murdered him. It's infuriating. She must be charged.

I'm not defending her actions. I'm trying to figure out why he appears to have been treated like a high level threat, when the narrative emerging from his community is that he was just a stranded motorist waiting for help. That story doesn't match up with his refusal to follow commands, or their defensive handling of the situation. I've not read any details that add clarity as of yet.

I'm not defending her actions. I'm trying to figure out why he appears to have been treated like a high level threat, when the narrative emerging from his community is that he was just a stranded motorist waiting for help. That story doesn't match up with his refusal to follow commands, or their defensive handling of the situation. I've not read any details that add clarity as of yet.

Clarity.

That would be nice before we lash-out at all cops.

I can understand why he would just walk away.

We have basically no details, but social media is already flooded with BarryP style complaints about how people are upset about Kaepernick but don't care about cops killing innocent men.

I've read that they not be restored an open window not his waistband.

A big problem with her decision to shoot is an officer right next to her used his taser instead.

Ignoring officers commands is not a reason to kill someone.

We have basically no details, but social media is already flooded with BarryP style complaints about how people are upset about Kaepernick but don't care about cops killing innocent men.

It is not very clear why they even felt the need to tase him.

Because he wasn't complying with their orders, and instead walked back to his car and tried to get back inside. (I watched the video again, and it's hard to say, but it looks like rather than reaching for his waistband, he was trying to open the car door. Which might be consistent with the cops' claim that he reached in through the window afterwards.)

When you have a couple of cops with their weapons pointed at you and you don't do what they're telling you to do, getting tased is about the least you can expect. And walking back to your car in that situation is a huge red flag for cops- let alone trying to open the door or reach in the window. They have no idea what you have in the car, and if they've been telling you to stop, keep your hands up, get on the ground, or whatever, and instead you walk back to your car and reach in through the window, they're often going to assume that you're reaching for a weapon.

If, on the other hand, the cops in the video had their guns pointed at the guy, and were giving him verbal orders to walk back to his car and retrieve his documents, well, that's different. But that seems unlikely.

If I was inclined to Monday morning quarterback the cops' actions based on this video, I'd say their biggest mistake was not forcing him to comply before he got back to the car. As soon as he started walking back towards the driver side door, they should have tased him or taken him down to the ground. But again, I don't know what they were telling him to do right before that, and I don't know what they knew or didn't know about who or what else was in the car.

Seems to me like the cop really fucked up.

Maybe. But why not wait for the investigation rather than jumping to conclusions?

You were wanting more details in the muslim/not muslim-terrorism/not terrorism thread. Same should apply here.

We don't know what the cops said to him yet. We don't know why he was moving towards his car.

Her boss is disturbed. Ok. Why is he/she disturbed? Still no details.

I watched 2 videos of the incident and didn't see anything that warranted killing a person then offered my opinion.

See my reply to H.

The chief has more info than we do and has a problem with it. Im guessing he didn't see a reason to shoot either. I'm guessing.

See my reply to H.

The chief has more info than we do and has a problem with it. Im guessing he didn't see a reason to shoot either. I'm guessing.

Yeah, but we don't know why. If you are going to want details for bomb planters why don't you want details for cops?

The cops boss who has way more info than I do has apparently reached the same conclusion which also informs my opinion.

If Blep is quoting the chief accurately, that's not true.

Ok. You offered your opinion based on what you saw in two videos. If you were in charge of investigating the incident, what other evidence would you consider?

The Chief is quote thus:

Chuck Jordan, Tulsa's chief of police, described the footage as "very disturbing and difficult to watch."

Yes, the footage is disturbing without any other details. He did not say that he had all the details yet.

If we are going to guess, then I would say she got nervous and fired. That will happen from time to time when you train the police to protect themselves above all else. If that's the case she should be fired because she's not up for the job.

----------------------------

I have a lot of friends and family that are cops. I realize they have a difficult job and run into the dregs of society, however in my view police training methods need to be completely revamped. These are citizens of the United States, not IED carrying ISIS fighters. Too much of today's police tactics seem to have been brought back from, or executed like it is, the desert, and it is wrong. If this officer's instinct or training caused her first reaction to arriving at the scene of a stranded motorist is to pull a gun (regardless of whether someone reported the car might explode), we have some real f'in problems. What happened to the "Serve" part of Protect and Serve. She should have turned her lights on to protect HIM from getting hit by traffic and tried to help him out. If obviously agitated/upset (which we can expect people to be in most situations when police arrive) but no clear threat (he was walking slowly with his hands up), they need to de-escalate. If you really think he is a danger because he has an "exploding car" then back the hell up from it. Drawing weapons and barking commands just makes things worse. Treating every encounter with the public as a life and death situation is not the way.

There are a ton of great cops too. Unfortunately, their refusal to hold fellow cops accountable makes them pretty shitty. If cops who make mistakes or bad cops were called out by their fellow officers, there would be a lot more community trust in cops.

Bad cops are called out by their fellow officers all the time. They just don't go public with it to satisfy social media curiosity. They file their report. They cooperate with the investigation, and the let the process play out, without getting hysterical about it. In the vast majority of incidents where police are investigated internally for misconduct, it's because a fellow officer told management.

In my experience working with police, most officers view bad cops as a danger to themselves and others, and that's not something they easily tolerate. They also know that in this day, there's a good chance someone's recording what they do, and they don't want to be held accountable for not having reported or worse, falsely reporting something.

Here's another hint... if she would have put on her lights as the previous poster suggested, that would have activated her dashboard cam and we WOULD know the events that led up to the shooting...

One thing we know though is that he was shot and unarmed.

And if she as felt more threatened than ever before as she claims she was, despite several other cops around, then maybe she shouldn't be a cop in the first place?

Tulsa Police Sgt. Dave Walker confirmed to the Tulsa World (http://bit.ly/2d6cYIh ) that investigators recovered a vial of PCP in Terence Crutcher's SUV. Tulsa police officer Betty Shelby fatally shot Crutcher on Friday while responding to a report of a stalled vehicle.

One thing we know though is that he was shot and unarmed. And if she as felt more threatened than ever before as she claims she was, despite several other cops around, then maybe she shouldn't be a cop in the first place?

To the surprise of no one...

That says nothing of the appropriateness of lethal force, though, which is a separate question entirely.

Is she racist? Probably not. Is she fit to be a cop? Probably not.

The Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) program has proven successful in identifying the drug impaired driver. DREs are frequently called upon to assist fellow officers in documenting DUI cases of impaired drivers and/or to differentiate between drug influence and medical and/or mental disorders. The certified DRE in an extremely valuable tool for combating the adverse impact of drug and alcohol impaired driving. DRE School is extremely demanding. To receive certification as a DRE, two phases of training must be completed. DRE officers are encouraged to conduct evaluations for neighboring agencies to combat impaired driving issues in their area.
The following summarizes each phase.

ACADEMIC TRAINING
This phase is typically conducted over ten (10) days (80 hrs). It includes courses in physiology, vital signs, standardized field sobriety testing (SFST), as well as extensive material on each of the seven categories of the drugs of abuse. The training includes written examinations, two alcohol workshops, an SFST proficiency examination and written quizzes. Students must achieve a minimum score of 80% on the final academic examination and must demonstrate proficiency in administering SFST’s in order to progress to the certification phase.

CERTIFICATION PHASE
After successfully completing the academic portion, the DRE students must complete the certification phase. It is the student’s responsibility to complete the certification requirements within six months following the DRE school. Certification night will be setup to allow the student ample opportunity to complete the certification requirements. These requirements include: taking part in a minimum of 12 drug influence evaluations while under the supervision of a DRE instructor; identifying subjects under the influence of four (4) of the seven (7) drug categories; and attaining a 75% toxicological confirmation rate. In addition, the student must maintain a progress log, rolling log, enter data into the National DRE Data Tracking site, and submit a quality curriculum vitae (CV). Finally, the student must pass a comprehensive final knowledge examination, and obtain the written endorsement of two certified DRE instructors. The International of Chiefs of Police (IACP) is the regulating and credentialing organization for the DRE program. DRE certification is valid for two years. In order to maintain certification, DREs must conduct a minimum of four (4) evaluations within the two years, enter the evaluation into the National DRE Data Tracking site, submit an updated rolling log and current CV, and attend eight (8) hours of recertification training.

To be considered for DRE training, the applicant must meet the following required criteria:
Must have a minimum of three (3) years of service or the recommendation from a DRE Instructor.
Must be off probation with your agency.
Must be an SFST practitioner.
Must have successfully completed ARIDE (Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement) training.
Should possess a current Intoxilyzer certification.
Must have a reasonable background and experience level of making DUI arrests.

Another guy (pastor) just called for removing abortion clinics from the inner city.

This kind of thing keeps up, and BLM is going to get their wish, and be free of police in the black community.

This is what I cant wrap my head around. There are plenty of cases that give support to BLM's claims, but they insist on rallying around cases where police had every right (and justification) to shoot someone. Ferguson, Brown "hands up dont shoot" made a go at the officers weapon, Charlotte, guys hops out of car with a handgun, Cleveland, kids pulls out a realistic looking bb gun. I run in pretty racially diverse circles and the general consensus is that even though they have a legitimate cause, they completely discredit their cause by rallying around cases with false narratives.

Her attorney is live on MSNBC. He's saying she's a trained Drug Recognition Expert ("5 or 6 week training course") and was certain his behavior was consistent with PCP intoxication.

This is what I cant wrap my head around. There are plenty of cases that give support to BLM's claims, but they insist on rallying around cases where police had every right (and justification) to shoot someone. Ferguson, Brown "hands up dont shoot" made a go at the officers weapon, Charlotte, guys hops out of car with a handgun, Cleveland, kids pulls out a realistic looking bb gun. I run in pretty racially diverse circles and the general consensus is that even though they have a legitimate cause, they completely discredit their cause by rallying around cases with false narratives.

Again, not implying that she was right or wrong to fire in that instance, but I think you can appreciate the situational differences between working with drug abusers in your setting and what police officers encounter in the line of duty.

Bullets don't care about gender or BMI, and PCP abusers are notoriously dangerous individuals. She--a officer trained specifically to identify drug intoxication--believed she was dealing with an uncooperative man high on PCP (a vial was found in his possession), who was refusing to follow commands and returning to his vehicle, or reaching for his pocket, where a weapon may have been. Very, very different scenarios than what I presume you encounter drug abusers in.

I am not afraid of people.

There are times when you really should be.

The ongoing family press conference in Charlotte is something to behold. Nation of Islam guy just called for an economic boycott of white businesses in the city. Another guy (pastor) just called for removing abortion clinics from the inner city. No one is buying that a gun was retrieved from the scene.

Pretty much.

I could understand if she were alone, but that trigger finger seems a bit twitchy for the situation.

These incidents always remind me of the opening scene in Three Kings.

That's a nice theory. But it's not supported by the data.

That's an interesting theory, given how the vast majority of violence against whites is committed by other whites. It's certainly my experience, and I grew up in an overwhelmingly black neighborhood.

But I'm probably not representative of the typical white person.

The part where a black man is more likely to be shot in that situation because cops (and the rest of us, natch) are unconsciously biased against blacks.

The available data shows that blacks are, if anything, slightly less likely to be subject to lethal force than whites are when dealing with the police.

It's just the kind of situation (a split second decision) where the unconscious bias most of us in the US (including a lot of black people) have against black people gets a black man shot where somebody of another race wouldn't be.

The data is based on the rate of lethal force incidents per arrest.

But what you're saying is that you just don't buy the data we have, because we don't really know what it means, you're just pretty sure cops are biased against black people, and therefore shoot them in situations where they wouldn't shoot a white person.

OK. Why let facts get in the way of your preconceptions, after all?

sphere wrote:

You wrote this:

Quote:

It's just the kind of situation (a split second decision) where the unconscious bias most of us in the US (including a lot of black people) have against black people gets a black man shot where somebody of another race wouldn't be.

That's a pretty big assumption, one that isn't borne out by the data. I'm saying, personally, I don't have any reason to perceive blacks as more of a threat than whites, because I've never been physically victimized by a black person and am not likely to be any time soon. The same isn't true for white men, with whom I've had several violent interactions, one leading to 50+ stitches in my face.

All things being equal, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that I'd be more likely to shoot a black man than a white man, if I were a law enforcement officer. YMMV.

we have little to no insight into it or many of our other biases. So you or I or most people wouldn't have any reason to think it's the case.

I'm not sure about that at all, I'm simply saying there could be another explanation, e.g. black people getting arrested for petty stuff that white people don't get arrested for, which would dilute the situations where someone is likely to get shot.


Well, at least you're not sure about it.

There is no factual basis for your initial claim that blacks are more likely to be shot in the same situation as people of other races. Zero. The data indicates just the opposite. And whether an arrest takes place for "petty stuff" doesn't really have a whole lot of bearing on whether or not lethal force is justified. You might also want to consider the crime rate for serious and violent crimes before trying to muddy the waters by suggesting that blacks are arrested for petty stuff more often than whites.

I love these conversations, where my denial of a problem is confirmation of the existence of that problem. ;)

I am aware that people possess unconscious biases. I think it's folly to presume them to be 1) present in these instances, and 2) the deciding factor.

I'm not sure about that at all, I'm simply saying there could be another explanation, e.g. black people getting arrested for petty stuff that white people don't get arrested for, which would dilute the situations where someone is likely to get shot.


Well, at least you're not sure about it.

There is no factual basis for your initial claim that blacks are more likely to be shot in the same situation as people of other races. Zero. The data indicates just the opposite. And whether an arrest takes place for "petty stuff" doesn't really have a whole lot of bearing on whether or not lethal force is justified. You might also want to consider the crime rate for serious and violent crimes before trying to muddy the waters by suggesting that blacks are arrested for petty stuff more often than whites.

This is what I cant wrap my head around. There are plenty of cases that give support to BLM's claims, but they insist on rallying around cases where police had every right (and justification) to shoot someone. Ferguson, Brown "hands up dont shoot" made a go at the officers weapon, Charlotte, guys hops out of car with a handgun, Cleveland, kids pulls out a realistic looking bb gun. I run in pretty racially diverse circles and the general consensus is that even though they have a legitimate cause, they completely discredit their cause by rallying around cases with false narratives.

Yeah, but we don't know why. If you are going to want details for bomb planters why don't you want details for cops?

Exactly the data I was thinking about, thanks for reinforcing my point.

That is a nice summary of what I keep telling people and reenforces what I keep saying, police kill more white people than black people. That is completely contrary to the BLM message.

We have a policing problem and a cultural problem. People need to take a class on how to interact with authority figures.

There is so little data on deadly force, and so much data on total use of force, but the fragile white heteropatriarchal racists holed up in their cyber bunkers continues to focus on only the deadly force, while ignoring the 1200 lb gorilla of overall force, and the inherent racism it strongly suggests.

Perhaps authority figures need to take a class on how to interact with people.

Mutual respect would go a long way towards lowering tensions during a police interaction.

A beautiful sentiment, but it ignores the reality that the police bear more responsibility to not unjustly kill, than citizens do to not be unjustly killed.

Because he defends the former but despises the latter.

Wrong and wrong, dipshit. You'll have anot impossible time finding evidence that I defend terrorist bombings or that I despise cops.

Or that you can type a coherent sentence.... :)

Or that you can type a coherent sentence.... :)

What? It's a perfectly cromulent sentence.


Agreed. It embiggens the meanings.

I don't know if it is murder ... I would go with reckless homicide or manslaughter and then write the family a large check

Now everyone can skip 2 pages of this thread.

There is so little data on deadly force, and so much data on total use of force, but the fragile white heteropatriarchal racists holed up in their cyber bunkers continues to focus on only the deadly force, while ignoring the 1200 lb gorilla of overall force, and the inherent racism it strongly suggests.

Perhaps authority figures need to take a class on how to interact with people.

Quite true. But you're again talking about killing, and the data flies in the face of your notion that there are racist motives behind cop murders. Not sure why we continue to engage with you when you fail to acknowledge this fact...but then your argument necessitates that you ignore the facts so I guess carry on.

I think the larger question is why does the US have such a massive difference of deadly force when compared to other countries. The difference in every category between black and white in the US pales in comparison between the US and most other countries.

IMO it's less about racism and far more about the military mentality that is now part and parcel of our police forces across the country. We can thank the "War on drugs" for that.

~Matt

False narrative is your opinion. Black communities are so used to police lying in all levels of encounters, planting drugs, weapons, and other evidence, that they are conditioned to assume as much. Then you have the family claiming he was reading a book and didn't have a gun, who do you think they are going to believe? Taking the officers at their word immediately following a questionable use of force incident is a privileged white response. "The chief of police just blew that unarmed narrative out of the water!" .... uh sure, because we all know cops would never lie to avoid being butt raped and throat slit in prison.

Get the fuck out of here. Cops in America had that mentality long before the risk of everybody having a gun was an issue.

Not guilty. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the jury room.

http://www.nbcnews.com/...nce-crutcher-n761206

Why? That outcome is pretty straight forward

All you need is the toxicology report and the fact he was reaching into the car

All you need is the toxicology report and the fact he was reaching into the car

And he came out of the ditch charging after them, but that part got left out of all of this as it wasn't on the video and didn't fit the narrative in the media.

A jury on Wednesday acquitted a white Oklahoma police officer in the shooting death of an unarmed black man in Tulsa last year

Tulsa police officer Betty Shelby, 43,(did we mention that SHE IS WHITE!!!) had been charged with manslaughter in the September 2016 shooting death of Terence Crutcher, 40, (HE'S BLACK!!! And didn't have A GUN!!!) during an encounter that began with the report of a stalled vehicle.