2016 Tulsa Oklahoma Shooting.

[grean]

Hey Chung & Scribe, let's flip it....

Chung and I will argue in favor of the police officer's action and you argue against.

What do ya say?

So she arrived on scene and the suspect was given verbal orders and failed to comply while walking towards the side of his van.

Because he was not complying and continued to do the opposite, she began to fear for her safety. To avoid harm to her person, she opened fire at the suspect which unfortunately resulted in his death.

Completely justified and therefore not guilty of the charges.

[camero73]

Originally Posted by grean

Hey Chung & Scribe, let's flip it....

Chung and I will argue in favor of the police officer's action and you argue against.

What do ya say?

So she arrived on scene and the suspect was given verbal orders and failed to comply while walking towards the side of his van.

Because he was not complying and continued to do the opposite, she began to fear for her safety. To avoid harm to her person, she opened fire at the suspect which unfortunately resulted in his death.

Completely justified and therefore not guilty of the charges.

"Completely justified and therefore not guilty of the charges."

I totally disagree. I watched the story film footage last night on 60 Minutes. The woman police officer and a male police officer were standing right there point blank 10' away from the man who was shot. Everything was moving very slowly with time for the officers to correctly process the situation. The man although was not complying to the officers order to stop was moving very slowly and had his hands above his head. The male police officer had his taser gun out and pointed right at the man.

The taser would have dropped that poor man right in his tracks but instead the woman just shot the man dead. She could have at least shot him in the leg. I am white and all these incidents like this over the last few years make me mad.

Why don't we see this happening to Mexicans whom are here illegally in the first place.

[Adonis]

Originally Posted by grean

Hey Chung & Scribe, let's flip it....

Chung and I will argue in favor of the police officer's action and you argue against.

What do ya say?

So she arrived on scene and the suspect was given verbal orders and failed to comply while walking towards the side of his van.

Because he was not complying and continued to do the opposite, she began to fear for her safety. To avoid harm to her person, she opened fire at the suspect which unfortunately resulted in his death.

Completely justified and therefore not guilty of the charges.

After watching the 60 Minutes piece, I agree with this being tragic but justified.

[pyramider]

Originally Posted by camero73

"Completely justified and therefore not guilty of the charges."

I totally disagree. I watched the story film footage last night on 60 Minutes. The woman police officer and a male police officer were standing right there point blank 10' away from the man who was shot. Everything was moving very slowly with time for the officers to correctly process the situation. The man although was not complying to the officers order to stop was moving very slowly and had his hands above his head. The male police officer had his taser gun out and pointed right at the man.

The taser would have dropped that poor man right in his tracks but instead the woman just shot the man dead. She could have at least shot him in the leg. I am white and all these incidents like this over the last few years make me mad.

Why don't we see this happening to Mexicans whom are here illegally in the first place.

Other than Dirty Harry, cops only train to hit body mass and are not trained to wing a suspect.

[fruitpieisgoodeatin]

This should be and will be an easy case for the jury - shooting was totally justified.

[camero73]

Originally Posted by fruitpieisgoodeatin

This should be and will be an easy case for the jury - shooting was totally justified.

You have no clue do you. I bet you didn't even see the camera footage.

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by grean

Hey Chung & Scribe, let's flip it....

Chung and I will argue in favor of the police officer's action and you argue against.

What do ya say? I'll do my best...lol

So she arrived on scene and the suspect was given verbal orders and failed to comply while walking towards the side of his van.

Because he was not complying and continued to do the opposite, she began to fear for her safety. To avoid harm to her person, she opened fire at the suspect which unfortunately resulted in his death.

Completely justified and therefore not guilty of the charges.

(NOTE: Recovering from OHS. Sorry for my lack of commentary, but its a long road back. Honestly, I've missed the banter - but kind of hard to get online in ICU...lol. Thank you grean for remembering me; and thank you to the many friends and providers who sent me their best wishes)

It is a statement on our society.

Betty Jo Shelby herself stated: "I'm feeling that his intent is to do me harm and I keep thinking, 'Don't do this. Please don't do this. Don't make this happen,'" Shelby told correspondent Bill Whitaker in her first interview since the Sept. 16 shooting.

and that she "... used lethal force because she feared 40-year-old Terence Crutcher was reaching inside his SUV for a gun."

We have become a world of "amateur clairvoyants"... where everyone apparently knows - not what the plain, and obvious direct actions are - but that the "underlying intent" (without evidence) is of each action.

This is the same issue with Trump's travel ban #2, which is being held in the courts because "while it doesn't discriminate against Muslims - the INTENT of it, is to discriminate against Muslims" so the courts actions to justify the VETO of the ban, are sanctioned.

Terence Crutcher was not "reaching for a gun". But if we as a society allow for (not what is FACTUAL, but what is "possible intent" - and base legal decisions on "possible intent")... then this is what you get.

Yeah, Possibly he could have been going for a gun to shoot her... but he wasn't.
Yeah, Possibly Trumps travel ban is against Muslims, but it not written as such.

Yeah, society has grown supportive of everyone jumping to possible conclusions - and ignoring the facts... so this is what you get.

Support of decisions based on "possible conclusions"...

...decisions which "ignore the facts", like the fact that Terence Crutcher was an innocent man.

[grean]

Scribe, I had no idea you were ill. Feel better.

[grean]

Originally Posted by Scribe

...decisions which "ignore the facts", like the fact that Terence Crutcher was an innocent man.

Hope to do you proud man....

Let's talk about all the facts.

The decorated officer arrived on scene to find an abandoned vehicle in the middle of the road, straddling both lanes.

The 911 call that lead to the officer being dispatched to the location said a person fled, running from the vehicle.

A man appears while the officer is checking the vehicle.

The trained veteran officer issues commands to the individual who then fails to comply.

The vetetan officer, trained in drug recognition, recognized the individual may be under the influence of PCP, a powerful mind altering hallucinogen.

Her assessment of his drug influenced state was later proven to be true. This only gives more creditability to the officers judgment.


She is not a rookie, she has been in a previous situation when other officer and Ms. Shelby were forced to pull their weapons. In that situation, no guns were discharged.

The suspect in this case was on PCP and did not comply to multiple commands given to him by officers


Deadly force by a police officer is authorized when that officer reasonably feels they are in danger.

What is reasonable is a matter of judgement, and the facts show the officer did in fact have good judgment.

This was a tragic event, no doubt. The officer actions were reasonable, however.

[grean]

Scribe, put on your most Phenomenon/ Michael, weepy eyed, liberal sissy travolta avatar and argue against that!

Mic drop

[fruitpieisgoodeatin]

Camero73 I do have a clue - keep reading thread you rookie

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by grean

Hope to do you proud man....

Let's talk about all the facts.

Her assessment of his drug influenced state was later proven to be true. This only gives more creditability to the officers judgment.

By this logic, then officers should begin shooting random people because "they later could be proven to be correct?"

What if she WAS wrong... and which is the lesser way to err?

We are AMERICA - all people are innocent until proven guilty. The ultimate judgement is the taking of a life.

Do you believe that this person received due process before judgment (even CORRECT judgment) was passed? Was he "presumed innocent"? No.

Was the officer skilled in her duties? (Absolutely); but was she skilled in medicine? Is she an expert on medical conditions and drug interactions?

My father is in his nineties, and suffering from hearing and senility issues; there are people who are on prescriptive medication where their judgment could be impaired (I will agree that in these cases, as labeled on the medication "you should not drive or operate a motor vehicle")...

... but if they were, might not they have reacted in a similar manner? Ignoring instruction? Perhaps going for medication or paperwork in the vehicle?

By what method did she make her deduction? "Her gut feelings?"

... and would those gut feelings have caused her to shoot a sickly white 20 yr old female, or my 90 year old father?

No - regardless of her situation - she made mental choices: Black, Male, Non-compliant, grabbing for something - shoot!

Yes - here the man was on drugs.

Still, what if he had pulled a newborn from the vehicle - and the officer, who is non-biased, shot not only him, but the child because "her training and experience told her what to do (before it happened)"? We'd be having a different conversation.

She would not have done this if the suspect was female...
She would not have done this if the suspect was white...
She would not have done this if the suspect was old, or very young...

Black, Male, 25-40... = threat with a weapon.

If you can not see this - then what is your definition of "racial profiling"?

[grean]

Originally Posted by Scribe

By this logic, then officers should begin shooting random people because "they later could be proven to be correct?"

What if she WAS wrong... and which is the lesser way to err?

We are AMERICA - all people are innocent until proven guilty. The ultimate judgement is the taking of a life.

Do you believe that this person received due process before judgment (even CORRECT judgment) was passed? Was he "presumed innocent"? No.

Was the officer skilled in her duties? (Absolutely); but was she skilled in medicine? Is she an expert on medical conditions and drug interactions?

My father is in his nineties, and suffering from hearing and senility issues; there are people who are on prescriptive medication where their judgment could be impaired (I will agree that in these cases, as labeled on the medication "you should not drive or operate a motor vehicle")...

... but if they were, might not they have reacted in a similar manner? Ignoring instruction? Perhaps going for medication or paperwork in the vehicle?

By what method did she make her deduction? "Her gut feelings?"

... and would those gut feelings have caused her to shoot a sickly white 20 yr old female, or my 90 year old father?

No - regardless of her situation - she made mental choices: Black, Male, Non-compliant, grabbing for something - shoot!

Yes - here the man was on drugs.

Still, what if he had pulled a newborn from the vehicle - and the officer, who is non-biased, shot not only him, but the child because "her training and experience told her what to do (before it happened)"? We'd be having a different conversation.

She would not have done this if the suspect was female...
She would not have done this if the suspect was white...
She would not have done this if the suspect was old, or very young...

Black, Male, 25-40... = threat with a weapon.

If you can not see this - then what is your definition of "racial profiling"?

Were you trying to do me or Chung there?

[Scribe]

ROFLMAO ... you came up with this idea, not me (You figure it out)!

[Chung Tran]

funny stuff.. I wish I could participate better, grean's argument is better than I can do.. I didn't know about the 60 minutes piece, or I would have watched.. I remember the incident for the most part.. the Cop was trigger happy, and just because someone is on PCP doesn't make them violent.. it does make them "out of it", less likely to obey commands.

aside from the racial aspect, there's a gender issue, I think.. female Cops are more likely to perceive threats where they don't really exist.. yeah, that's a somewhat biased statement, and not really provable, but I believe it anyway.. there was a Dallas female Cop who shot a fleeing theft suspect a couple of years ago, IIRC.. for no reason.

and didn't the Tulsa Cop and her comrade fail to get timely medical help for the "crazed-PCP attacker", after gunning him down?