• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Terrence Crutcher shot to death and suprise, the police lies again

TurtleDude said:
you keep making that claim and have no facts to back it up. it depends what issue you are talking about. I just saw the tape of the shooting I cannot (and I have a background in dealing with police shootings) say based purely on that tape if it was a bad shooting or an excusable shooting.
Click to expand...

It certainly looked like a bad shoot to me. But that's probably just my bias, so whatever.
 
TheGoverness said:
It certainly looked like a bad shoot to me. But that's probably just my bias, so whatever.
Click to expand...

It might well be-and there are other bad shoots in the sense that the officer(s) overreacted but lots of them are characterized by the deceased or the wounded individual not following lawful orders. that doesn't always justify being shot but the fact remains-few of the bad shootings involve the victim following instructions. the shooting of a drug dealer in Cincinnati by a University cop involved the deceased not doing what he was told. that being said, it was a bad shoot. This one might be as well. but its clear the victim kept walking when told to stop.
 
TurtleDude said:
It might well be-and there are other bad shoots in the sense that the officer(s) overreacted but lots of them are characterized by the deceased or the wounded individual not following lawful orders. that doesn't always justify being shot but the fact remains-few of the bad shootings involve the victim following instructions. the shooting of a drug dealer in Cincinnati by a University cop involved the deceased not doing what he was told. that being said, it was a bad shoot. This one might be as well. but its clear the victim kept walking when told to stop.
Click to expand...

Well he obviously wasn't completely complying with police orders. That's apparently the reason why they had called for backup in the first place.

And putting your hands where the cops can't see it without being instructed to do so is already a big no-no. So that first tazer shot probably was justified.

But I think the second (fatal) shot wasn't.
 
TheGoverness said:
Well he obviously wasn't completely complying with police orders. That's apparently the reason why they had called for backup in the first place.

And putting your hands where the cops can't see it without being instructed to do so is already a big no-no. So that first tazer shot probably was justified.

But I think the second (fatal) shot wasn't.
Click to expand...

your explanation is reasonable. I am not willing at this point to declare if it was excusable (vs justifiable) or illegal

but I note and have done so in the past, most of the bad shootings ( and almost all the good shootings in the sense that the cop was justified in shooting a suspect) would not have happened if the person shot by the police had complied with their orders.

not complying with cops is not grounds to be fatally shot in many cases. but complying with the cops almost always would have averted the shootings
 
I'll wait for the result of the investigation. First, if the police ran the man's name or license through the computer, the officers were likely aware that this man had a record of carrying a concealed weapon and resisting, and had served jail time for that. Yes, he had his hands up, but he kept walking toward his car and I guaran-damn-tee that the officers were shouting at him to stop and get down on his knees. The video shows him clearly lowering his hands into the open car window, then several seconds pass before the man falls to the ground. All this time, officers were likely shouting at him to keep his hands up and get down on the ground.

Although the article says he refused to put his hands up, the official statement says only that he refused to follow commands. I'd have to see the official police report to know if the article is correct, or if it just made an inference, embellishment, or whatever. Dash cam footage, if available, would have sound, so the officer commands could be heard.

All this needs to be investigated before I'll take a UK article, or any article, as gospel for what actually happened. Police procedure does not allow an individual to walk away from officers just because he has his hands up. Once he reached into that window, all bets were off... especially with an individual who already had a conviction for an illegal concealed weapon charge.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
I'll wait for the result of the investigation. First, if the police ran the man's name or license through the computer, the officers were likely aware that this man had a record of carrying a concealed weapon record and resisting, and had served jail time for that. Yes, he had his hands up, but he kept walking toward his car and I guaran-damn-tee that the officers were shouting at him to stop and get down on his knees. The video shows him clearly lowering his hands into the open car window, then several seconds pass before the man falls to the ground. All this time, officers were likely shouting at him to keep his hands up and get down on the ground.

Although the article says he refused to put his hands up, the official statement says only that he refused to follow commands. I'd have to see the official police report to know if the article is correct, or if it just made an inference, embellishment, or whatever. Dash cam footage, if available, would have sound, so the officer commands could be heard.

All this needs to be investigated before I'll take a UK article, or any article, as gospel for what actually happened. Police procedure does not allow an individual to walk away from officers just because he has his hands up. Once he reached into that window, all bets were off... especially with an individual who already had a conviction for an illegal concealed weapon charge.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware he had a CW charge, that really changes the perspective of the cops.
 
Peter King said:
As it shoots yet another black unarmed man.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/17/tulsa-oklahoma-police-shooting-suv



And that is the problem, police lie and sadly regularly get away with their lies. It is time for body cams so that the good officers do not have to suffer with the bad officers who shoot people dead and lie about it.
Click to expand...

Where are you when a good guy with a gun, shoots a bad guy with a knife and is a true hero and most likely saved many lives?
 
Rico Suave said:
I posted same thing around the same time in different forum. The lying cops need to be fired and the murderess in jail for life.
Click to expand...

Where are you when a good guy with a gun, shoots a bad guy with a knife and is a true hero and most likely saved many lives?

EMNofSeattle said:
Unless you have evidence the officers are lying (and lack of a camera does not constitute evidence of lying ) then this is a justified shoot. "Show me your hands" when spoken in the English language does not mean "disobey legal commands and put your hands somewhere where officers don't know if you have a weapon"
Click to expand...

Correct. Failure to follow commands is just that.

Peter King said:
Nope, it can still get you shot dead.
Click to expand...

When you fail to follow commands...it sure can. They had no idea what he was doing reaching into the car. If he had come out with a gun, it might have been a dead cop. What part of do what you are told, don't you liberals understand?
 
Rico Suave said:
I posted same thing around the same time in different forum. The lying cops need to be fired and the murderess in jail for life.
Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle said:
Unless you have evidence the officers are lying (and lack of a camera does not constitute evidence of lying ) then this is a justified shoot. "Show me your hands" when spoken in the English language does not mean "disobey legal commands and put your hands somewhere where officers don't know if you have a weapon"
Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:
It's strange. From what it looks like to me, he started off with his hands in the air, then walked over to the vehicle and lowered them.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what he did.

Rico Suave said:
Good god that's an execution.............
Click to expand...

No...it is not.
 
Rico Suave said:
Head cop seems like a honorable dude. I'm thinking justice is achieved here much like with that geriatric reserve cop who is cooling his heels in jail
Click to expand...

How about the hero citizen who shot the guy with the knife and saved lives?
 
TurtleDude said:
your explanation is reasonable. I am not willing at this point to declare if it was excusable (vs justifiable) or illegal

but I note and have done so in the past, most of the bad shootings ( and almost all the good shootings in the sense that the cop was justified in shooting a suspect) would not have happened if the person shot by the police had complied with their orders.

not complying with cops is not grounds to be fatally shot in many cases. but complying with the cops almost always would have averted the shootings
Click to expand...

Yep. In most cases.

Except for that incident in Florida with that man on the ground. And on the flip side, I've seen in some cases where the cops had a great amount of restraint, with the suspects in question trying to commit suicide-by-cop.
 
TheGoverness said:
Yep. In most cases.

Except for that incident in Florida with that man on the ground. And on the flip side, I've seen in some cases where the cops had a great amount of restraint, with the suspects in question trying to commit suicide-by-cop.
Click to expand...

my advice to anyone who comes in contact with cops

DO what they say

if you don't like it-don't resist on the street

dont' disobey the cops

hire an attorney and file a suit if you think the orders they gave you were improper

now the one place where that changes is

1) you have no duty to incriminate yourself-rather say-On advice of counsel I choose to assert my fifth amendment rights and I respectfully decline to answer your question until I can confer with my attorney

2) you have no duty to give them consent to search your vehicle or home without a warrant

it sure beats getting shot
 
TurtleDude said:
my advice to anyone who comes in contact with cops

DO what they say

if you don't like it-don't resist on the street

dont' disobey the cops

hire an attorney and file a suit if you think the orders they gave you were improper

now the one place where that changes is

1) you have no duty to incriminate yourself-rather say-On advice of counsel I choose to assert my fifth amendment rights and I respectfully decline to answer your question until I can confer with my attorney

2) you have no duty to give them consent to search your vehicle or home without a warrant

it sure beats getting shot
Click to expand...

And another piece of advice:

Don't act like one of those sovereign citzen assholes that purposely try to get on the cops' bad side for no good reason.

If you've seen those kind of videos before you know what I'm talking about.
 
TheGoverness said:
Didn't say he did.
Click to expand...

You said: "Don't act like one of those sovereign citzen assholes that purposely try to get on the cops' bad side for no good reason."

Given that you said that in the contect of the this event? Yes, you did say he did.

Otherwise why would you have stated that?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
You said: "Don't act like one of those sovereign citzen assholes that purposely try to get on the cops' bad side for no good reason."

Given that you said that in the contect of the this event? Yes, you did say he did.

Otherwise why would you have stated that?
Click to expand...

No, I did not say that this individual was acting like one of those "sovereign citizen" idiots.

TurtleDude said this: "my advice to anyone that comes in contact with cops"

And he listed his advice.

I was simply adding to to TD's list. I did not say that the individual involved in the shooting incident described in the OP was acting like one of those soverign citizen types.
 
TheGoverness said:
No, I did not say that this individual was acting like one of those "sovereign citizen" idiots.

TurtleDude said this: "my advice to anyone that comes in contact with cops"

And he listed his advice.

I was simply adding to to TD's list. I did not say that the individual involved in the shooting incident described in the OP was acting like one of those soverign citizen types.
Click to expand...

Ah. Well then I misread you, and apologize for the misunderstanding on my part.
 
TheGoverness said:
Sí, a very horrible decision on his part.
Click to expand...

Horrible decisions make for bad results.

Even with the video, we have no real idea what transpired. Article mentions a previous carry violation. If the police were of that violation, that changes things. I know that police sometimes are aware of CC permits before the stop. I was stopped for a sticker I had forgot to stick on the license plate. The officer knew I had a sticker, a valid DL and CCW before he approached my vehicle. The video is unclear, but it appears he was reaching into the window.

I'll wait for the verdict.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, it is if you're, you know, white.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Many White guys get shot too and usually for good reason....and more than Blacks.

Captain Adverse said:
Let's take this step by step.

1. The video starts with the victim near the police car. Then he turns and begins to walk away with his hands up.

2. At 0.16 someone in the helicopter states "That guy is still walking," then a pause and at 0.18 "He's not following commands" and then someone else states at 0.20 "That's for tazer I think."

3. We see the victim at the car door doing something with his hands down. Trying to get in through the window? Hard to tell because the helicopter angles around so that at 0.31 we see him go down. (Tazering.)

4. The angle is obscured but by 0.38 we see he is not lying flat, but sideways so that the officers see his back.

5. Between 0.38 and 0.40 he is shot and then we see him roll flat on his back with a wound in the upper torso.

Assessment:

The victim was acting improperly by failing to follow the first officer's lawful commands to stop.

The victim further escalated the situation by fiddling with his car and refusing to respond to lawful commands. This led to the initial tazering.

IMO the female officer suspected something because she could not see his hands.

She over-reacted to a non-threat.

I do not believe her act was based on a valid assessment of the situation and would hold it a "bad shoot."
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, but the video is not definitive enough from our perspective, so we will just have to see how it plays out.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The ironic and, frankly, hilariously wrong bit is, you wouldn't know.

Incompetant officers make for huge settlements.
Click to expand...

Nothing ironic about it.....and yes, I would know .............but for this, I'm only going by the video presented.

Competency doesn't always play a role, sometimes it's just the wrong decision. Even veteran officers occasionally get it wrong.

Tell us again, how much law enforcement experience do you have ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom