• 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

EMNofSeattle said:
If he was reaching into the car it may well be good enough. You cannot wait for an irrational actor to act, because action beats reaction.
Click to expand...

So what if he was reaching into his car? He wasn't doing anything violent. He wasn't threatening the officers. He wasn't in caught in the act of committing a crime. Nothing.

By your logic the police can simply approach anyone and demand they do as they say no matter the circumstances. If they do not comply, they die.
 
Tettsuo said:
So what if he was reaching into his car? He wasn't doing anything violent. He wasn't threatening the officers.
Click to expand...
So what? His reaching is what escalated the situation and made him a greater threat.
It is ridiculous to expect any Officer under such conditions to just let the suspect reach into his vehicle.
 
Tettsuo said:
So what if he was reaching into his car? He wasn't doing anything violent. He wasn't threatening the officers. He wasn't in caught in the act of committing a crime. Nothing.

By your logic the police can simply approach anyone and demand they do as they say no matter the circumstances. If they do not comply, they die.
Click to expand...

Just to play devils advocate: by your logic, people can walk away and ignore police orders, and as long as they don't do it in a violent way, they can reach into a car against police orders? I know I know.. you should not be shot for doing that..

Just my opinion, he should have been tasered the second he reached the tail light of his car, it still would have raised some hackles, but he would at least be alive.

djl
 
bmr528 said:
Just to play devils advocate: by your logic, people can walk away and ignore police orders, and as long as they don't do it in a violent way, they can reach into a car against police orders? I know I know.. you should not be shot for doing that..

Just my opinion, he should have been tasered the second he reached the tail light of his car, it still would have raised some hackles, but he would at least be alive.

djl
Click to expand...

If you haven't done anything wrong, there's no actual investigation of criminal wrongdoing, YES you have the right to not obey an officer's orders.

The police do not have the right to order citizens about without just cause. The police do not have the right detain you at their leisure. We do not live in a dictatorship.
 
Absentglare said:
So you're saying this man was executed for reaching into his car, and you don't see any problem with that ?
Click to expand...

Well I will preface by saying after reviewing updates to this case on friday I changed my mind, I think the officer was at least negligent and manslaughter is an appropriate charge.

that being said, he was not "executed" execution is a legal order stemming from courts as a punishment, he was not being punished, she percieved a threat from him, her perception may not have been reasonable and she will face trial on that, but it wasn't a malicious killing or a punishment.
 
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...



The large majority of these shootings of unarmed suspects could be averted if "obey the lawful commands of the police officer on the scene" was followed by everyone.


As I've told my son, don't argue with a cop on the side of the road. Do whatever he says, and if he is in the wrong we'll have his hide for a throw-rug later in court.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well I will preface by saying after reviewing updates to this case on friday I changed my mind, I think the officer was at least negligent and manslaughter is an appropriate charge.

that being said, he was not "executed" execution is a legal order stemming from courts as a punishment, he was not being punished, she percieved a threat from him, her perception may not have been reasonable and she will face trial on that, but it wasn't a malicious killing or a punishment.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question, and apparently you didn't understand my use of "execution." Does society believe it is appropriate to shoot someone for reaching into their car ?
 
Absentglare said:
You didn't answer the question, and apparently you didn't understand my use of "execution." Does society believe it is appropriate to shoot someone for reaching into their car ?
Click to expand...

It is circumstance dependent, a non cooperative suspect refusing commands and reaching into an area you cannot see or verify there is no weapons is IMO adequate justification for a police officer to assume a deadly force threat and act accordingly. It is not illegal to reach into your jacket either, don't do that if police are ordering you to show hands. using deadly force is a not a judicial punishment, it is not based on whether or not the acts violated the criminal code, although it can be. it is based on acts or patterns of behavior indicating the suspect may pose a threat to innocent persons. if the car window was open and he reached into it, which I initially believed but now know to be incorrect, then it would be an open and shut case of self defense and I would still be defending the officer. so I guess I'll give the answer of a "qualified yes" qualified in that, it depends on the circumstances of why the hands are in the car. if the subject is acting rationally and is asked to get his registration and reaches in the passenger side window to get to the glove box shooting him would not be justified in any sense.

in this case the window was up, another officer had a taser, and there were enough officers to contain the suspect.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
if the car window was open and he reached into it, which I initially believed but now know to be incorrect,
Click to expand...
I hope you aren't basing that on the Crump's bs, as that image doesn't prove anything.
 
coldjoint said:
Ah yes, an English paper on a murder in Oklahoma. No agenda here.
Click to expand...

Years ago it reached the point that foreign news sources print more truthful news about the US than our domestic propaganda organs do.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well I will preface by saying after reviewing updates to this case on friday I changed my mind, I think the officer was at least negligent and manslaughter is an appropriate charge.

that being said, he was not "executed" execution is a legal order stemming from courts as a punishment, he was not being punished, she percieved a threat from him, her perception may not have been reasonable and she will face trial on that, but it wasn't a malicious killing or a punishment.
Click to expand...


What did you see/read that changed your mind? I have looked at the video several times, Seen all the pictures of the window. and I have not seen anything that convinces me (100%) one way or another, that the window was up or down.

I will say this, I at least had the time to review the video many times, I sometimes see it both ways ( maybe depending on how much coffee I have had) he's reaching in a open window, He's (what looks like) leaning up against the window.. The cops only got to see this once, and in real time, not slowed down, or enhanced.

djl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom