Another unarmed black man shot

Skeptic Ginger said:
It is an established fact, the images are clear. In this case I am using the definition of established fact to be when the news media repeats it enough times the people in this thread figure out no one is supporting their position but the biased echo chamber.

Edited to add: It will be an established fact when the Tulsa police department admits it. So far they haven't.
Click to expand...

Either way, deadly force is not justified.
Window up, not justified.
Window down, not justified.
Got it?

That said, I like to investigate the truth of claims where sides disagree. The best way is to try to falsify each claim with alternative explanations that are reasonable.
That is what skeptics do.

There seems to be this idea that anyone "skeptical" of the window being up who can see and understand why a static blurry image may create the illusion of being up, are suddenly labeled race-hating-bigot-cop-defenders.

The show Brain Games has some great episodes on how we interpret information and how perception can deceive us.
 
Brainster said:
Looking at the Washington Post article, of the 990 people shot and killed by police officers in 2015, (948 or more than 95%) were male.

Do you think the parsimonious explanation for that is sexism?
Click to expand...
Most violent criminals are men, so no.

My point was that most police shootings are probably justified, but some are obviously unjustified.

Of those that are unjustified, or even just less-justified, it's likely that more of these shootings will be of unarmed rather than armed people. There are well-documented examples of institutional racism in a fair number of US police forces, and of disproportionate use of force against blacks, which would stack up.

Of course there could be some confounding factors - maybe racial disparities in use of force stops before force becomes lethal and maybe there are far more dangerous unarmed black criminals compared to dangerous unarmed white criminals, but that this racial difference halves when the criminals are armed.

However, this seems unlikely to me, and I have seen no such explanations for this discrepancy. The parsimonious explanation is that the disparity in use of force carries over to use of lethal force.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You want to see how blood can spurt out a gunshot hole, watch the blood pumping out of the Vietnamese man executed in the infamous war video I posted upthread.
Click to expand...

Actually, that video kind of contradicts your claim. The blood did not begin spurting out until the victim fell and his head (where the wound was) descended to, or below, the level of his heart. It seems unlikely for blood to spurt out for wounds that are significantly above the heart.

Actually, we can try to do some math. Normal systolic pressure is 120 mm Hg, and Hg (i.e. mercury) is about 13 times the density of blood. Therefore, normal systolic pressure in terms of the vertical rise in blood would be 13 x 120 mm = 1.5 meters. So, in theory, a column of blood could only rise 1.5 meters above the heart (putting aside capillary action, which is not relevant here). Of course, blood pressure will drop dramatically, at least locally, with a hole through which blood is spurting which is comparable in diameter to the largest artery in the body (the aorta, which is about 2.5 cm in diameter). How fast does pressure drop? Too many assumptions are required to get a bead on it, but the video of the executed Vietnamese guy shows that blood could spurt about a foot higher than the heart. That would indicate a blood pressure drop by about a factor of four locally, which strikes me as reasonable. So what you're seeing with the Vietnamese guy is probably about what you would expect. If Crutcher had serious hypertension (and the Vietnamese guy did not), he might have cleared more than a foot above his heart.
 
Jules Galen said:
Same here. Actually, I'm thinking of something along the lines of "Manslaughter with Callous Indifference" - if there is such a charge. But to overcharge with First Degree is just a slap in the face of justice. Why not charge her sodomy, rape and high treason while they are at it? And even if she is convicted of First Degree, it will never hold up under appeal.

They over-charged her in order to make sure she wouldn't get punished for her crime.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. I said the same thing about Zimmerman; I don't know what role public pressure played (or plays) in these kinds of things, but I think they over-charged her, just as they did him. And when she is acquitted, there will be yet more riots and unrest.
 
Dr. Keith said:
It isn't all or nothing. I'm fairly certain she can be found guilty of lesser included charges.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think I was wrong. I just read the meaning of "First Degree" Manslaughter for Oklahoma and it appears they may have charged this woman perfectly. (see the highlighted text)

http://www.lawfirmofoklahoma.com/practice-areas/manslaughter

In Oklahoma, manslaughter is different from murder and divided into 2 categories:

First Degree Manslaughter occurs in the following cases:

1. When perpetrated without a design to effect death by a person while engaged in the commission of a misdemeanor.
2. When perpetrated without a design to effect death, and in a heat of passion, but in a cruel and unusual manner, or by means of a dangerous weapon; unless it is committed under such circumstances as constitute excusable or justifiable homicide. 3. When perpetrated unnecessarily either while resisting an attempt by the person killed to commit a crime, or after such attempt shall have failed.


Second Degree Manslaughter is defined as:

Every killing of one human being by the act, procurement or culpable negligence of another, which, under the provisions of this chapter, is not murder, nor manslaughter in the first degree, nor excusable nor justifiable homicide, is manslaughter in the second degree.

Due to such a broad definition, prosecutors usually use Second Degree Manslaughter charges as a catch-all for criminal activity they cannot prosecute under any of the other homicide related statutes.
Click to expand...
 
I think she was correctly charged. The question will be what sort of punishment she receives (assuming she either cops a plea or is convicted). An ordinary person (cop) with no criminal record, under similar circumstances where they might reasonably think the suspect had access to a weapon (whether or not they did) would probably get off fairly lightly...perhaps not even jail time. Of course, a highly public case with huge political ramifications could turn out differently. Time will tell.

The culture of fear works from both ends. This is the price we pay for promoting a society that is armed to its teeth.
 
stanfr said:
I think she was correctly charged. The question will be what sort of punishment she receives (assuming she either cops a plea or is convicted). An ordinary person (cop) with no criminal record, under similar circumstances where they might reasonably think the suspect had access to a weapon (whether or not they did) would probably get off fairly lightly...perhaps not even jail time. Of course, a highly public case with huge political ramifications could turn out differently. Time will tell.

The culture of fear works from both ends. This is the price we pay for promoting a society that is armed to its teeth.
Click to expand...

The minimum penalty for first degree manslaughter is four years in the state penitentiary.

http://www.lawfirmofoklahoma.com/practice-areas/manslaughter
 
William Parcher said:
You are talking about a point-blank head shot versus a shot through clothing into the upper torso. The clothing will become soaked with blood but it will also prevent a spurting stream. Any blood on this SUV would have come from a smear not a spurt. IMO.
Click to expand...
:dig:
 
Jules Galen said:
Same here. Actually, I'm thinking of something along the lines of "Manslaughter with Callous Indifference" - if there is such a charge. But to overcharge with First Degree is just a slap in the face of justice. Why not charge her sodomy, rape and high treason while they are at it? And even if she is convicted of First Degree, it will never hold up under appeal.

They over-charged her in order to make sure she wouldn't get punished for her crime.
Click to expand...
From how it sounded to me, the charge was shooting because she lost her temper over contempt of cop. It's either that or simply gross incompetence, either because she had her finger on the trigger, or because she is too jumpy to be a cop who is safe with a gun.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
From how it sounded to me, the charge was shooting because she lost her temper over contempt of cop. It's either that or simply gross incompetence, either because she had her finger on the trigger, or because she is too jumpy to be a cop who is safe with a gun.
Click to expand...

Did you take a look at post #406? I think I got a better set of facts, now. From the info I have now, it appears to me that she was charged just right.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
From how it sounded to me, the charge was shooting because she lost her temper over contempt of cop. It's either that or simply gross incompetence, either because she had her finger on the trigger, or because she is too jumpy to be a cop who is safe with a gun.
Click to expand...
I'd argue too jumpy to be owning a gun
 
Beanbag said:
Where did you pull that factoid out from? The problem here is caused by the most "controlled" guns around: the police weapons.

Beanbag
Click to expand...

I think it is fair to note that US cops are more likely to shoot because they have to assume that all citizens are armed. Compare that to our friends in the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom