Another unarmed black man shot

[Pterodactyl]

Well, for starters, most people pull over to the side of the road when their car experiences trouble. Instead, this guy's car was in the middle of the road, actually blocking oncoming traffic from the other direction.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sBjNpZ5t9S4/maxresdefault.jpg

 

[applecorped]

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with Rule 11 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Bogative]

??

It's obvious from his statement to the press that Shelby's lawyer is going to use Crutcher's erratic behavior as one of the reasons she feared for her safety and shot him.

The woman's call to 911 before Shelby's arrival describing Crutcher's erratic behavior will be used as evidence to support her claim.

 

[cullennz]

It's obvious from his statement to the press that Shelby's lawyer is going to use Crutcher's erratic behavior as one of the reasons she feared for her safety and shot him.

The woman's call to 911 before Shelby's arrival describing Crutcher's erratic behavior will be used as evidence to support her claim.

Your car crapping out in the middle of the road might cause that.

Especially when you have panicky cops with guns pulled pointing at you

 

[Bogative]

She will be acquitted because the victim is black, and she's a police officer.

Are you sure you want to go with this prediction? Wouldn't want you to become a broken record…

Hard to tell exactly what happens as both views are blocked at the moment of the shooting. No obvious reason that they had their guns out to start with though. I suspect Manslaughter charges coming.

I do not. The track record, more accurately the broken record, for unjust police shootings is poor. Heck, they even fire police officers that don't kill people.

 

[Bogative]

Your car crapping out in the middle of the road might cause that.

PCP, also.

Especially when you have panicky cops with guns pulled pointing at you

The cops weren't there prior to the 911 call.

 

[marplots]

There's a complete collection of the videos here. I have not watched the whole thing yet.

At ~7:00 the dash cam shows the man with his hands up walking to his truck with one cop behind him. Two others join the one cop then a fourth shows up. As the man stands with his hands up on the truck you hear the only sound of a shot. You can see him collapse against the truck before he's out of view behind the cops. Then he falls to the ground. That is how the blood stream occurred.

That seems reasonable.

 

[quadraginta]

In China, when a Policeman shoots an unarmed citizen, he better make sure it's a justified shooting:

<snip>

Judging from what I have read in threads like these there is very little if anything about any questionable shooting by police which police groupies apologists cannot rationalize justify.

The difficulty would be to find examples where there is any consensus among them that the cops were wrong.

Apparently if there is any possible way it can be argued that the cop responsible could even have imagined that there might be some element of risk, no matter how minute or even non-existent, then all restraints are off the board and it is open season on whoever is unfortunate enough to be in front of their weapons.

Following directions is not enough. Lying on your back in the street with your empty hands in the air is not enough.

To paraphrase one of their presidents;

"Well, when the cops do it, that means it is not illegal."​

 

[quadraginta]

I don't think we want to hold up China's police system as a model.

I wish there was more to distinguish between the two.

 

[William Parcher]

I'm still waiting for your concession William Parcher.

A concession is premature. I will remind you of what you said yesterday.

Are people in this thread going to admit they are wrong when the window up becomes established fact?

The status of that window is not yet an established fact. It is indeed the popular consensus that the window is rolled up. You even said yesterday that the media is saying that the window is up. But established fact comes from something other than popular consensus. It comes from actual investigation and documentation. This will have happened because the vehicle is part of the evidence that would be examined and documented because of the incident that occurred. The establishment of the facts of the window status will come - but it hasn't happened yet.

I answered your post quoted above with "I will." This is because I will state that I was wrong when the status of the window becomes an established fact. That will happen.

There is also another kind of alternative hypothesis that I am entertaining. That is the question of the factual status of his vehicle. I hinted at this a couple of days ago. It is of popular consensus that his SUV somehow became undrivable and that's why he stopped. But this is not yet an established fact. The media is full of declarations of his car being stalled, broken down, disabled, etc. We know that it is stopped in the middle of the road with most of it being in the oncoming lane. That's very odd in the first place and we can easily ask the question - why? Then we have reports of citizen eyewitnesses who said that he had all of the doors open and was running around saying that it was going to explode. This led to people in this thread speculating that he had a fire going on. There are also eyewitness reports saying that he didn't shut off the engine and it was left running. That is also odd.

What I am saying is that when facts are established we may learn that there really was nothing wrong with his car and that it was fully drivable. For some, it may be a learning experience of what PCP can do to a brain. In fairness of intelligent inquiry, it is not yet factually established that he was whacked out of his mind on a recreational drug or drugs.

 

[Bikewer]

I had not heard previously that the individual had been shot in the head. This raises an interesting bit that feeds into my proposed scenario:

The Tulsa police are armed with Glock pistols (as are many departments across the country). There have been numbers of incidents across the country involving the Glock design where individuals have been shot while officers were "holding them at gunpoint".

The "safe-action" trigger design of the Glock is such that it's very resistant to accidental discharge, as long as one keeps one's finger off the trigger. People are supposed to be drilled that one does not finger the trigger until one actually intends to fire.
The scenario is that the officer has the finger on the trigger (disengaging the trigger safety) and even a relatively slight startle reflex (or stumble)....Boom.
A "high" shot under these circumstances is common. The individual in this case was a big guy... Hard to imagine the officer was aiming at his head.

If she had her finger on the trigger... "ready"....And the other officer fired his Taser...

Arguably accidental discharge. But also....Culpable manslaughter.

 

[William Parcher]

I had not heard previously that the individual had been shot in the head.

I have not read that he was shot in the head. Reports were saying torso or chest.

Do you have a link to information?

 

[Jules Galen]

I had not heard previously that the individual had been shot in the head. This raises an interesting bit that feeds into my proposed scenario:

The Tulsa police are armed with Glock pistols (as are many departments across the country). There have been numbers of incidents across the country involving the Glock design where individuals have been shot while officers were "holding them at gunpoint".

The "safe-action" trigger design of the Glock is such that it's very resistant to accidental discharge, as long as one keeps one's finger off the trigger. People are supposed to be drilled that one does not finger the trigger until one actually intends to fire.
The scenario is that the officer has the finger on the trigger (disengaging the trigger safety) and even a relatively slight startle reflex (or stumble)....Boom.
A "high" shot under these circumstances is common. The individual in this case was a big guy... Hard to imagine the officer was aiming at his head.

If she had her finger on the trigger... "ready"....And the other officer fired his Taser...

Arguably accidental discharge. But also....Culpable manslaughter.

People have been screeching for years that the striker-fired Glock is a poor design, and that this design leads to a lot of unintended discharges no matter what the training. I have been amongst them.

My argument has always revolved around the fact that the so-called "Safety" on the Glock is on the trigger: and this is like putting the brake release of a car on the gas peddle so that the brakes are deactivated when you stomp on the gas. And a contributing factor to the danger is the Glock's relative light trigger (usually about 4-5 lbs).

However, I have not thought the Glock so bad once it was unholstered and pointed. In that way, it's not much different than a SA/DA pistol that's been fired once and automatically cocked and is now in DA mode. The keyhere is to keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Shouldn't be that much of a problem...but for some it is, obviously.

However, when I thought the Glock was especially pernicious was when it was being holstered or unholstered, or someone dropped it and instictively tried to catch it (and "to catch" is a very common and strong instinct)! Here;s a video of a guy unintentionally firing a Glock that beautifully demonstrates the dangers of the Glock Design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xrlKH8OM5o

As the man falls forward, he tries to maintain a grip on his gun and get it pointed in a safe direction and....BANG, he accidently pulls the trigger! Personally, I think the guy did just fine because he kept the gun pointed in a safe direction. I did that with a shotgun when I was young - same thing happened. A lot of Gun Huggers say "Gun Accidents" don't happen - that any unintended discharge is a "Negligent Discharge". Baloney....they obviously haven't been around guns long enough to see it happen.

Another thing with the Glock is that it is prone to go off when being holstered or unhosltered - especially if a person is not keenly aware of that gun at all times. The phrase "Glock Leg" is not around for nothing. Lots of guys have shot themselves in the legs while holstering and unholstering Glocks. Most ofo the times it's because they pull the trigger with their finger, but a lot of times a piece of clothing gets snagged about the trigger and causes the discharge. A really stupid design.

Last, I notice a lot of guys accidently discharge Glocks when they blindly reach for them....and that's why I will not have a striker-fired pistol like the Glock. I figure if I need my pistol, it just may be dark and I'll be feeling around for the damned thing. Now, if I got a pistol with a hefty 12#'s of SA Trigger Pull, then no problem. But a Glock with it's light first-time trigger pull? Not good.

In this case, it doesn't appear that anyone tripped and fell forward, or that the gun was dropped and snatched out of mid-air, or anyone's clothing got caught up on the trigger...or nothing. It looks like a plain-ole bad shooting by a woman who is doing everything she can to justify it.

 

[Beanbag]

When there are almost no limits on who may buy a gun, it seems prudent to assume.

So you've bought into that line of hooey, too?

Go buy a handgun from a legitimate source sometime. See if they'll just sell it to you, no questions (or checks) asked or made. And keep in mind that most purchases of handguns are from legitimate sources. Don't bother to wave the "illegal guns are available anywhere" flag; that dog don't hunt.

The police aren't "prudent;" they're paranoid. If they're okay with assuming the worst about the citizens, then it seems only reasonable that citizens should assume the worst about the police.

Beanbag

 

[Solitaire]

Here’s a few stills from the video.

Closed Widow
Open Window

Flipping between the two stills from the video, I noticed something in the car.
If you look at the top of the driver’s side window, you’ll see something white and fluffy.
It might be a cat that turning it's head to look away from the road.


P.S. I wonder how the Sheriff of Mayberry, Andy Griffith, would have handled the situation.

 

[Brainster]

Cool. That's the reason to shoot him then

You really think so? Sheesh, good thing you're not a cop or we'd have bodies strewn across the landscape. All I'm saying is it backs up the claim that he was acting erratically even before the cops arrived. Easy, Clint.

 

[Dr. Keith]

So you've bought into that line of hooey, too?

Go buy a handgun from a legitimate source sometime. See if they'll just sell it to you, no questions (or checks) asked or made. And keep in mind that most purchases of handguns are from legitimate sources. Don't bother to wave the "illegal guns are available anywhere" flag; that dog don't hunt.

The police aren't "prudent;" they're paranoid. If they're okay with assuming the worst about the citizens, then it seems only reasonable that citizens should assume the worst about the police.

Beanbag

For non-felons over the age of 21 it is nearly impossible to be refused. Despite our massive incarceration rate I still think most people are non-felons.

ETA: I agree that cops are far more paranoid than they should be. See my conversation with sunmaster14 in this thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... But established fact comes from something other than popular consensus. ...

It comes from clear visible evidence of which we now have.

An enlargement of a single frame from the video that shows blood running down the window past the door handle pooling on the ground.

It can be seen from more than one angle.

There is a video of the victim clearly falling against the truck just after the shot is heard.

There is a single image of the victim on the ground with a blood pattern on his shirt and on the window and car door that is consistent with the vic falling against the closed window before falling to the ground.

Feel free to keep digging that hole you are in. But you are past the point of looking rather ridiculously confirmation biased.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I had not heard previously that the individual had been shot in the head.

Single shot, to the chest, there is no evidence it was a head shot. That was a conclusion someone in the thread thought that saw in one of the images. The more clear image I linked to shows the shot is to the chest, not the head.

I agree with the rest of your post, accidental discharge is one possibility.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

It is quite likely sexism does play a roll and cops shoot men in situations that they don't shoot women. It is all about perceived threat and men no matter their behavior are scarier than women like blacks are scarier than whites.