UPDATES on the Crutcher shooting
[Scroll down for more updates.]
More information on the Crutcher case is coming out, and the situation may be even worse than what I had discussed earlier today. The claim now is that Crutcher wasn’t even reaching into his car when he was killed, which was an important part of Shelby’s justification for firing. This new information is coming from the Crutcher family attorney, but it is supposedly based on the video evidence.
There is a video at the link which shows the shooting from two angles, plus Crutcher’s walk to the car that led up to it. I say “shows,” but it’s actually very hard to see what is happening, in part because there are so many police officers around him. But from what I can see (albeit incomplete), this does appear as though it might be a case of overkill (literally). Crutcher is walking slowly with his hands up, and seemingly cooperative. There is no visible struggle. The shooting happens so quickly that I don’t even think the other police officers were aware of what had happened. Then you hear the voice of a female officer (I assume it was Shelby, who had fired the shots?) yelling “Shots fired!” in a very agitated voice.
Here’s a part of the article that leapt out at me; note that it is Shelby’s attorney speaking here, so you can imagine this is the narration most favorable to her [emphasis mine]:
Shelby was en route to a domestic violence call when she encountered Crutcher, who she thought might be impaired, and then the SUV in the middle of the road, Wood said.
She asked Crutcher whether the car belonged to him but got no response, the attorney said. Crutcher began walking toward her with his hands in his pockets. She politely asked Crutcher to take his hands out of his pocket while they were speaking, Wood said.
“He does comply and puts his hands out of his pocket, and then puts his hands up in the air, which she thought was a little bit strange under the circumstances,” he said.
Really? Did it ever occur to her that with all the recent violence he might have been wanting to show her he was completely harmless and cooperative? Is Shelby the Goldilocks of police officers: hands in pockets is not enough, hands in the air is too much, hands dangling by the sides is just right?
Shelby thought—and for all I know, she may have been correct about this part—that Crutcher was either intoxicated or on some sort of drug. But, so what? Do we now seek to arrest people who are not being belligerent (at least, it has not been alleged that he was belligerent), just because they might be under the influence in some way? Do we kill them if they make sudden moves?:
“How could [Crutcher] be reaching into the car if the window is up and there’s blood on the glass?” Crump [one of the Crutcher family’s attorneys] asked, pointing to the photo on the easel. “The window is up. There’s a streak of blood on the window. It’s coming down the car door.”
Attorney Damario Solomon-Simmons contested Shelby’s attorney’s account, saying Crutcher was complying and made no sudden movements until he was hit with the Taser.
As for the allegations that Crutcher may have been intoxicated, Crump said it’s irrelevant. He pointed out that just Monday an alleged terrorist accused of placing bombs in New York and New Jersey and opening fire on police was taken into custody alive, yet Shelby felt she had to exact deadly force on Crutcher.
“If we started to condemn everybody to death who might have some drugs in their system, all our neighborhoods would be affected,” he said.
I can’t say I find a whole lot of disagreement with that. Let me add, however, that one of the New Jersey police officers who apprehended Rahami after a gunfight with him (an actual gunfight; not an imagined one) was shot in the chest, but was protected from harm by body armor. That gunfight with Rahami was not without risk, to say the least. But unfortunately, police officers must accept a certain amount of risk that goes with the territory. They cannot be shooting just because they are jittery or frightened; if so, they lack the temperament to be a police officer, which may be the case for Shelby.
One more quote, this time from Shelby’s lawyer:
…[Crutcher’s] left hand goes into the window,” at which point one officer deployed his Taser and Shelby fired her service weapon. Shelby had a Taser but did not take it out, the attorney said.
[Shelby’s attorney] told CNN in a follow-up interview that his client had her gun out because she was the only officer there for a few minutes and she thought Crutcher was armed. The second officer had a Taser because the “proper tactic … in that scenario is for second person … to have less lethal (weapon),” said Wood, a former police officer.
If the window was actually closed—as the Crutchers’ attorney says it was (with a photo to prove it, supposedly)—then how could Crutcher’s hand “go into” the window? Did Shelby not know the window was closed? In addition, is it standard operating police procedure for an officer to draw a weapon every time the officer “thinks” a person might be armed, even with no aggression from that person and no actual hint of a weapon? And why did Shelby think Crutcher was armed? I’ve seen nothing in any of the reports I’ve read that indicates a good reason (or even any reason at all) that she might think that. Is it because initially he had his hands in his pockets, even though he had removed them when asked? Is hands in pockets a capital offense?
[ADDENDUM: By the way, a lot of discussion of the Crutcher shooting mentions that “police” or “police officers” were responsible. Actually, it was one police officer, Shelby, and it’s not at all clear that the other officers will back her actions up.]
UPDATE 12:15 AM: It has always been obvious that new information would be coming out that could change things. Now there are reports that Shelby says Crutcher had put his hands in his pockets several times. However, no one is alleging that he had put his hands in his pockets before the fatal shot was fired. It is alleged that his hands were up as he walked to the vehicle, and that he then seemed to be reaching inside the vehicle (or about to reach inside it), which is what caused the decisions to fire the taser and the shots. I’ve read conflicting reports on whether the window was open or not (a potentially important detail). I also read that the side of the vehicle he was approaching—the driver’s side—had already been searched or cleared by Shelby, and if so I’m not sure why she would have thought there could have been a gun right there.
Also, there is a report that a vial of PCP was later found in the car, and that “Crutcher had been incarcerated on a drug-related conviction for nearly four years and was released on parole in 2011.” If true (and I can only find that story about the prior incarceration in one paper, so I begin to wonder), that is certainly supportive of the idea that he was on some sort of drug at the time of the fatal encounter, although toxicological testing will reveal whether or not that is true. At any rate, it is not determinative of whether deadly force was justified (nor did the officers know his drug-related state at the time). What is relevant for determining that is his behavior during the encounter, and whether it justified the perception that he represented a threat of the type that would have allowed the use of deadly force.
“In addition, is it standard operating police procedure for an officer to draw a weapon every time the officer “thinks” a person might be armed, even with no aggression from that person and no actual hint of a weapon? And why did Shelby think Crutcher was armed? I’ve seen nothing in any of the reports I’ve read that indicates a good reason (or even any reason at all) that she might think that. Is it because initially he had his hands in his pockets, even though he had removed them when asked? Is hands in pockets a capital offense?”
Unfortunately, new officers are being taught these very things, albeit in an unofficial manner.
Like I said in the other thread: they now drill Officer Safety, Officer Safety, and more Officer Safety. I wish it were different, but some of the noobs coming out of the academy are pretty keyed up, right from the get go.
Stomach turning.
I’m not going to join this cop-thumping. Mistakes are made by all of us. Most of us do not face murderous assaults, ever. So a cop screwed up or was just plain bad. Maybe Shelby didn’t hold her weapon correctly, had her finger slip inside the guard onto the trigger, with a very light trigger pull.
Let’s take a poll: how light is a very light trigger pull? Anyone?
When cops fire at a bad guy, they are supposed to empty their pistol. Pistols are wonderfully inaccurate, especially when in a nervous, unsteady hand.
If Shelby, a woman, was alone and was in any way suspicious of Crutcher, pulling but not pointing her pistol was the right thing to do, IMO. Bad guys, especially those high on drugs, can cover 6 yards in a second even if mortally wounded, grab the cop’s gun and kill him/her even as they die themselves.
The system is working, after all. You think we can make it better? It works pretty doggone well. So where’s the beef?
See Baltimore, where 16 % of cops have left the force since Freddie Gray. Citizens suffer, not the people who need policing.
I found this after posting my comment:
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/09/19/video-shows-terence-crutcher-lower-hands-shot-tulsa-police/
It supports some of the points I tried to make, though Shelby fired only one shot.
Those of us with insufficient facts (and I am one) should not be cop-thumping here. Hands down when returning to one’s vehicle is a baad sign, which has resulted in killed cops when those down hands came up with a weapon in the vehicle.
Frog:
With statements from both lawyers, plus two videos—and disclaimers that it is early and new facts can change things—expressing an opinion is hardly “cop-thumping.” This one looks bad.
I realized a couple of moments ago that there was a missing link in the post. I corrected it, so I don’t know whether you read the link yet or not. It’s this.
I have always defended the right of police officers to defend themselves and to use reasonable force when there is a valid perception of a threat. Valid perception doesn’t mean the person has to actually be armed, just that there is sufficient reason to think he is and that he is about to hurt someone. In this case there wasn’t such reason. And as Shelby’s own attorney tells her side of the story, there still wasn’t such reason.
This guy’s failure to cooperate was really quite mild. Even if he was under the influence of something or other, he certainly was not even alleged to have been belligerent, just mildly uncooperative. There were many officers there; she was not alone when she shot him. One of the officers had a taser and Shelby apparently was aware he had it (she had one too, by the way). Do you really, honestly and truly, think that the fact situation here warranted a shooting? If this is all it takes for officers to fear for their lives and use deadly force, then we all are at grave, grave risk.
Not going to make a judgment. It looks very bad for the police officer. If she acted incorrectly, she should be punished according to applicable law. But I can wait for the official investigation and whatever follows before I get judgmental. Yeah, that doesn’t fit the narrative that black men are being murdered wholesale by white cops, but so be it.
Coming from aviation, I have been involved in several aviation accident investigations. Most of the time pilots have very short periods in which to perform their OODA loop. Even the best trained can make a mistake. The accident board has all the time in the world and a lot of information available to decide if it was pilot error. That has given me a mind set to wait for the investigation before declaring pilot error.
Unfortunately, for the man who was killed and the cop that shot him, it becomes a life-transforming error. Can such errors be avoided with better training? That is the $64 question.
This one does indeed look bad. I have seen recreations of police being shot, though, and the speed with which a situation like this can turn lethal for the officer makes me hesitate before condemning — or even criticizing — the police. Like a batter facing a fast ball pitch, the police have milliseconds to make a decision and respond correctly. And unlike a batter, they do not get to practice over and over again until they get it right: most of them are facing their first such situation (except for training) when they are forced to make that decision. It strikes me as a loose-loose situation: if they get it right they’re a hero, but if they get it wrong they’re either going to face severe disciplinary action or die. I am frankly surprised more police are not following the example of police in Baltimore: just stop policing. If they refuse to respond to situations where they might face the prospect of using lethal power, perhaps the public will be a little less eager to criticize.
J.J.; F:
I understand (and have often made) the argument about how fast a suspect can turn on police with deadly force. But there seems to be something very different about this episode. In other cases I’ve seen, there is something more that the suspect is doing–being more belligerent, more active physically, brandishing something that at least looks like a weapon, trying to take the officer’s weapon. This guy isn’t even alleged to have done something other than go to his car with his hands up, and then made some sudden movement. There were a lot of cops there, including a cop with a taser (Shelby herself had a taser). If shooting him under those conditions was justified, that’s carte blanche for cops to be trigger-happy.
Of course, we might learn more, and there might indeed be something that changes that judgment. But I ask you—as I asked Frog in another comment—do you really think that the facts as alleged here justify a shooting? Where do you draw the line?
“do you really think that the facts as alleged here justify a shooting? Where do you draw the line?”
If the person shot were our brother, or father, or friend we’d draw the line a lot closer. I agree with everyone cautioning that we need to get all the evidence in before jumping to conclusions. I just think we need to be consistent.
– the media/democrats are often ridiculed for cautioning people about jumping to conclusions after a terrorist attack. We need to be consistent.
– Can we all agree that having your hands in your pockets then taking them out and holding them up, having a broken down car improperly parked, being under the influence, reaching for a (closed) window – these things are all a million miles away from behavior calling for a death sentence?
I think we can agree on that, and still support and honor the law enforcement personnel that protect us every day.
I know these things are in the news while other stories are not reported, etc., etc. But I have moved in the past two year from assuming (assuming, mind you – not knowing) that the person shot probably “deserved it” to starting to really ask myself hard questions. Is my support of the police and benefit-of-the-doubt generosity toward them based upon the fact that I’m white and haven’t had to deal with this level of suspicion and alarm and hair-trigger nerves that a young black male is more likely to face?
The police have tough jobs, no doubt. But that’s still not an excuse to blow someone away like this (I make that judgment based on the evidence I currently have. I realize more may surface that changes things, but at this point this looks very, very bad for the officer).
Bill: “But I have moved in the past two year from assuming (assuming, mind you — not knowing) that the person shot probably “deserved it” to starting to really ask myself hard questions.”
I have a neighbor who is a retired cop. The man can tell stories that curl my hair. Each encounter with the someone who is drunk, on drugs, or a law-breaker has the potential to go sideways at any time. When the cop leaves his/her home in the morning they know they may be killed or injured while doing their job. Their objective is to do their job and stay alive/uninjured. Thus they are in a self-preservation mode. There may be a few who leave home with the idea they are going to shoot themselves a black man, but my guess is that it is very few – possibly none.
Knowing what the job entails, I know I would not be able to do it very well. Not all cops are well-suited for the job, in spite of screening and training. But we need police and we need to fund them properly so they can hire better quality personnel.
When you have an encounter with a policeman/woman; stay calm, keep your hands in sight at all times, don’t make any sudden moves, and follow orders. Doing that will help ensure you don’t get shot or beaten up unnecessarily. Too many of these shootings turn out that the person shot didn’t follow those rules.
I’m not saying this was a good shooting. I’m just saying I’m waiting for the investigation.
Let me add that police are going to encounter people under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or mentally ill, every single day. And those people will be acting weird. They won’t necessarily act the way you or I would on a traffic stop: yes sir, no sir, my hands are on the steering wheel sir. They may be irrational. They may have vision or hearing or speech problems, or comprehension problems.
I would never want to be a police officer, not in a million years. That doesn’t mean officers can do just anything, even with uncooperative people. Lack of cooperation isn’t a death sentence, or at least it shouldn’t be. It depends on the quality of the lack of cooperation—the behavior, the degree of aggressiveness, the reasonableness of a suspicion that the person has a weapon. The response of the officers should be proportionate to the perception of the threat.
While I can sympathize with someone making a mistake. If someone kills me making a mistake, I would still like more than a slap on than hand.
I think most people would feel the same if a family member is killed by mistake.
Even an honest mistake that serious can’t go unpunished. It doesn’t have to be a murder charge, but something.
For Frog: a light trigger pull is <5lbs. That is light enough so that if the gun is drop, and/or something catches the trigger it is possible to have the trigger pulled.
This sounds very much like the shooting in Minnesota (if I remember the location correctly) where the office requested the driver’s id during a traffic stop, and then shot him as he reached for his wallet. Blogger Grim from Grim’s Hall discussed this in terms of operant conditioning that occurs during military training and has been adopted by police forces. The police officer has, probably unconsciously, developed a ‘trigger’ (no pun intended) that causes them to fire their weapon as a reaction without a conscious thought that “I’m going to fire my gun now”. In terms of officer safety it makes their reaction time quicker but it also removes the mental block that might keep them from shooting when the situation doesn’t warrant deadly force.
“lack the temperament to be a police officer”. This is not just a throw away observation. It’s at the core of may of the issues we have today.
I’m not an officer but literally grew up in a police family with a dozen or so “uncles” in the force. My father did 22 years in Miami Beach at various ranks and retired honorably and with a clean conscious. He served during the drug wars, the Cuban Flotilla the Liberty City riots (not Miami Beach of course but it was all hands on deck) and so forth. He’s an amazing human being with a fantastic temperament. All the best cops that I knew through him had a that temperament. Constantly situationally aware but confident enough to handle themselves in unbelievable stress. In the movies lately they equate it to the “sheepdog protecting the sheep from the wolves mentality” and it’s not far from m experience. If we fail to look for and encourage these types of individuals and to give hem REAL support then shame on us.
tdgrafton: At least two of us (you and me) know something about pistols and triggers. I personally like light trigger pulls on my shotguns, in part because my finger flexion is less strong since carpal tunnel surgery..
Neo said “If this is all it takes for officers to fear for their lives and use deadly force, then we all are at grave, grave risk.”
Actually a fear for one’s life and the consequent use of deadly force is a determinant of justifiable homicide, in many states, certainly in mine. I have a pistol in each vehicle and at my bedside (my kids are long out of the nest), which I am perfectly entitled by law to use against a burglar or housebreaker because of a fear for my life.
I am a bit perplexed by Neo’s forceful lengthy comment on this matter. There are lots of lawyers already involved, taxpayer monies will be paid, justice will be eventually done, and there is much of greater gravity going on in the world. I believe All Lives Matter, so let’s stop supporting, even inadvertently, the leftist Black Lives Matter.
Neo:
I agree, this one seems to be bad. I continue to urge patience all around while we learn the details.
It is not police bashing to express concern for the definite trend that we see if we are honest.
I am sorry. So far, I have personally given the police the benefit of the doubt in each instance that involved questionable circumstances; but, the number of incidents that appear to be egregious are adding up.
Aside from the possibly tragic killing of an innocent man, episodes like this hurt the police by providing ammunition for the anti-police elements. Not every person should have a badge and a gun. Police forces must do a better job of screening out those who shouldn’t, and training those who do.
Frog, you just hit the nail that I mentioned earlier on the head with your statements.
Trigger pull should not enter the equation, because a gun should not be unholstered until the situation clearly justifies its use. Cops should have the training and the tools to handle most situations without going that far, because once a gun is unholstered the likelihood of it being used goes up significantly.
And fear for one’s life justifies homicide? I mentioned earlier that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been held to a much higher standard. Should police not at least meet the same standard when dealing with citizens who may, or may not, be armed?
Maybe a little far fetched, but I wonder if the entertainment industry with it constant stream of confrontational, shoot-em-up offerings contributes to a toxic mind set.
Cops should stand down nationwide for a few weeks. You know, let “society” calm down, and sort itself out for a bit
Possibly even make some helpful moves like highlighting road maps to the Hamptons or Beverly Hills on the internet.
Maybe an all girl police force would be a good idea too. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/more-female-cops-less-police-violence.html
More caring for society’s most vulnerable is what is most needed.
Well, DNW, that’s easy to say when you and yours aren’t the ones getting shot
At least initially, this specific case does look bad.
That said, here are several relevant factors;
A woman is naturally going to be nervous when alone and confronted with a very large man. A woman cop starts out at a physical disadvantage and that has to create a fearful mindset.
Black crime statistics are greatly disproportionate in comparison to percentage of population. If you’re a cop and dealing with a black man, your life literally depends upon being cautious because you have to assume that sooner or later you’re likely to be confronted with a criminal.
It seems highly unlikely that a woman cop alone… searched the vehicle while the man stood nearby. The video clearly shows other cops quickly arriving so she didn’t search and clear that side of the vehicle after they arrived.
You can see the man lower his arms as he reaches his vehicle. The cop did not immediately shoot him, even after he reached the driver’s side door. In the second video that Frog linked to, if you go to full screen you can see the vehicle’s overhead light come on as the door is opened and that is when the cop fired.
This all seems rather odd. Obviously we have to wait for further information. But at this point, I’m doubtful that any part of the vehicle had been searched. I suspect he was on drugs and probably mumbled that he was going to get his vehicle registration but without the cop telling him to do so. I suspect he was told to stop and ignored instructions. So when he opened the door, I think she panicked.
As for better training and getting better people to take the job, good luck with that in today’s atmosphere where a mistaken split second decision or second guessing by people that weren’t there can cost you your job or even result in imprisonment. Under those conditions, who’d be stupid enough to take the job?
DNW says: “Maybe an all girl police force would be a good idea too. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/more-female-cops-less-police-violence.html”
“TIC” I presume. Well, I guess this incident will put that idea to rest.
Hillary tweeted that this stuff has to stop.
How exactly will the President do that? If Obama could have done so, it certainly would have stopped.
Cornhead,
Federalization of local police, that’s what this is really all about. That and motivating blacks to vote democrat.
I don’t know what that is supposed to mean, and I am not sure you do either.
Crutcher was shot. I don’t approve of that. And nothing I suggested as a follow-up would have led to him being shot by a cop – unless the link which promoted the idea that more female cops would equal less social violence is somehow untrue.
In fact, I stated, “Cops should stand down nationwide for a few weeks. You know, let “society” calm down, and sort itself out for a bit ”
It would give us all some much needed perspective, perhaps. Who could object to that? It’s not like God says that we have to hire cops.
So I cannot imagine who it is you envision as being shot by whom, in your reply.
Sheer bigotry. You are trying to deprive a certain social segment of their right to a piece of a government distributed pie, simply because they may be suspected to be in some ways be less able to handle certain situations which social justice mandates that they be allowed to handle whether they can or not.
Didn’t you read the article I liked to? That should tell you all you need to know. Women are peacemakers. Therefore when they become police, peace will be made.
Geoffrey Britain:
She was there for several minutes before the videos begin, so there’s a lot of time we don’t know much about.
Also, when she first came upon the car, it was empty, running, and the doors were open. It had been abandoned momentarily. She may have searched the driver’s side at that point, before she even interacted with or encountered Crutcher, who was somewhere in the vicinity but not right there. My impression is that she did not encounter him immediately; initially it was just the car, but I don’t know for how long.
Frog:
In order to be justifiable homicide, a fear for one’s life leading to deadly force must be reasonable. That is the sort of thing courts decide, and there are legal standards used to determine it. And that is the sort of thing that is at question in this case—the reasonableness of the fear and the nature of the action taken.
You might want to look at the post I wrote at Legal Insurrection on the subject.
Stand down, Neo. Admit what we others have-
that we do not have the facts
Further, the predominance of shootings by cops(white and black) of blacks are because blacks commit an absolute majority of the violent crimes in America. Blacks are 13% of the population, and commit 52% of all violent crimes per the FBI.
Frog:
Admit what others have—that we don’t have the facts?
I’ve written that quite a few times, mentioning it in all three posts I’ve written. That’s also what the word “alleged” refers to—the fact that we don’t know.
Towards the beginning of my post today at LI I write the following:
neo,
The vehicle was running but apparently abandoned in the middle of the road, when she got there? That alone would put a lone cop on alert that something was very wrong because that’s just not normal behavior. Any cop unexpectedly running into inexplicable behavior is going to feel a bit on edge. Under such conditions the cop will call it in and any search of the vehicle had to be cursory at best. Then a very large black man shows up. None of this excuses what happened but it does begin to shed some light on how the preconditions for overreacting developed.
Geoffrey Britain:
Of course it’s not “normal.” That’s why a cop was called. And it is alleged he wasn’t acting normal, either. That’s not the issue. There are many ways to not be normal, but many of them are not dangerous or threatening. Police should be able to make the distinction—although of course at any time a person can become a threat, so everyone must be treated with caution. However, there is no allegation (so far) of threatening or aggressive behavior (or even talk) on his part towards anyone during the entire incident.
In addition, there was a more “normal” explanation for what was going on with the car, and the officer was given that explanation when the call came in. Apparently Crutcher had told whoever placed the call that there was something wrong with his car—it was smoking or something—and that he had abandoned it because he was afraid of a car fire.
In fact, one of the earlier articles I read said that Crutcher had gone back to his car at the end because he wanted to check on whether it was okay (I assume the police told him not to do it, of course, but I don’t know). I only read one article that reported that, though, so I have no idea whether it’s true.
DNW
If I misconstrued your comment I apologize but I can’t imagine that you were serious in your suggestions. It appeared to me that you were just sarcastically trolling the thread.
Here’s what you wrote: ” Cops should stand down nationwide for a few weeks. You know, let “society” calm down, and sort itself out for a bit
Possibly even make some helpful moves like highlighting road maps to the Hamptons or Beverly Hills on the internet.
Maybe an all girl police force would be a good idea too. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/more-female-cops-less-police-violence.html
More caring for society’s most vulnerable is what is most needed.”
Sounds like you’re making light of it and sarcastically suggesting ridiculous solutions to poke fun at people who think cops shooting innocent civilians is a bad thing.
Bill:
DNW can’t be bothered to indicate when he/she/? is being sarcastic (/s) or serious. We proles have to figure it out, or just ignore him.
When people don’t even follow their own Justified Lethal Force spectrums, and people in the public here justify their lack of internal conduct, no wonder their country is falling apart on them.
You see evil and injustice, and just let it go. Do people really believe that by doing so, they are going to be rewarded? By what, a police force that they allowed to continue as a corrupt system?
Is that going to reward them and their descendants? Really now.
neo,
“None of this excuses what happened but it does begin to shed some light on how the preconditions for overreacting developed.”
If a car is smoking or running badly enough that you stop in the middle of the road, the first thing you do is turn off the engine… as shutting down the engine is a natural reaction.
As for wanting to ‘check on his car’ why walk over to it with his hands in the air and why was the cop pointing her gun at him? Things aren’t adding up here. As usual, there’s a lot of confusing narratives being promulgated.
Bill,
I don’t know how you construed, but from what you have said you got some of it right and some of it wrong.
As for “trolling the thread”, if I understand your meaning, you would be both wrong, and, frankly, presumptuous.
As for my sarcasm however, you are half right and half wrong.
I think that the suggestions – even those originating with panting liberals – would indeed blow up in the faces of the complainers.
But what I would like to see happen is that they get exactly what they want, but only insofar as reason and real responsibility allows.
And, if reason and real moral duty only allows them the negative part of what they want, as it does, then well and good. They should enjoy sleeping in the beds they make, and to experiencing the fallout of their own life aims – and I feel justified in saying, lies.
Philadelphia might be enjoying some of this even now, though it is officially denied. Cost benefit Bill. The cost is greater than the benefit.
In an abstract sense, I am certainly shrugging at what happens when the paths of two apparent incompetents collide; as well as at the expectation of some persons that the world must stop to address it without mentioning what the real problem is: That two apparent incompetents collided.
I think that cops shooting innocent civilians is a very bad thing.
I also think that cops should let – and the law should expect that they would do so – the determinedly stupid self-destruct rather than lay their lives down for brainless flailing drug addled ingrates who imagine that other people exist for their sake and satisfaction.
Police exist to maintain the civil peace; not as some form of deracinated Christian do-gooder reconfigured to suit, and which we all have to chip in for. Though many, no doubt would like to force them deeper than even now into that role, and then complain when the natural result is disaster.
Now, while only time will tell if the framing I generally implied fits this particular case, it certainly fits many, many, others which have uselessly disturbed the civil peace, while misfiring in a vain and foredoomed attempt to preserve it.
Just ignore me. That way I’ll say what I want in the way I want, and your digestion will remain unimpaired. Everyone is happy that way.
Did DNW say something significant?
As I was saying earlier …
“Police exist to maintain the civil peace; not as some form of deracinated Christian do-gooder reconfigured to suit, and which we all have to chip in for. Though many, no doubt would like to force them deeper than even now into that role, and then complain when the natural result is disaster.”
As the Tribune is now revealing …
Crutcher family attorney Melvin Hall said,
Associated Press
Copyright © 2016, Chicago Tribune
And this does not even take into account the officer’s version of the story and the conditioning circumstances which she contends mitigate her action.
But, in which she nonetheless appears less than … on top of things.
If, Drug addled felon meets up with fearful and increasingly terrified female cop. Then: Case closed.
I know these things are in the news while other stories are not reported, etc., etc. But I have moved in the past two year from assuming (assuming, mind you — not knowing) that the person shot probably “deserved it” to starting to really ask myself hard questions. Is my support of the police and benefit-of-the-doubt generosity toward them based upon the fact that I’m white and haven’t had to deal with this level of suspicion and alarm and hair-trigger nerves that a young black male is more likely to face?-Bill
The Majority of police executions of civilians in the US between 2001-2012, are white civilian casualties, not blacks. As Frog mentioned, that’s because blacks are only a minority, yet commit more crimes.
If the police were executing black civilians in absolute numbers equal to white, crime would fall dramatically in cities.
Detroit, after all, doesn’t even have an effective police force. Neither does Chicago, since the mayor often orders the CPD to stand down when enforcing laws.
My point to Bill is not to trust the media and to look at the rates of incidents which have happened via copblock and other sources. The BLM wants to make this issue about blacks being shot by police. That’s merely a minority issue. Look at the primary issue at large.
Christopher B Says:
September 21st, 2016 at 8:51 am
Makes a good point, in fact about similar to what I wrote even.
A lot of people look at the police and think of old training standards. But that was before the police unions were hijacked by the Leftist alliance. That was before the police began using military reflex training methods.
“If the police were executing black civilians in absolute numbers equal to white, crime would fall dramatically in cities.”
I don’t even know what to do with this. I know (hope) you don’t mean this, but sounds like a “final solution”.
You don’t mean that, right?
If your point is that more whites get shot than blacks, I am not doubting you – since black people are a significant minority.
My only point is that the things even DNW has written about Crutcher’s past don’t come anywhere near deserving the death penalty. I understand the point about policing being a dangerous career and that accidents happen. What I don’t understand is the shrugged off Oh well, he shouldn’t have been so scary looking/acting excuse.
Look, many white people in this country are freaking out over the potential of getting injured or killed by a Syrian refugee. Did you see DJTJr’s “if even three skittles are poisoned” tweet? Black people have a right to be concerned about getting shot if they are reaching for their wallet or reaching for the window or not doing everything absolutely perfectly. This is happening too often.
Frog: sorry, took it to be a literal question. I think the point you were wanting to make was why was the gun out and pointed at a person in the first place?
There are a lot of things that are just off/highly unusual in the video. The reports coming out have not helped understand why those tactics were used.
Sadly, the justice department report might be the only useful information to be had in the next 6 months…
DNW:
I assume you are aware that his previous history is totally irrelevant in determining what happened during this incident.
The police were apparently unaware of his history (although I find that odd, because I read that they did a check on his license plate and came up with no criminal history, which is also odd). I read one article late last night that reported on the criminal history you mention here, and strangely enough it was only in the local Tulsa paper; I couldn’t find it anywhere else, but I assumed it was correct because it was a reputable paper.
There’s a reason that prior offenses only matter in our criminal justice system during the sentencing phase, not the trial phase—and that’s because we take each act and each fact situation as it is. In the Crutcher case, the only thing that matters in terms of the police officer’s actions is what happened during the incident in question. We certainly know from the facts given that there was no weapon involved here. The question is simply: did Shelby have a reason to reasonably believe he had one? His prior offense as a young man is completely irrelevant to that question.
The prior weapons offense occurred over twenty years ago, when Crutcher was either 19 or 20. He was 40 when he was killed, and in the meantime (as far as I could tell) he was involved in drugs. That came out fairly early in the game (although the police, as I said, were unaware of any drug history—they suspected he was either drunk or under the influence of a drug when they encountered him). As I wrote in this post:
Crutcher’s behavior at the time of Friday’s police encounter was described as sort of addled, confused, blank, not aggressive and not threatening. Police must have skills in dealing with intoxicated or drug addicted people without having a jittery trigger finger, or people would be dropping like flies everywhere. It’s certainly possible that Shelby’s behavior (use of deadly force) will be considered reasonable as the facts come out, but so far the problem is that there is grave doubt as to its reasonableness even if you take her version of the facts (as released so far; that could change).
What I don’t get is, when does a cop ever intentionally fire once?
Once they decide it’s time to shoot, aren’t they trained to keep shooting until the threat is completely neutralized?
Does anybody train to shoot less than twice?
If so, doesn’t that make this seem like an accidental shooting?
Well, prior history is irrelevant in a court of law in determining guilt with regard to a specific crime.
And the objective facts whatever they turn out to be, are the facts of this incident and not of another.
However, his behavioral history is not logically irrelevant in judging whether the scanty evidence presented so far requires further assessment.
In any event I am not saying that he was liable to be killed because he had spent time in prison; and had an extensive criminal record and drug history.
“[I]nvolved in drugs”? As in “merely”?
Neo, did you read the material I quoted?
He was in prison for drug trafficking, not just on, or involved in, drugs.
His own father told police that much; that he was involved in drugs: ” [his] father showed up while he was being arrested and told the officers that his son had “an ongoing problem” with the drug PCP, the affidavit states.”
And he was in prison five years ago, not 20.
So four years ago he was involved in a fracas with police when arrested for intoxication and obstruction. He was stunned on that occasion because he was non-compliant as well.
Those acts back then, do not of course provide a justification for a peace officer’s shooting him now.
But if you troubled to read the police officer’s (and I do not take her side since I do not respect her capacity/competency) public statement through her lawyer, this situation seems to be a virtual repeat of the scenario described in 2012.
And no, I don’t think that a cop should have killed him. He probably was on track to be killed given his lack of behavioral control; but it would be better not to have been done by a cop.
Bill, it was not a death “penalty”, except in some cosmic sense you personally might wish to impute to it. Or perhaps as a bit of rhetoric which you find convenient to deploy.
It was a case of a troublesome, drug addled, behaviorally incontinent idiot, interacting with others in a way which presumed upon their forbearance to the extent that it was sure one day to run out.
When he finally ran into a weaker woman who was incapable of dealing with him in a way which preserved her so-called “authority”, and resulted in her fearing for her life (purportedly), his free pass expired.
Not a penalty. Nature.
My own strong preference would have been – if he could not right himself – that he would have on his own somehow found another brick wall to inevitably self-destruct against. Preferably an inanimate one, or at least by the hand of someone close to him; so as to spare innocent bystanders with no connection to him, or responsibility for him, the miserly and trouble involved in dealing with him at all.
Marvin Gaye comes to mind.
DNW:
You would rather drug abusers die? Marvin Gaye?? What on earth are you talking about? Nor was he (or Crutcher, for that matter) hurting any innocent bystanders.
DNW:
Yes, involved in drugs. I didn’t say he merely took drugs. He was involved as user and seller. Involved. I didn’t feel I had to repeat the exact charges, since I was replying to you, and you knew them.
My point—and you seem to have at least gotten this point—is that it is irrelevant. Only his behavior during this incident is relevant.
I was referring to the weapons charge as having been when he was a young man, over 20 years ago.
The Great Carnac speaks:
“When he finally ran into a weaker woman who was incapable of dealing with him in a way which preserved her so-called “authority”, and resulted in her fearing for her life (purportedly), his free pass expired.”
Knowledge and wisdom from a distance or not knowing from a hole in the ground. /s
No. And I did not say that. As far as I am concerned drug abusers are welcome to abuse to their heart’s content.
It is only when their behavioral incontinence and disruptive and dangerous behavior spills over into the lives innocent others who have no responsibility for them and whose own lives are thereby endangered and degraded by the behavior of the incontinent abuser, that it becomes a matter of any concern to me.
I am talking about the fact that Crutcher, a drug addled menace to public safety had obviously been on a self-destructive trajectory for some years, and that the effects of his behavior had spilled over into the public, resulting in imprisonment on a relatively recent felony conviction, and various arrests for acting out. In the case that was brought to mind, the troublesome person was ultimately returned home so to speak, and innocent others, were able to avoid involvement with him in his determination to spread havoc and misery.
You may recall that Crutcher’s father appeared on the scene of one of his arrests to say that his son had an “ongoing” problem with PCP.
Look at the trouble this a–hole’s behavior has caused society.
If he had left his running car parked in his dad’s backyard and started acting bizarrely there, rather than in the middle of the public road where he was blocking traffic and provoking calls to the police, we would not be facing this social situation now, would we …
Bitter bitter …
The not so great carnac. There, fixed it for you.
OM Says:
September 22nd, 2016 at 11:18 am
The not so great carnac. There, fixed it for you.”
You can quit following me around and auditioning. If I wanted one of you, I’d go to the pet shop and buy one.
I feel another hiatus coming on. LOL
Come back when you catch your breath. LOL
Bill, it was not a death “penalty”, except in some cosmic sense you personally might wish to impute to it. Or perhaps as a bit of rhetoric which you find convenient to deploy.
Well, yeah, it was a bit if rhetoric I found convenent to deploy. Aren’t pretty much all comments “rhetoric”? What are you talking about?
It was a casr of a civilian being executed by his government (on accident, I hope and beleive). Conservatives used to worry about things like that. Is it OK because he was a dusky ne”erdowell?
Nitpick my comments all you want. The way you casually dismiss as something that was going to happen sooner or lateranyway the death of this man is chilling.
If he had left his running car parked in his dad’s backyard and started acting bizarrely there, rather than in the middle of the public road where he was blocking traffic and provoking calls to the police, we would not be facing this social situation now, would we …
Leftist protesters block traffic all the time, but the Leftist police unions don’t order them executed on sight. In fact, they do the opposite and provide extra courtesy and protection to said protesters blocking traffic, often illegally.
In other words, some people have connections, and their lives are guaranteed. Others do not, and they end up dead. Now of course, that doesn’t mean you are safe just because you aren’t on drugs. You aren’t safe because you don’t have political CONNECTIONS, see that’s the real difference there.
Once they decide it’s time to shoot, aren’t they trained to keep shooting until the threat is completely neutralized?
Does anybody train to shoot less than twice?
If so, doesn’t that make this seem like an accidental shooting?
Probably. ALthough not certain.
From the photo, the allied officer was 2 steps behind the woman, on her left. Her peripheral vision probably couldn’t pick it up, tunnel or no tunnel vision.
So if she heard the tazer go off first, that might have spooked her, especially if she testimony is that she wasn’t aware backup had even arrived. Of course, if that was the case, her hearing might have been reduced or turned off entirely, in her brain. In that case, she wouldn’t have heard the tazer go off either.
The brain can turn off auditory processing selectively or entirely, in life and death situations. In order to better process visual information using the blood oxygen supply.
So if the male or buddy officer had ordered the target to put his hands against the X, and the woman officer didn’t hear that at all, then saw the target put his hands on the car as if reaching through the window, then that might explain the situation and context better. But a lot of that depends on the male officer’s testimony.
I don’t even know what to do with this. I know (hope) you don’t mean this, but sounds like a “final solution”.
You don’t mean that, right?
It’s a mere logic train, not as scary as you perceive Bill. Since crime has not fallen dramatically, except for neighborhoods arming up like the apocalypse is coming, obviously the police aren’t killing blacks on par with white numbers.
I am talking about the insinuation (inadvertent or not) that it was a per se or de facto (even if reprehensible) juridical killing. My point is that it was not. It was the result of the collision of two incompetents, and a social expectation that peace officers should be bloody social workers too.
No, it was not an execution of a sentence handed down by the judiciary. It was the unremarkable (in a statistical sense) result of a train of events occurring within a coddling or self-undermining social premise which impelled two persons not up to their respective tasks into one another.
I don’t know whether you are addressing me through synechdoche, or if you are really asking about “conservatives” of which I am not really one.
If you are addressing me, ask yourself if I referred to the officer as incompetent because she was not dusky.
I think if you reconsider, you will realize that I am disputing a contention you are making, implicit or not or insinuated or not, regarding the nature of the killing.
He was on the road to self-destruction for 20 years or more.
You seem to imagine that the therapeutic state as it was once termed is the answer. But the therapeutic state kills as much as it preserves as it spirals downward into a sump of shared miserableness.
It takes 6 paid minders and three lawyers to handle one worthless drugged up Hollywood celebrity. Extrapolate that as an expectation which the run of the mill behaviorally incontinent have the privilege of socially imposing on the rest of us and you will readily see it is impossible – unless you wish to make enabling and handholding your self-sacrificial life’s work.
Do you think that based on his history, this man had demonstrated he was was capable of self-direction?
And if you admit he was not, then whose bloody responsibility is he, and to what cost to themselves?
Your presumed answer to that is what I find chilling.
Regards,
“You seem to imagine that the therapeutic state as it was once termed is the answer.”
Huh?
“Extrapolate that as an expectation which the run of the mill behaviorally incontinent have the privilege of socially imposing on the rest of us and you will readily see it is impossible — unless you wish to make enabling and handholding your self-sacrificial life’s work.”
I just wish that when a cop, accidentally or non-accidentally, kills someone who’s innocent, people would quit making excuses about it because the person killed was big, black and scary.
All the other stuff you wrote is what’s on your mind, not mine, and has nothing to do with what I said, thought, or believe.
I just wish that when a cop, accidentally or non-accidentally, kills someone who’s innocent, people would quit making excuses about it because the person killed was big, black and scary.
You ever look up Waco 1 and Waco 2?
If you were here for the Waco 2 thread at the time it happened, here at Neo Neo, you would have noticed that many people said that the biker clubs were criminals, so they thought it reasonable and justified for the police to shoot them on sight.
It wasn’t the Big Black Bad excuse, but close enough.
Later it turned out, as I suspected, that Waco and the feds were just executing undesirables who the public wouldn’t miss or worry about. Except whereas the blacks have to go find single death incidents, while whites get their casualty lists in the double digits every once in awhile, plus the single death incidents from LEOs.
No, it was not an execution of a sentence handed down by the judiciary. It was the unremarkable (in a statistical sense) result of a train of events occurring within a coddling or self-undermining social premise which impelled two persons not up to their respective tasks into one another.
I would agree with DNW’s assessment, tentatively. Of course when I talk about police executions, I have a boat load of better examples than the stuff BLM comes up with as their jihad propaganda. Oh sorry, that should now be called “Peaceful Charlotte protest” propaganda.
To say a trajectory is a trajectory is to say nothing to excuse the impact that results, nor to render a value judgment on it, nor to justify in some moral sense, that endpoint of that trajectory.
However, to claim that a behaviorally incompetent person is entitled to indulgent and forbearing handling by one more competent, is to render a value judgment; as you are apparently doing.
I merely observed what happens when two incompetents collide.
I did not say that the driver deserved death for being an eff-up. Just that it was not the unexpected conclusion to his own behavioral life-choice trajectory. And, had not a woman incapable of handling him come along and tried to deal with his behavioral issues, he probably would still be alive … for the time being.
“All the other stuff you wrote is what’s on your mind, not mine, and has nothing to do with what I said, thought, or believe.”
The other stuff I wrote had in some measure to do what appeared to be your implicit assumptions and with Neo’s hope and belief that police should be able to deal generously with the mentally incompetent and the behaviorally incontinent in a managerial kind of way. A view many share; but which I do not.
If you agree with me that there is no moral need to cut such cases any slack, then we can say that the idea that cops should be in part social workers, does not apply to you.
DNW:
Are you kidding me??
You write:
What an odd misinterpretation of what I’ve written about this incident.
Police encounter such people on a daily basis. If police don’t know how to do it without killing innocent people, if they don’t know how to assess relative threat from these people, then they need to figure out how. Police themselves have plenty of training on the subject and recognize it as a big part of their job. If you think police themselves want to shoot first and ask questions later, you are wrong—and you are asking for a very un-American police state (almost literally) to be put in place.
This is not social work, nor is it dealing “generously.” It’s dealing reasonably without unnecessary violence. It’s part of police work, part of the burden of wearing a gun and being given power. What you term “the behaviorally incontinent” is the vast vast population with which police ordinarily deal.
It’s not a job I envy. It’s not a job I seek out. It’s a job I respect. But it’s not a job that gives carte blanche to shoot at everyone who happens to spook you. And it’s not a job for the anxious or fearful.
No. I was not even directing my comments at you.
I took from what you were saying that you wished that the response of the police be tailored to deal with the deficits of certain persons they encountered, and that they employ techniques to manage the situation, rather than simply demanding legally justifiable compliance which any reasonable man would understand.
I think I have already specified that the police officer in the Crutcher case was personally incompetent to gain compliance.
You misunderstand. I am in general, in favor of very much less policing and intervention. That they often intervene in order to try and manage a deescalation of crazies, is what places them in situations with would ultimately be resolved in another way and to the benefit of political liberty and classically liberal values at one time. Though not perhaps, in a way which would please those who have feelings for the crazies.
And as I just said, I would prefer they do much less of it.
It is not a job peace officers used to be expected to perform; and the performance of which in some ways conceptually exacerbates the situation.
The ‘streak’ that is supposedly ‘on the window’ isn’t a streak at all and it isn’t on the window. It’s the driver’s side seatbelt that is unfastened and hanging straight down. This is obvious because it is only visible from one angle in the video. The window is open and the officer knew the window was open because she has said that when she arrived on the scene, there was no driver in or around the vehicle (which was running) and she noticed that the windows and sunroof were open. Also, if blood were to be on the front window of a modern vehicle, it would not trail straight up and down as the windows flair out from top to bottom. The picture/video shows something running straight up and down though. It’s the seatbelt. Onto the next piece of BS evidence …