Tulsa Polic Shoot Unarmed Black Man with Hands Up.

[petej0]

So basically your argument is: It's OK to shoot someone who doesn't listen to me. Moreover its OK to shoot someone who didn't listen to me and my partner has already contained with a taser.

No, that isnt the argument at all. The argument is: if you are going to disobey police orders, then your actions may involve force and you may end up dead.

If you disobey police orders and run, you may be tackled, hit your head and die from a brain contusion.
If you disobey police orders and reach into your waistband, you may be shot.

[Endus]

Cops aren't going to let you arm yourself with a weapon after defying orders from them.

There was no "weapon".

And "defying orders" doesn't warrant a shooting.

Sure, it might be "better" if he'd cooperated and not gotten shot, but the officer who put him in that situation still shouldn't be on the force.

[zenkai]

If the issue is just that his car's stopped in the middle of the road, then yes, I'd expect they should just let him drive away. Send a ticket to his address, later; they have the vehicle's license plate if nothing else.



Which is a ridiculous standard. "Abide by the cops' unlawful orders or they'll shoot you and get away with it" isn't a reasonable standard.



Unless you see a weapon, you have no call assuming they've got one.



Even if it misses the bar for first-degree by a hair, it's absolutely second-degree. Unless you're claiming the gun accidentally went off.

Hey, if that's what you believe that's your right to believe that, I sure in the hell wouldn't assume he wasn't.

[PizzaSHARK]

Do you have any evidence, or any precedent that police give unlawful orders?



Were you on the ground? Were you talking to the guy? Were you giving him orders?

If you told him to stop and he continued to walk away and tried to open his door or reach inside at which point would you use force? Would you just allow him to get back in the car and drive away? I am not sure what you expect the police to do?

Here is a question: If the guy stayed near the police car and answered their questions politely, would he be dead right now?

Maybe. Plenty of people have died in police custody in the last year alone. Nearly all of them were black.

[zenkai]

There was no "weapon".

And "defying orders" doesn't warrant a shooting.

Sure, it might be "better" if he'd cooperated and not gotten shot, but the officer who put him in that situation still shouldn't be on the force.

He didn't say the man was armed, he saying they wouldn't let you. They had no idea he had no guns in the car.

[Captain N]

No, that isnt the argument at all. The argument is: if you are going to disobey police orders, then your actions may involve force and you may end up dead.

If you disobey police orders and run, you may be tackled, hit your head and die from a brain contusion.
If you disobey police orders and reach into your waistband, you may be shot.

Yes it's exactly the argument. The police at any time had a chance to detain him for "Not following Orders" instead they followed him back to his car proceeded to have Officer Tyler hit him with a taser and then Officer Shelby shooting him.

Not Following Orders does not give the police the right to shoot someone.

[zenkai]

Maybe. Plenty of people have died in police custody in the last year alone. Nearly all of them were black.

Source? I would love to see that.

[PizzaSHARK]

The first officer on the scene was a smallish women who may or may not have had a threat of or actual violence towards her which would have caused her to draw her weapon. Just watching the video it does look bad for the police officer - I'm pretty sure the shot was not intention but almost certainly a fear reaction while holding a firearm with a short and very light trigger pull - probably a Glock.

Then she shouldn't be a cop, and she should be charged for his death. We already did this with that "reserve deputy" idiot who killed Eric Harris because he thought he was pulling out his taser.

[petej0]

If the issue is just that his car's stopped in the middle of the road, then yes, I'd expect they should just let him drive away. Send a ticket to his address, later; they have the vehicle's license plate if nothing else.

What if they suspect he was under the influence? WOuld it still be safe to do so then?

Which is a ridiculous standard. "Abide by the cops' unlawful orders or they'll shoot you and get away with it" isn't a reasonable standard.

It isnt ridiculous unless you think disobeying police orders is ok. Secondly there is nothing in what I said that says that police can shoot you and get away with it. Thirdly, show me an unlawful order! You keep spouting "unlawful" as if it is prevalent.

Fourth, you didnt answer the question.

[alexkeren]

There is dashcam footage and helicopter footage of the incident. Even the chopper pilot said to use a taser but the cop doesn't. The cop that pulled the trigger is most likely going in for murder. It was in response to a broken down vehicle, nothing else. My question is, why did they need 4 cop cars for an "abandoned vehicle" call?

Warning Graphic in the videos.
http://thegrio.com/2016/09/19/video-...-tulsa-police/

Just going to post the link so people don't watch it if they don't want to.

Since the actual news stories have some vital facts you ignored.

1) It was a female cop that shot him.

2) One unidentified caller said the driver was acting strangely, adding, "I think he's smoking something."

3) The vehicle wasn't broken down, it was stopped with a driver who was under the influence of drugs.

4) He was reaching into the vehicle. You can't assume since he hasn't listened yet that it's for good reason.

5) A person on drugs can ignore things like pepper spray and tasers, seen it happen personally.


Not saying the shooting was justified, just saying a lot of things being thrown out there without having ANY facts.

[Citizen T]

Then she shouldn't be a cop, and she should be charged for his death. We already did this with that "reserve deputy" idiot who killed Eric Harris because he thought he was pulling out his taser.

I'm not arguing against the fact that she shouldn't be a cop. I'm of a mind that the majority of women on police forces across the country shouldn't be (at least for patrol duty) for this very reason. They are not physically able to stop, apprehend, or even intimidate a medium (much less a large) sized man alone without resorting to lethal force.

[petej0]

Not Following Orders does not give the police the right to shoot someone.

Nobody said it does. My point is if you dont, nothing good will come out of it. If you are lucky you will only get a more trumped up "Resisting arrest" charge. At worst, you end up dead. It doesnt benefit the person, so why do it?

[PizzaSHARK]

Source? I would love to see that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray

Want me to pull up some deaths caused by corrections officers ignoring and even mocking signs that an inmate - someone that hadn't even been convicted of a crime! - was in life-threatening danger?

[alexkeren]

If the issue is just that his car's stopped in the middle of the road, then yes, I'd expect they should just let him drive away. Send a ticket to his address, later; they have the vehicle's license plate if nothing else.



Which is a ridiculous standard. "Abide by the cops' unlawful orders or they'll shoot you and get away with it" isn't a reasonable standard.



Unless you see a weapon, you have no call assuming they've got one.



Even if it misses the bar for first-degree by a hair, it's absolutely second-degree. Unless you're claiming the gun accidentally went off.

Endus, what is unlawful about an officer telling somebody to stop and put there hands up? What law, in what country, says that is not lawful?

[Rooflesstoofless]

There was no "weapon".

And "defying orders" doesn't warrant a shooting.

Sure, it might be "better" if he'd cooperated and not gotten shot, but the officer who put him in that situation still shouldn't be on the force.

The vehicle becomes a potential weapon once you let a suspect get in and drive.

I don't think there was anything to warrant lethal force either. They should have just tazered the shit out of him.

[Captain N]

Nobody said it does. My point is if you dont, nothing good will come out of it. If you are lucky you will only get a more trumped up "Resisting arrest" charge. At worst, you end up dead. It doesnt benefit the person, so why do it?

That's an issue with police training then isn't it? What you're advocating is allowing law enforcement to bully someone into submission by using Resisting Arrest which means they person has done nothing other than walk away from being detained without reason. There is plenty of opportunity in this case and in others for the police to detain someone without resorting to lethal force....yet statements like yours make it sound completely acceptable for citizens to be bullied by bad cops and then make the victim somehow to blame because they didn't kneel in the presence of the Lawbringers.

[petej0]

There was no "weapon".

And "defying orders" doesn't warrant a shooting.

You know that NOW...They didnt know that at the time. And defying orders to (potentially) arm yourself, or flee putting others in harm, does warrant some type of force.

[Endus]

It isnt ridiculous unless you think disobeying police orders is ok.

Define "ok". If it's an unlawful order, yes, you absolutely are entitled to disobey. That it comes from an officer does not make it something that has to be abided by. This is why a cop can't demand you give him all the money in your wallet, for instance. If a cop tells you to, the correct response is "no, fuck off". And if they then beat you and take it, well, that's assault and battery, and mugging.

Endus, what is unlawful about an officer telling somebody to stop and put there hands up? What law, in what country, says that is not lawful?

You need cause to justify that. If you don't have cause, it's an unlawful order.

For instance, if I'm sitting on a bench eating a sandwich, and a cop says "Hey you, hands up", I should give him a look and keep eating my sandwich. And if I DO comply just to hope it's over, I should be filing a complaint with his precinct and getting his ass canned for abusing his authority like that.

- - - Updated - - -

You know that NOW...They didnt know that at the time. And defying orders to (potentially) arm yourself, or flee putting others in harm, does warrant some type of force.

You don't get to presume the existence of a lethal weapon, you need to actually see it, or behaviour that looks like they're aggressively drawing it. Not "a hand near their waistband", which is where your hand naturally lies.

The most force that someone refusing to comply but being otherwise unarmed and not committing a crime would entail is physical restraint so you can arrest them. If you can't chase them down, you let them go.

[Gandrake]

So basically your argument is: It's OK to shoot someone who doesn't listen to me.

You only live once. And in situations like that, your life can end in less than a matter of minutes; I don't have any sympathy for anyone who cannot understand or does not respect that.

Defending your life is more important than any idea or old piece of paper with some words written on it.

No, it is not okay... But you are not going to change the police force standards of training by throwing corpses at them or doing exactly thing you have been told not to do.

[nacixems]

You know that NOW...They didnt know that at the time. And defying orders to (potentially) arm yourself, or flee putting others in harm, does warrant some type of force.

Very good point, however i sense many here seem to hate cops.. so not sure your point will make it thru. but makes perfect sense to me.

the cops did sense some kind of threat , thats seems so based on the video.. if i feel threatened, i got my gun out too. could training help, im sure, the are constantly being trained, will it prevent these situations from happening, maybe, but it will still happen, cops are people to, diff. cops can react differently to the same situation..