Tulsa Polic Shoot Unarmed Black Man with Hands Up.

[Endus]

Wrong. In most of the police-shooting cases we have seen so far, people are getting shot because they refused to follow the orders when pointed with multiple guns.

Which is blaming the victims for the potentially-criminal actions of their killers. Like in this case, where this officer has now been charged with manslaughter. Not abiding by her orders does not justify the shooting.

Your argument is in no way different from saying that if you obey the orders of the guy mugging you in an alley, you're less likely to get shot/stabbed, so people who get mugged and then killed are really the ones to blame, not the muggers. Which is obviously asinine. It doesn't become a magically more convincing argument when we replace "mugger" with "murderous police officer".

The USA isn't a police state. If an officer gives you an order that's unlawful, you should refuse to abide by it. You shouldn't have to fear that they might murder you for noncompliance. The whole thing is completely ridiculous.

[Taneras]

His hands dropped because he was being tased. The official report of the officers on the ground is that a second officer deployed his taser immediately before he was shot by the other officer.

Considering one of his hands dropped down a good 10 seconds prior to hitting the ground, I'm gonna call you out on that. Go back and re-watch the video. He was not listening to police instruction. No, not saying he should have been shot. But he was placed in a very bad situation specifically because he chose not to listen.

[Chrysia]

Considering one of his hands dropped down a good 10 seconds prior to hitting the ground, I'm gonna call you out on that. Go back and re-watch the video. He was not listening to police instruction. No, not saying he should have been shot. But he was placed in a very bad situation specifically because he chose not to listen.

I don't know how you can make this claim. The officers block the view of the suspect from the dash cam and for a few seconds prior to him going down his suv is between the chopper and himself.

[Taneras]

Which is blaming the victims

Call it whatever you want, but its a very sound observation and "follow police instruction will drastically reduce the chances of you getting shot" is very sound advice.

Like in this case, where this officer has now been charged with manslaughter. Not abiding by her orders does not justify the shooting.

I don't think chrisfover87 argued that. Only that Crutcher did place himself in a bad situation by not listening to police instruction.

Your argument is in no way different from saying that if you obey the orders of the guy mugging you in an alley, you're less likely to get shot/stabbed

It's in "no way different" so long as you ignore the actual instances where its different, sure.

Someone mugging you in an alley way is more different than it is similar to a cop ordering you to stop walking and to get on the ground.

The USA isn't a police state. If an officer gives you an order that's unlawful, you should refuse to abide by it. You shouldn't have to fear that they might murder you for noncompliance. The whole thing is completely ridiculous.

This is the sort of advice being passed around that's helping create these sorts of encounters. No, a police officer can legally detain you and have you stop what you're doing and get on the ground. The amount of suspicion required for this to be a legal command is almost non-existent. It can be something as small as "He was acting weird, I thought he might be on drugs." (which was the case here).

You act as if the officer was demanding sexual favors or demanding you give them your watch. The "unlawful commands" were simply commands to stop walking towards the car and get on the ground.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know how you can make this claim. The officers block the view of the suspect from the dash cam and for a few seconds prior to him going down his suv is between the chopper and himself.

http://thegrio.com/2016/09/19/video-...-tulsa-police/

That's the OP's link and it contains the video. At the 28 second mark, while he is facing his SUV, you can see him lower his right arm. Look at how the white sleeve on his shirt moves from being perpendicular to his own body then lowers itself as his arm is lowered. Pause it somewhere around the 30-31 second mark, the Helicopter has circled around towards the back of the SUV and Crutcher is no longer facing the vehicle he's turned at an angle towards the police officers. You can see the outline of his hand because of his white shirt, its around the waist level. At this point his right arm is still not above his head or on the vehicle. The Helicopter continues to pan around and most of Crutcher is out of sight. But, at the 35 second mark you can tell his right shoulder is still down, meaning his arm is still around waist/chest level.

He begins to fall around the 38/39 second mark. Maybe he put his hands back up during the 35-38 second mark, but its clear as day. From the 28 second mark to the 35 second mark he wasn't listening and had his right arm fiddling around with something. I don't know if it was the door handle, something in his waist, of if he had it just suspended there doing nothing.

[I Push Buttons]

Which is blaming the victims for the potentially-criminal actions of their killers. Like in this case, where this officer has now been charged with manslaughter. Not abiding by her orders does not justify the shooting.

Your argument is in no way different from saying that if you obey the orders of the guy mugging you in an alley, you're less likely to get shot/stabbed, so people who get mugged and then killed are really the ones to blame, not the muggers. Which is obviously asinine. It doesn't become a magically more convincing argument when we replace "mugger" with "murderous police officer".

The USA isn't a police state. If an officer gives you an order that's unlawful, you should refuse to abide by it. You shouldn't have to fear that they might murder you for noncompliance. The whole thing is completely ridiculous.

Damn you go deeper down the rabbit hole in every single one of these threads.

Now all cops are guilty in all shootings unless proven innocent?

[Endus]

It's in "no way different" so long as you ignore the actual instances where its different, sure.

Someone mugging you in an alley way is more different than it is similar to a cop ordering you to stop walking and to get on the ground.

The only real difference is that the person barking orders at you has a badge, which makes it seem like they have the authority to issue that order in the first place. If the mugger's got a gun on me and tells me to get on the ground, I'm gonna go along with it too, and hope to not get shot, but that's not because he has legitimate authority, it's fear of getting murdered. And you're advocating that citizens should be in the same kind of fear of the police. That's insane.

This is the sort of advice being passed around that's helping create these sorts of encounters. No, a police officer can legally detain you and have you stop what you're doing and get on the ground. The amount of suspicion required for this to be a legal command is almost non-existent. It can be something as small as "He was acting weird, I thought he might be on drugs." (which was the case here).

This isn't true. They can detain you, but that doesn't include threatening you with a weapon unnecessarily or using less-than-lethal weaponry on you to ensure compliance. Being detained is not the same as being arrested.

You act as if the officer was demanding sexual favors or demanding you give them your watch. The "unlawful commands" were simply commands to stop walking towards the car and get on the ground.

Quibbling about the degree of abuse is pretty nonsensical. It's still abuse of authority, and the officer should face prison time just for issuing such orders, let alone murdering the victim for noncompliance.

- - - Updated - - -

Damn you go deeper down the rabbit hole in every single one of these threads.

Now all cops are guilty in all shootings unless proven innocent?

Not what I said, but you know that.

Like with any other shooting, though, they should be expected to provide a reasonable defense of their actions, to prove that they were justified. If they cannot justify their actions concretely, it's murder.

I said "potentially-criminal" because this cop, specifically, has been charged with manslaughter over this. Their guilt has yet to be determined in court, hence "potentially". That doesn't mean all shootings are criminal, just like killing a mugger in self defense isn't criminal. But those homicides absolutely need to be scrutinized to determine whether the evidence supports that defense.

[petej0]

We're literally discussing one such case right now.

I'm not saying we need a world where this never happens; that's impossible. But we CAN have a country where fellow officers are shocked and apalled by this kind of thing and don't support the officers who cross this line. A country where officers who break the law and victimize those they're sworn to protect are facing the harshest punishments available, rather than administrative slaps on the wrist. That's totally achievable.

No we arent. The police officers did not roll up on this guy and started firing for no reason. They had a reason, he was not cooperating and was trying to open his car door, or reach inside or reach for something. THEY had reason, whether it was valid enough for YOU is not the point. Regardless of what other police officers say publicly the officer in this case is being charged with Manslaughter and the courts will decide what to do.

I dont get the thing with the car. Unless you can see he's getting a weapon out of the car, and unless you can very reasonably infer his intent to shoot you with it, thats at best resisting arrest, which last time I checked doesn't deserve the death penalty.

Should the police wait until the person aims at them? Should the police wait until they are shot at?

How comes this issue is so prevalent in the states when it really really isn't in other countries? Are your police officers just all so weak they have to shoot at the first hint of danger? Are they entirely too weak to disarm a situation using anything else then a gun? Because thats what it looks like to outsiders. Thats right, your police force looks like whiny little bitches.

I dont really care what it looks like to you. It doesnt hurt my feelings one bit, but since you have the answers why dont you come here apply for the Police Academy and show them how its done then? Then we can solve this problem.

Which is blaming the victims for the potentially-criminal actions of their killers. Like in this case, where this officer has now been charged with manslaughter. Not abiding by her orders does not justify the shooting.

This whole situation could have been avoided if they just followed commands though. Thats the thing EVERYONE is missing. Yes, his actions should not constitute a death sentence, but anything the police had to do to get this person in custody could have been avoided. If they tackled him and an officer broke his arm, that could have been avoided. If he hit his head on the pavement and died from the tazer, that could have been avoided. If he got back into his car and fled and hit and killed a pedestrian, that could have been avoided. His choice to disobey put himself, the public and the police in greater danger.

Your argument is in no way different from saying that if you obey the orders of the guy mugging you in an alley, you're less likely to get shot/stabbed, so people who get mugged and then killed are really the ones to blame, not the muggers. Which is obviously asinine. It doesn't become a magically more convincing argument when we replace "mugger" with "murderous police officer".

You are right, but I am smart enough not to try to fight 3 people who are trying to mug me. My goal is to survive the encounter and just handing over my wallet (what they are after) at least gives me a chance to survive. If I fight and die, they get my wallet. The result is I am dead and they still have my wallet. If I just give them my wallet, I have a chance to survive, and am only out a wallet.

The USA isn't a police state. If an officer gives you an order that's unlawful, you should refuse to abide by it. You shouldn't have to fear that they might murder you for noncompliance. The whole thing is completely ridiculous.

"Stop and get down on the ground" is not an unlawful order in this situation. Stop repeating this stupid "unlawful order" BS.

[Chrysia]

http://thegrio.com/2016/09/19/video-...-tulsa-police/

That's the OP's link and it contains the video. At the 28 second mark, while he is facing his SUV, you can see him lower his right arm. Look at how the white sleeve on his shirt moves from being perpendicular to his own body then lowers itself as his arm is lowered. Pause it somewhere around the 30-31 second mark, the Helicopter has circled around towards the back of the SUV and Crutcher is no longer facing the vehicle he's turned at an angle towards the police officers. You can see the outline of his hand because of his white shirt, its around the waist level. At this point his right arm is still not above his head or on the vehicle. The Helicopter continues to pan around and most of Crutcher is out of sight. But, at the 35 second mark you can tell his right shoulder is still down, meaning his arm is still around waist/chest level.

He begins to fall around the 38/39 second mark. Maybe he put his hands back up during the 35-38 second mark, but its clear as day. From the 28 second mark to the 35 second mark he wasn't listening and had his right arm fiddling around with something. I don't know if it was the door handle, something in his waist, of if he had it just suspended there doing nothing.

I can kiiiiind of see what you're saying, but you contradict yourself in your assessment. You claim he was "fiddling with something," yet admit it's possible he just had his arm limp.

[chrisfover87]

Your argument is in no way different from saying that if you obey the orders of the guy mugging you in an alley, you're less likely to get shot/stabbed, so people who get mugged and then killed are really the ones to blame, not the muggers. Which is obviously asinine. It doesn't become a magically more convincing argument when we replace "mugger" with "murderous police officer".

You are comparing law-enforcement officers to "the guy mugging you in an alley"? Come on. you are better than this.

Also, what I have been saying is: "be smart and understand that it is in your best interest to follow the directions of the police until you are able to identify what the situation is, why you are being so ordered, and what you can actually do about de-escalating the situation, if anything. If you believe the order to be unreasonable, challenge their actions after the interaction is complete, either by complaining to the police themselves, or by securing legal counsel and filing a civil rights suit."

If Crutcher did this, I do not believe he would have been shot.

[Endus]

No we arent. The police officers did not roll up on this guy and started firing for no reason. They had a reason, he was not cooperating and was trying to open his car door, or reach inside or reach for something. THEY had reason, whether it was valid enough for YOU is not the point. Regardless of what other police officers say publicly the officer in this case is being charged with Manslaughter and the courts will decide what to do.

Except that we've already determined that the officer deliberately lied about events, since their account was that the victim was reaching into his car (not cause for lethal force to begin with, but not even relevant since it's not even true), when their car window was closed and that would have been impossible.

Nothing you described in any rational sense warrants lethal force in response. Even if the account were true (and it wasn't), you're saying someone reaching into their car is a lethal threat.

So if I'm walking through a parking lot and I see a soccer mom reach into her car to put away her groceries, I should shoot her for that threat? You're the one who's saying that "reaching into your car" is somehow a lethal threat, so I'm sure you can make that case, somehow.

Should the police wait until the person aims at them? Should the police wait until they are shot at?

At the very least, they need to positively identify a weapon, or a deliberately aggressive act. And by the latter, I mean if someone pulls out their cell phone or wallet and tries to "aim" it at the cops like it's a gun, I'll give the cops the benefit of the doubt that they'd think it might BE a gun, and fire in self defense. But in general, even if they accused has a weapon, that's not grounds for lethal force. Yes, they need to brandish it or attempt to use it, to step that up to a threat that warrants lethal force. If this guy had been ranting with a .45 strapped to his hip, they don't have cause to fire based on that .45 unless he actually tries to draw it. Right to bear arms, and all that; you can't have that shit both ways.

This whole situation could have been avoided if they just followed commands though. Thats the thing EVERYONE is missing.

No, we're pointing out that it is completely unacceptable to tell people to obey unlawful commands, when the real issue is the officer issuing those commands, who's a danger to everyone around them and who has no business wearing a badge.

Hence my comparison to a mugging. Yes, giving the mugger your wallet is the smart thing to do, because you're less likely to get shot. That doesn't mean that refusing and getting shot means you're the one to blame. It means the mugger is also a murderer. In this case, so was this cop.

"Stop and get down on the ground" is not an unlawful order in this situation. Stop repeating this stupid "unlawful order" BS.

It remains relevant, since you keep saying "you have to obey their orders". That's just not true. You do not have to obey unlawful orders. That's a big defense option when on trial for resisting arrest; you show that the arrest was unlawful in the first place. Because if they don't have grounds, you're free to resist.

And regardless, not obeying an officer's orders to get on the ground, when there's no visible threat present, is not even grounds for less-than-lethal force like tasers, let alone lethal force.

[Taneras]

The only real difference is that the person barking orders at you has a badge, which makes it seem like they have the authority to issue that order in the first place.

The law says that they do have that authority. If you don't want to recognize the law that's a different discussion entirely as you'd have an issue with there being a police force period.

If the mugger's got a gun on me and tells me to get on the ground, I'm gonna go along with it too, and hope to not get shot, but that's not because he has legitimate authority, it's fear of getting murdered. And you're advocating that citizens should be in the same kind of fear of the police. That's insane.

I'm not advocating the same kind of fear, people are smart enough (or should be) to understand motives. A cop telling you to get on the ground likely perceives you as a thread and wants to make sure they can keep a handle on the situation. A mugger wanting you to get on the ground wants to rob, and maybe kill, you.

Completely different motives. What people are purposefully preventing themselves from understanding is that cops want to live to, and in order for them to stay alive they sometimes need you to behave in certain ways to ensure that no one gets hurt during the encounter.

Obeying an officer is safer for the officer and for yourself (unless you have a corrupt cop, but that's another argument entirely). It allows the officer to control the situation easier and allows you to pose less of a threat to them. You might know your best friend, he's a great guy, he's a nice guy, he's not violent at all. But a random cop doesn't know him, he doesn't know how nice your friend is. And if your friend isn't listening, and reaching around his waistband during a police stop, he very well could get shot.

This isn't true. They can detain you, but that doesn't include threatening you with a weapon unnecessarily or using less-than-lethal weaponry on you to ensure compliance. Being detained is not the same as being arrested.

If while attempting to detain someone, if they ignore an officers command and move in a way (say reach into their waistband or reach into their car) that appears that they're reaching for something, an officer use less than lethal or lethal force depending on the exact scenario.

So no, they can't just shoot you because you weren't listening, but they can shoot you if you reach for something after being told not too.

Quibbling about the degree of abuse is pretty nonsensical.

It's not abuse, that's the point. If an officer asks you to get on the ground, there criteria necessary to make that a lawful order is almost non-existent. And it needs to be in order for them to do their jobs.

[Endus]

If while attempting to detain someone, if they ignore an officers command and move in a way (say reach into their waistband or reach into their car) that appears that they're reaching for something, an officer use less than lethal or lethal force depending on the exact scenario.

This is insane. You're advocating lethal force because somebody moved, not because a threat was identified.

Just by way of counter-example, we had the Sammy Yatim shooting up here in Toronto last year. The Coles Notes is that crazy guy with a knife threatened everyone on a bus, the cops got everyone OFF the bus but Yatim, who kept pacing and shouting threats from inside. One of the officers saw Yatim near the front of the bus, shot him, and unloaded his clip. That officer has since been found guilty of 2nd degree murder. Even though Yatim was armed, and was being threatening.

You don't get to just say "he's comin' right fer us!" and then shoot people. That's not how anything works, but that's literally what you're advocating.

[Taneras]

I can kiiiiind of see what you're saying, but you contradict yourself in your assessment. You claim he was "fiddling with something," yet admit it's possible he just had his arm limp.

Yes, the fiddling with something isn't accurate. His hand was moving around at the waist level, but he may not have actually been touching anything and just had his hand down in front of his waist moving it around (some people can't talk if their hands are tied). Thanks for the correction.

It's impossible to see from the helicopter what he was doing, and the dashboard cameras in the cars don't show anything either.

I'm 110% behind body cameras and if anything positive comes from all these news stories its the implementation of that as standard equipment for any police officer in America. We'd have gotten a much, much, much better view if the officers on scene had body cameras and there'd be a lot less speculation.

[poser765]

Should the police wait until the person aims at them? Should the police wait until they are shot at?


.

No, But I would certainly appreciate it if they waited until they KNOW for certain that a person actually has a weapon...

[I Push Buttons]

No, we're pointing out that it is completely unacceptable to tell people to obey unlawful commands, when the real issue is the officer issuing those commands, who's a danger to everyone around them and who has no business wearing a badge.

Hence my comparison to a mugging. Yes, giving the mugger your wallet is the smart thing to do, because you're less likely to get shot. That doesn't mean that refusing and getting shot means you're the one to blame. It means the mugger is also a murderer. In this case, so was this cop.

What law was this officer breaking in her orders, any officer in your view since all their orders are unlawful?

The only criteria in the US for a lawful order by police is that IT DOESN'T VIOLATE ANY LAWS. So please, enlighten us as to what made any of these orders "unlawful" since you seem to be extremely well versed in US law and are absolutely sure all of these orders are unlawful and thus don't need to be listened to.

(Spoiler alert: None of them violated the law and thus are lawful orders).

[Endus]

What law was this officer breaking in her orders, any officer in your view since all their orders are unlawful?

The only criteria in the US for a lawful order by police is that IT DOESN'T VIOLATE ANY LAWS. So please, enlighten us as to what made any of these orders "unlawful" since you seem to be extremely well versed in US law and are absolutely sure all of these orders are unlawful and thus don't need to be listened to.

(Spoiler alert: None of them violated the law and thus are lawful orders).

That's more of a general response to the people saying "hey, the cops told him to do X, he didn't, so they're free to shoot him all they want", not a specific statement regarding this particular instance.

Regardless, not obeying their orders in this particular case in no way justified even less-than-lethal force, let alone lethal.

[Taneras]

This is insane. You're advocating lethal force because somebody moved, not because a threat was identified.

That quote of mine included "less than lethal or lethal force", so how did you selectively perceive that to be just lethal force?

Moreover, is it fair to say that I'm advocating that level of force simply because someone moved? Like, after reading what I wrote, you'd think I'd defend a cop running up and tazing an elderly woman because he saw her move while on a neighborhood side walk?

Come on, my response was a lot more specific and nuanced than that.

[Endus]

Moreover, is it fair to say that I'm advocating that level of force simply because someone moved? Like, after reading what I wrote, you'd think I'd defend a cop running up and tazing an elderly woman because he saw her move while on a neighborhood side walk?

Come on, my response was a lot more specific and nuanced than that.

Not really, no. In this case, the "movement" was "had his hand near his waist". Which is where hands hang, when they're not doing anything else. The claim that he was reaching into his car is known to be false, at this point.

[Tinykong]

This is insane. You're advocating lethal force because somebody moved, not because a threat was identified.

Resisting arrest is a threat.

[zenkai]

If a cop here in germany told me "Get on your knees or I'm gonna shoot you", that cop wouldn't see daylight for at least a decade after, unless I was currently in the process of killing someone. As he should.

Being a cop doesn't entitle you to threaten people that you'll shoot them if they don't comply.

Lethal force is THE LAST resort. Even if somebody is violent, or threatening to injure you, you ALWAYS TRY OTHER OPTIONS FIRST ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS.

How many armed German Citizens are running around?