Tulsa Polic Shoot Unarmed Black Man with Hands Up.

[Endus]

Resisting arrest is a threat.

1> No, it isn't.
2> He wasn't under arrest.

[Taneras]

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.

My line of comments pointing out that he had his hand near his waist was only to show that he wasn't obeying police orders, not that that within itself gave the officers permission to shoot him.

That's not to say that having your hand at waist level disobeying repeated commands to have your hands up cannot be one of the factors that led the cops to perceive you to be enough of a threat to shoot.

My stance all along has been to reserve judgement. I never said that this cop was innocent, I only gave reasons as to how they might be innocent.

[I Push Buttons]

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.

No one has claimed otherwise?

No one said "He twitched! Execute him!" "He didn't get on the ground! Execute him!" Literally no one.

The way this usually works is... The police say, down on the ground... Or hands up... When the person involved in the confrontation then proceeds to ignore those lawful commands... The police are now on edge... Because rational, non-guilty, non-crazy, non-violent, etc., people usually listen.

Criminals who are about to run or attack, drugged out or crazy people who are unpredictable, etc... They are the ones who don't follow those commands. The police are now watching intently, looking for sudden movements, etc. Because a person can literally draw a gun and kill them in less than a second.

In the US they assume everyone is armed until they are assured otherwise, usually with a pat down. It has nothing to do with paranoia or any other bullshit you keep claiming about the police, it has to do with officer safety and nothing else. Every officer, whether you like it or not, has a RIGHT and even a fucking DUTY to protect their own life.

I know, I know, Endus, #CopLivesDon'tMatter and you think they have no right to protect themselves and their lives are for some reason worth less to you than the lives of the public... But we live in the real world, they are people, they have a right to live as much as anyone. Their job puts their lives in direct jeopardy all the time, therefore almost everything they do in the course of their jobs enforcing the law is to ensure their own safety first and foremost and the safety of the public right below their own safety.

So when a cop says don't move and you proceed to walk over to a car... Then they say hands up and you proceed to put your hand in your pocket. They assume you are about to fucking pull a weapon. There is no other reason short of you being an absolutely crazy person to ignore those commands and proceed to do that. So they see you reach, their life > your life. End of story.

[Endus]

I know, I know, Endus, #CopLivesDon'tMatter and you think they have no right to protect themselves and their lives are for some reason worth less to you than the lives of the public.

I have never suggested anything of the sort. Just that they need cause to use lethal force. And "his hand was near his waist" or even "he was reaching into his car" is not, in any appreciable sense, anything even remotely close to cause. It wouldn't be if you were a random passerby, and it doesn't become so when you're an officer.

[Tinykong]

1> No, it isn't.
2> He wasn't under arrest.

Yes, it is. Normal people don't: fight with the police, flee from the police, or refuse to obey commands from the police. Resisting arrest is a threatening behavior, and it is perfectly reasonable for police to escalate their posture and/or use force to get a suspect to submit to arrest.

Resisting a command to submit to arrest is resisting arrest. You don't have to be "under arrest" to be legally required to submit to arrest. Cops can detain you for any number of reasons, a person wandering around aimlessly in the street and refusing to obey their commands is a perfect example of a situation in which the police should detain someone to figure out who they are and what they are doing.

[Taneras]

Yes, it is. Normal people don't: fight with the police, flee from the police, or refuse to obey commands from the police. Resisting arrest is a threatening behavior, and it is perfectly reasonable for police to escalate their posture and/or use force to force a suspect to submit to arrest.

Resisting a command to submit to arrest is resisting arrest. You don't have to be "under arrest" to be legally required to submit to arrest. Cops can detain you for any number of reasons, a person wandering around aimlessly in the street and refusing to obey their commands is a perfect example of a situation in which the police should detain someone to figure out who they are and what they are doing.

What was he under arrest for?

[petej0]

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.

That is what the courts will decide. I dont know if the window was open, the video isnt clear. I was not there on the ground. I dont know without certainty.

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.

Does context mean anything to you? Do you understand the difference between a soccer mom putting away groceries reaching into a car compared to a suspect you want to question, acting irrationally and disobeying commands reaching into a car?

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.

I would agree, but faced with a similar situation, most of these arm chair QB's would think differently.

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.

Not trying to have it both ways. Owning a firearm has responsibilities that come with it.

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.

NO UNLAWFUL COMMANDS WERE GIVIN!

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.

Two entirly different situations. One is a criminal breaking the law. The other is a police officer enforcing laws.

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.

I am not even going to test this "theory" out. In my mind, why wouldnt I want to obey their commands. It would result in a less stressful encounter and less chance of me feeling pain. Either from an arm bar or a bullet wound. I get the badge number and I report the officer if I felt I have been mistreated.

Even if you know you did nothing wrong, why wouldnt you comply? Maybe it isnt you the police officer is looking for and he just stopped you because you matched the description. Are you going to sit there and argue with the cop and resist and keep him from doing his job?

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.

I agree, but we are not arguing that.

[I Push Buttons]

I have never suggested anything of the sort. Just that they need cause to use lethal force. And "his hand was near his waist" or even "he was reaching into his car" is not, in any appreciable sense, anything even remotely close to cause. It wouldn't be if you were a random passerby, and it doesn't become so when you're an officer.

In this particular case the officer was in the wrong. But you make this same argument in almost every single officer involved shooting thread.

[Tinykong]

What was he under arrest for?

He wasn't "under arrest." Refusing to obey an order from a LEO to submit to arrest is resisting arrest. Before we get into a pedantic argument about the legal definition of "arrest" versus "detained" understand that if a cop says "Put your hands up, and walk back towards me slowly" and you refuse, you are resisting arrest.

[Xahz]

That quote of mine included "less than lethal or lethal force"

What a pointless statement. How many other different kinds of force are there?

[Taneras]

Before we get into a pedantic argument about the legal definition of "arrest" versus "detained" understand that if a cop says "Put your hands up, and walk back towards me slowly" and you refuse, you are resisting arrest.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, and I'd imagine it differs per state, but possibly.

Based on what I do know about the spirit behind most laws that I am familiar with I'd suspect resisting detainment would lead to an arrest which further resisting would lead to resisting arrest. But the officer would have to make the call to inform you that you were under arrest.

To illustrate, I think it'd be hard to charge someone with resisting arrest if they resisted detainment then immediately, once informed they were under arrest, complied and allowed themselves to be arrested. I'm not sure what the charge would be, maybe obstruction of justice (for resisting detainment)?

But again, I'm no lawyer so I could very well be wrong. And I'm not interested enough to dig into it

- - - Updated - - -

What a pointless statement. How many other different kinds of force are there?

Besides lethal force which was the only position mentioned by Endus when he quoted me?

Non-lethal force, which was included in my quote.

I'm sorry you don't see the importance of clarity in a conversation, but I promise you most people do.

[Tinykong]

I agree, but we are not arguing that.

In some states it's illegal to resist an unlawful arrest. In some states even an unlawful arrest is a valid reason for an arrest, if the arresting officer reasonably believed the arrest was lawful at the time.

[Endus]

In this particular case the officer was in the wrong. But you make this same argument in almost every single officer involved shooting thread.

Because in most of them, we're talking about where this line is drawn, so the same argument keeps cropping up.

I've also stated time and again that I don't have any issue with officers responding to legitimate threats. Hell, just a few posts back, I clearly said that even if someone "draws" their cellphone aggressively, so they have cause to think it might be a gun, that's cause, despite it clearly not being a gun.

Lethal force is only authorized in response to an immediate threat (which doesn't just mean that the suspect is armed, but that they're trying to use the weapon; a holstered gun isn't an imminent threat), or in ending the flight of a felon who's committed a violent felony and cannot be stopped any other way.

The USA has a serious issue. I've been in the US (and this was well over a decade ago), and got pulled over for a speeding violation (I wasn't driving; I was in the back seat). The cop walked up to the vehicle with his gun drawn. That's insane, to me. Literally bonkers. In all my time in Canada, I have never had a cop pull a gun on me, not even when I was detained because they thought my friend and I were casing houses to break into (long story, we were going to visit his GF, her dad was a giant asshole and lied to the cops to sic them on us).

[Tinykong]

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, and I'd imagine it differs per state, but possibly.

Based on what I do know about the spirit behind most laws that I am familiar with I'd suspect resisting detainment would lead to an arrest which further resisting would lead to resisting arrest. But the officer would have to make the call to inform you that you were under arrest.

To illustrate, I think it'd be hard to charge someone with resisting arrest if they resisted detainment then immediately, once informed they were under arrest, complied and allowed themselves to be arrested. I'm not sure what the charge would be, maybe obstruction of justice (for resisting detainment)?

But again, I'm no lawyer so I could very well be wrong. And I'm not interested enough to dig into it

You can be detained for a lot of things. A cop might put you in handcuffs because they are dealing with multiple people, and don't want anyone to be able to flee. Putting put in handcuffs is not the same thing as being arrested.

Refusing to comply with a command to submit to being detained/arrested is resisting arrest. In some states, even if you had done nothing wrong up until that point you committed a crime (and possibly a felony) by resisting arrest. In some states, even resisting an unlawful arrest is a crime.

The fact remains that when encountering the police, you are gambling with your life by resisting arrest. You are fighting with someone who is armed, and has the legal authority to end your life in many circumstances.

The best thing you can do, even if you have done nothing wrong, is submit to arrest peacefully and provide truthful information, and argue your case in court.

[Xahz]

Besides lethal force which was the only position mentioned by Endus when he quoted me?

Non-lethal force, which was included in my quote.

I'm sorry you don't see the importance of clarity in a conversation, but I promise you most people do.

He was responding to the fact that you justified lethal force in a scenario where someone is merely reaching into their pockets or into their car. The fact that you also justified non-lethal force is irrelevant.

I was responding to the fact that you made an utterly pointless, nonsense statement. "The cops can either use lethal or non-lethal force when someone disobeys them." Yea, thanks for listing the only two possible situations that could exist. Unless there's some hidden third option we're not aware of you can save yourself the effort next time.

[Taneras]

He was responding to the fact that you justified lethal force in a scenario where someone is merely reaching into their pockets or into their car. The fact that you also justified non-lethal force is irrelevant.

No, not "merely". Here is what I said

"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."

I meant to add "can" into that last bit but I'm sure its still readable without me adding it back in.

Speaking about that last bit, you notice the mention of "depending on the exact scenario"? Yea, that's there for a reason.

My statement wasn't even close to being properly represented.

Yea, thanks for listing the only two possible situations that could exist. Unless there's some hidden third option we're not aware of you can save yourself the effort next time.

So you would have rather me used the term "force"? I figured that would have been questioned with regards to how much force I was suggesting would be allowed. I was very specific for clarity. I'm sorry I was too specific for your taste.

[Chrysia]

That is what the courts will decide. I dont know if the window was open, the video isnt clear. I was not there on the ground. I dont know without certainty.

The video from the helicopter actually makes it pretty clear the window is up. You can see his blood splattered all over it.

[Mistame]

The video from the helicopter actually makes it pretty clear the window is up. You can see his blood splattered all over it.

The screen capture, blown up, from the video from the helicopter makes it pretty clear the window is up. It is not "pretty clear" through just a casual viewing of the video.

[Taneras]

The screen capture, blown up, from the video from the helicopter makes it pretty clear the window is up. It is not "pretty clear" through just a casual viewing of the video.

I was about to respond with the same thing. If I were on a jury and that's the only piece of evidence on whether the window was up or down I'd consider it up. The dark line on the window could very well be a seat belt, but it matches up well with the blood on the door.

Honestly, if I had to bet, that's probably the biggest part of the equation that got officer Shelby charged with manslaughter.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're trying to determine the truth, why would you go off a casual viewing of the video?

I agree, sadly many people in this thread seemed to have done that. Lots of "murderer" and "executed" talk came out when all we had was the video. No other details, no enhanced photos.

[zenkai]

I don't think the window will matter as much. I think it will matter if he was shot with his hands down or up because it can be argued that he may have had a weapon on him. Not saying that will be a enough to get her off but I bet I see that point argued.