Man doesn't follow police commands, gets popped after reaching into car in Tulsa

The ROE aren't always that restrictive, and certainly aren't at checkpoints which is similar to a police stop. Given that there are incredibly few police shootings that aren't justifiable, I don't see a reason to change things.

In this instance, the officer involved was a drug recognition expert so she did know that he was on something and it was obvious that he was ignoring police commands. She had no way of knowing if he had a weapon inside his vehicle, so once he got to the door and made a move that direction he became an imminent threat.

As to you telling me to do something, you have no authority whatsoever, it's not illegal to ignore you, in this instance it was illegal for him to ignore the officer. Now that said, if I was on PCP and you thought I was going for a weapon, yes, you'd be justified in shooting me. Of course the rules for civilian justification and police justification are different so it's not completely an apples to apples comparison.

Officers are shot in situations similar to that every single day. There's a valid fear for your life when you are in that situation. Given that officers ARE shot in routine traffic stops all the time, that's the reason why you can't just do whatever the hell you want when you are being pulled over. Of course almost no one has a problem with this, and those who do are usually either assholes or criminals so I don't see a problem.

None of those other people were on PCP so the idea that they are rational individuals comes into play leading to more restraint.

He wasn't killed due to merely doing drugs, he was killed due to his actions while on drugs. Happens all the time....it's why people shouldn't do drugs like PCP.

 

Do some research, find out for yourself.

If your crazy idea of the world were true, there'd be cops going to jail for murder or manslaughter all the time.....perhaps find out how often that happens and see if your ridiculous narrative stands up to the facts.

 

All good points, but some people set the bar so low for police that all a suspect has to do is make ONE wrong move and that's all the excuse needed to gun them down. It basically comes down to if the officer was scared, if the officer was scared then s/he can legally fire.

Some people are fine with this. They don't think outside the box and go "Well if the officer didn't face any legal ramifications then nothing was wrong with it." obviously people that think more outside the box know that just because something is protected by the law doesn't make it right. For example, slavery was once protected by the law.

 

Also, I did. It doesn't change my argument. But once again you fail to provide your source.

My crazy idea of the world is that if you kill someone it should be investigated and judged by outside neutral parties. Crazy, I know.

Your problem is that you can't expand your mind for a moment and wonder if everything protected by the law is morally correct.

 

LOL I guess "thinking outside of the box" now means "thinking outside of the law". I mean sure what happened was completely legal, but it was MURDER!!!!! COPS ARE HUNTING BLACK PEOPLE (even though the numbers don't support that ridiculous conclusion)!!!!!

I honestly don't know why I even try with you guys.

 

.....and it is investigated and judged by outside neutral parties. Just more evidence that you have no clue how the world works.

As to morality, it's completely and totally irrelevant. Only the law matters. If everything that was morally wrong (which is subjective as hell depending on whose morality we choose to use) was illegal then a LOT of things that are legal would get you jail time. What matters is the law of the land, you are either following it, or you aren't following it yet somehow you champion those who refuse to follow the law and demonize those who follow it. Just a completely backwards way of thinking.

 

Looks like you completely don't understand what I said. Not surprising.

Lol no, the police are not a neutral party. Thankfully some places are moving towards civilian accountability boards. Just another thing you'll be behind on because you think morality is totally irrelevant.

If the law says you can own a slave than so what? Who cares about morality! It is completely irrelevant! You don't seem to realize that laws were made on the backbone of morality. It is subjective, that's why in some countries it is legal to stone a woman for adultery and in some countries it's not. That's the law though right? So you'd agree with it if you were in that country. Good to know.

 

Oh god, I'm talking to a child. I KNOW there's no point in getting into a morality discussion with you because I highly doubt you know anything about the subject. As such, I'm going to end this now. Talking to a completely ignorant party just isn't very exciting. You have a LOT of learning to do if you want to hold an intelligent conversation with the big kids. Get to work.

 

Once again you run away with your tail between your legs and a snarky insult.

Wisdom from Bobby folks. Thankfully he wasn't around for the civil rights fight or the civil war. We are certain that he'd be on the side of progress...right? Surely this man would have been against slavery and for civil rights! With that mentality we are sure he would be on the right side of history!

Oh no! A guy that thinks that people should be judged by the color of their skin thinks i'm ignorant! Whatever shall I do!?!

 

Yes, but that is definitely not my stance. I think that many of these police killings are 'justified' under current policies, but that doesn't make them 'right'. It means the policies/training need to change.

Yes, just being scared can't be the dividing line. Officers have reason to be scared ANY time they confront someone. That's a big part of the problem. The policies need to be such that even though scared, needless killings don't happen. Mostly, this is true today. But that doesn't mean improvements can't be made. One unnecessary killing is too many.

FWIW...this is why the military often sets the line at 'do not fire unless fired upon'. It takes any grey out of the issue. I'm not saying that's what our policies should be for police, but it should be higher than it is currently.

Recall the crazy lady, running rampant in her car in Washington DC a few years ago. Police shot her AFTER she had run the car into a tree. The car was her weapon...she was harmless at that point. Yet, they shot her because she might have had a gun. No one had seen a gun. There wasn't any reason to believe she had one. Just 'she might have'.

That case, and the one in Charlotte, indicate that our police might need more training in dealing with mentally ill people. People under the effect of drugs, as well. This is why hearing what happened prior to the video in Tulsa is important. Why did he go to his car? Did they perhaps ask him if he had any id on him...and he did, but it was in the car? If so, getting that ID might have become paramount in his mind, TO comply with what the police had asked.

 

Yes, overall, there are very few police shootings. Of those that do occur, while they may be justifiable under current policies, that doesn't mean they were 'right'. Any time someone who isn't even armed is killed, that is an issue. If possible, that issue should be solved. Of the two in the news recently, the one in Tulsa seems like that could have been avoided (hence the charges), and the one in Charlotte, assuming a gun was present, there may not have been much the police could have done differently. It is a matter of refining policies and training to minimize shootings of unarmed people as much as possible, but not so much that the number of police being shot rises

 

Fair enough, I just disagree here. Given the danger that police officers are in due to the absolute scum they have to deal with on a daily basis, any time they are legally justified in their use of force, I'm fine with it. The few times that officers go overboard and their actions are not justifiable I support throwing them in prison for it. That's pretty much what happens now, so i don't see a problem.

I mean, the context of who is involved in these kinds of incidents is important. It's incredibly easy to avoid any negative situation with police that would result in a shooting. You almost have to go out of your way in order to trigger an incident. In the Tulsa incident it's a person on PCP in public causing a scene and acting.....well like someone on PCP would. That's not a situation any innocent person would ever have to concern themselves with.....and they are still going ahead with charges to make sure that the officer was justified in her actions.

As to the Charlotte incident, it's another case of someone failing to follow police instructions AND being illegally armed AND refusing to drop a loaded handgun after multiple requests that he do so. I mean, what innocent person could ever end up in that situation?

The vast majority (nearly all is a better way of putting it) of police shootings are unquestionably justified both legally and morally (which is a stupid thing to even bring up given the subjective nature of morality but whatever) only a select few are even worth a second glance. So long as that's the case, I just don't see some massive problem. There's MUCH bigger problems in society that we should be devoting time and energy to, the maybe one or two unjustified police shootings per year or even those legally justifiable shootings that random civilians deem shouldn't have happened just aren't a big enough deal to give this much attention to.

 

Just so it is clear there isn't anything I disagree with in this post.

Yep, a lot of people agree with this and it's what some of us have been arguing for. I'll just add that I think we do need to hold officers more accountable so that they fear the law and the consequences of killing someone just as much as any other citizen would.

Let me also add that being scared is very subjective, so yes it's horrible to have the line at that point. Since as we see, some people are more afraid of black males and therefore quicker to fire. Not everyone is so easily spooked though but those that are probably shouldn't wear the badge or if they do shouldn't carry firearms.

 

What on Earth are you talking about? You said this.

You've redefined the word lie. Cops are not lying if they say they saw something that wasn't actual. As long as they believe it they're not lying once they've shot someone to death. That standard doesn't exist for anyone except police. The same standard works for everyone? Since when? Are you kidding me? Jesus.

 

Actually, that's the standard for everyone. It's incredibly hard to prove a lie happened which is why Purjury is almost never proven in court. Someone can say something that turns out to be inaccurate and it's not a lie unless they knew it was inaccurate and said it anyway.

 

Police should be wearing BODY CAMERAS 100% of the time they are on duty.

DD

 

It seems a shame this is true, but it seems that in a number of these controverial cases the body camera or dash cameras weren't working or for whatever reason weren't turned on.

 

Well in the instance in North Carolina, they weren't expecting someone to park next to them, light up a blunt, and start playing around with a handgun. They were there to serve a warrant to someone completely different. It seems we do need them to have the body cams on 24/7 though if only to combat those with persecution complexes and the conspiracy nuts.

 

The standard isn't just being scared though, it is a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. So someone that is just scared in general of black people can't just unload every time they see one, it has to be a situation in which TARP would fear imminent death or GBI.

 

No, I'm not kidding...although I would ask the same of you. Yes, the same standard works for everyone. If you say something you believe is true, you are not lying. Its a pretty simple concept, been around for....forever? Not understanding the difficulty you are having with this.