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

LOL. Yes, they are required to wait for him to actually do something that presents a threat before using deadly force.

Walking towards your car with your hands in the air, and placing those hands on top of that car in the "frisk" position, is pretty much the opposite of a threat.

They could have subdued him physically or tased him for non-compliance. But deadly force? Nope.

Somebody is getting fired, probably going to jail, and his family is getting paid millions of dollars in a wrongful death suit.

 

Bobby, did your mother drop you on your head a lot when you were a baby?

 

HE WAS FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS. They told him to walk to his vehicle and put his hands against the vehicle.

 

That's not what he did.

He started out well behind the vehicle and ignored police commands by walking to the drivers side door. They didn't tell him to do that and they have no way of knowing what he might have inside his car. There's a reason why you follow police instructions.....and it's not just because you are legally required to do so.

 

So the thread title is misleading. The man did follow police commands and then got "popped".

 

Earth to Bobby...

You actually have to reach for that weapon before they can kill you.

Everyone knows this. Nobody is disputing it.

What we also know, however, is that lethal force is not automatically authorized due to suspect noncompliance.

Of course you seem to be threatened by a fart in the wind, so thankfully the police standard of behavior has nothing to do with you and will be reflected in the investigation, trial, judgment, and sentencing on this case.

 

Do you have a link on that?

 

Yes, that's exactly what happened. These morons in here are trying to make it look like he was a thread and not following commands but he was told to put his hands up and against the vehicle when he did that he was shot in the chest. Watch the videos posted.

 

From the CNN article posted last page:

 

If he tried to get in his car, you would be right. But the car door was closed with the windows rolled up.

The article stated he was told to walk to his vehicle with his hands on his head and place his hands on the vehicle, which is what he did in the video. Unless you have some other source saying he was told otherwise, you are making stuff up. There really isn't enough information but the limited info we have doesn't look good.

 

Also....there were at least 4 officers right there. Why did it take 3 minutes for any of them to check and render aid? He may have still been alive.

 

^^ interesting. no pocket reaching is shown on video.

 

There is no evidence of a taser. The only "evidence" appears to be a cop arriving late in a car with blocked view assessing the situation by saying "apparently he was tasered." The moment the victim drops to the ground, the cop mentions a possible taser, followed by "shots fired." He was wrong. It was his guess why the guy fell to the ground.

Everyone should just toss out the account in the OP article, as that was from the comments on the audio coming over the police chatter from a cop in a car. The writer took those quotes and ran with the story.

See the last video posted. It has that audio.

 

That quote is directly from the attorney of the officer. That's right the officer already has an attorney putting forth lies to counteract what's on video. He also said that Crutcher reached into the vehicle when you clearly see the window was up. He put his hand by his waist after he had been shot. Again, watch the video.

 

I haven't seen this confirmed or published anywhere.

 

So you are advocating that the police should be able to say someone is a threat even if their hands are up then....even if you have your hands up you are a threat and could be killed by the police...

Everyone realize that sometimes it is better to take the L, otherwise you go around in circles trying to make arguments that make no sense like this.

 

That is pretty much Bobby's posting career in a nutshell.

 

Again, the writer is a poor source with that account. The comments about following commands is coming from a cop arriving late trying to assess the situation to dispatch. He has very limited view of what happened, and he says, "apparently following commands." That is the source.

Listen to the audio with that last video posted in the last two pages. From that, my take is almost everything in the OP article is wrong.

-- he wasn't tasered
-- he wasn't reaching into the door as the windows were up
-- he probably was not following commands to walk back to the car...as that is an odd request...thus why cops are following him with guns pointed at him.

OP article is just completely poor source of what happened.

 

She or her attorney should have kept her mouth shut. A competent prosecutor is going to murder her with all her statements.

 

There is evidence:

Police spokeswoman Jeanne MacKenzie had earlier told reporters that two officers were walking toward the stalled SUV when Crutcher approached them from the side of the road.

“He refused to follow commands given by the officers,” MacKenzie said. “They continued to talk to him; he continued not to listen and follow any commands. As they got closer to the vehicle, he reached inside the vehicle and at that time there was a Taser deployment, and a short time later there was one shot fired.”

EDIT:

Of course, she also said he reached into the car which he definitely did not do.