there is such a thing as intuition when assessing risk.

So, the cop successfully intuited that this was the right time to kill him?

Suspicion that one committed a crime must be grounded in "'specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences [drawn] therefrom' rather than on a hunch," the court wrote in their ruling, citing a past case, Commonwealth v. DePeiza.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/09/massachusetts_supreme_court_sa.html

 

That applies to probable cause, and is not relevant for a shoot/no shoot scenario. All that matters in that split second is a risk assessment based on the immediate information.

 

There was no, "split second". There was no gun. There was no "lunge". There was no, "reaching for his waistband". None of the typical boilerplate perjury was supported by the video. Watch the video, then keep campaigning for a cop to shoot you for, "no probable cause".

 

I think that is called, "blaming the victim".

Yes, the 'victim' shares blame if their drug induced actions contributed to their death. I personally see the guys actions during the incident as very bizarre if he was just a broken down motorist in the middle of the road. There is at least two minutes of not cooperative interaction with Crutcher before shots are fired. That's plenty of time to determine his current threat level as possibly dangerous. Deadly force being used here IMO is likely another case of officer panic that's borderline justifiable due to Crutcher's actions.

7:34 p.m.: Officer Betty Shelby and another officer are dispatched to a domestic violence-related call.

7:36 p.m.: Police receive a call that a man had left his vehicle running in the middle of the road with doors open at 36th Street North and Lewis Avenue. That caller says a man ran from the vehicle saying "It's going to blow."

7:41 p.m.: Officer Shelby "comes across this" scene with the abandoned vehicle and tells dispatch the man there is not cooperative. Another officer joins her at the scene.

7:43 p.m.: Helicopter footage begins, showing Terence Crutcher slowly walking with arms up toward his vehicle while being followed at a close distance by two uniformed officers. One of the men in the helicopter notes that it appears a Taser is about to be deployed, and the other comments that Crutcher "looks like a bad dude, maybe on something." When Crutcher reaches the closed driver's door of his vehicle, Taser sights can be seen on his back. The gunshot can be heard, at which point the two officers take a couple of quick steps backward and two other officers come cluster around. Crutcher's right arm drops down to his side, and it appears his hand moves toward his pocket or the handle of the vehicle's door. The angle of the video shifts, making it difficult to see the position of Crutcher's limbs, but it appears Crutcher's left arm also comes down, and then his body is seen falling to the ground next to his driver's side door.

 

There was no, "split second". There was no gun. There was no "lunge". There was no, "reaching for his waistband". None of the typical boilerplate perjury was supported by the video. Watch the video, then keep campaigning for a cop to shoot you for, "no probable cause".

What video? All I've seen so far doesn't show the shooting itself.

[edit] I went and found the two videos and both are hard to make out. That said, it does look like another cop got twitchy, and maybe irritated when the subject wouldn't follow orders. The other two cops didn't shoot, and they were all seeing the same thing. So right there you'd say 2 of the 3 didn't agree with the shooting at that moment.

 

Isn't it peculiar that it's almost always a black guy that gets killed, not wounded so he can appear in court. But a middle eastern(Afghani American) that is seen setting and they have the finger prints of that set bombs is only wounded?

 

Isn't it peculiar that it's almost always a black guy that gets killed...

You have to consider filtering by the Mass Media. Over a thousand people die each year while in some interaction with the police, but you don't see three events on the news every day. Some of the dead people are white, some deserved their results, but most of them don't get obvious news coverage.

So far, for September 2016, 57 out of 59 were killed with a gun.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...un/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

but you haven't seen 59 different news stories in 21 days.

 

+1 above #12.

Should we have killed the terrorist (who might have life saving intelligence value) to make it fair even if the dubious fact of black people mainly being shot dead were true.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...pect-ahmad-khan-rahami-said-he-received-inst/

 

Should we have killed the terrorist?

It just seems so much more likely that a person who is shooting back would get killed, compared to an unarmed person reading a book or staggering around like he's stoned. It almost reads like, "Want to survive a police shooting? Blow up a building first, but don't bring a book to a gun fight."

 

It just seems so much more likely that a person who is shooting back would get killed, compared to an unarmed person reading a book or staggering around like he's stoned.

It's much more likely to hit and kill a mainly static clear target than one actively trying to kill you in a gun battle with cover. I'm sure the cops were aiming for center mass per training but the fact one of the bullets he fired might hit you in the forehead affects your aim.

 

Violence in Charlotte.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tt-shooting-charlotte-north-carolina-protests

 

Violence in Charlotte.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tt-shooting-charlotte-north-carolina-protests

He just said on TV the guy came back and apologized. Hard to figure.

 

It's much more likely to hit and kill a mainly static clear target than one actively trying to kill you in a gun battle

You're right. Unsuspecting people make better targets.

The reporter is lucky he got hit by a civilian. If a cop had knocked him down the other cops would have swarmed him and charged him with assaulting their fists.

 

Speaking of News Filtering...
You can now (legally) hear from an FBI officer pretending to be an Associated Press correspondent.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/fbi-impersonate-media-mockingbird/

 

Was there a policy, law or rule that prohibited agents from impersonating journalists?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/opinion/to-catch-a-crook-the-fbis-use-of-deception.html?_r=0

We do use deception at times to catch crooks.

 

Was there a policy, law or rule that prohibited agents from impersonating journalists?

No, it has always been business as usual: "If there is no law specifically prohibiting it, we do it. We have to be reigned in with specific legislation outlawing every single dishonest, underhanded, despicable thing in the world, or we'll do it. If there is a law, we'll still do what we want and lie about it." As per that article I linked, the, "Justice Department" just declared that it is legal for FBI agents and employees to pretend to be journalists. This effectively removes the (legal)) need to lie about lying to the general population and specific targets. It has no effect on the practical need to lie about lying.

 

FWIW - I find it 'curious' that the Tulsa (Crutcher) shooting is taking a 'back seat' to the Charlotte (Scott) killing (in both 'liberal' and 'conservative' media) -- Especially as the former incident was indeed 'interracial' and marked by irrefutable evidence of police misconduct


With regards
HP

 

FWIW - I find it 'curious' that the Tulsa (Crutcher) shooting is taking a 'back seat' to the Charlotte (Scott) killing (in both 'liberal' and 'conservative' media) -- Especially as the former incident was indeed 'interracial' and marked by irrefutable evidence of police misconduct


With regards
HP

I think there is more than one reason. First, it's harder for a city to revolt against a murder on a country road. Second, the Charlotte police claim to have video evidence showing a gun, not a book, but it's secret. They would rather deploy the troops than show the evidence.

In summary, the Tulsa evidence is public. In Charlotte, the evidence is secret.

Now, what would be a good reason to keep the exculpatory evidence secret?
Because it's not exculpatory.

The public protests are not about the fact that our police unnecessarily kill hundreds of people per year with impunity, it's about the idea that they can do it in secret and pretend that secrecy eliminates any risk of responsibility.

and, by the way, there are no spontaneous, violent protests in Charlotte. There are heavily armed and armored police attacking protesters for exercising their Constitutional right to protest against government sponsored behavior. When the local police get enough violence going, they call in the National Guard, not to protect the protesters in Charlotte or the Indians in North Dakota, to protect the police.

 

No, it has always been business as usual: "If there is no law specifically prohibiting it, we do it. We have to be reigned in with specific legislation outlawing every single dishonest, underhanded, despicable thing in the world, or we'll do it. If there is a law, we'll still do what we want and lie about it."

Dishonest, underhanded, despicable things are done legally by government everyday to prevent crime or terrorism, to do otherwise would be incredibly stupid and naive. If there was a specific law banning this behavior then I would be the first one standing by your side but that's not how the law works for citizens or the government in this country.

 

FWIW - I find it 'curious' that the Tulsa (Crutcher) shooting is taking a 'back seat' to the Charlotte (Scott) killing (in both 'liberal' and 'conservative' media) -- Especially as the former incident was indeed 'interracial' and marked by irrefutable evidence of police misconduct


With regards
HP

What irrefutable evidence of police misconduct?