On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 11:56:43 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/19/2016 10:07 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 12:43:26 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/18/2016 4:03 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 10:38:14 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/htukxrw

TULSA, Okla. (AP) €” Prosecutors in Tulsa, Oklahoma, have filed first-
degree manslaughter charges against the white police officer who
fatally shot an unarmed black man on a city street.

District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler filed the charges Thursday against
officer Betty Shelby, who shot and killed 40-year-old Terence Crutcher
on Sept. 16. Dashcam and aerial footage of the shooting and its
aftermath showed Crutcher walking away from Shelby with his arms in the
air.

The footage does not offer a clear view of when Shelby fired the single
shot that killed Crutcher. Her attorney has said Crutcher was not
following police commands and that Shelby opened fire when the man
began to reach into his SUV window.

Tulsa police say Crutcher did not have a gun on him or in his vehicle.

I'm glad to see they realized, Betty shot him without just cause. Oh
wait.. I stated I thought he was shot without justified reason, Didn't
I....Yep Yep.

I hope she gets convicted and serves her time in general population.






Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin


Are you on time delay news? Shelby being charged happened a month ago
and was widely reported at the time.

What happened there is a good example of what can happen when you
decide to ignore the police and settle something on the street
instead of in court. IDK if she is guilty or innocent, but I do
know that the dead perp created the toxic situation that ultimately
lead to what happened. And contrary to what we initially heard
about a "minister" being gunned down, PCP was found in his car and
the autopsy showed the perp was chock full of it.

It doesn't matter if the man had PCP in his blood or not.


Maybe not to you, but it likely will to the jury.

I seriously doubt that because it's highly likely that everyone has seen
the videos already, and those videos show the man wasn't being
aggressive towards the officers.


The videos show the perp continuing to disregard police commands.
Like I said, show us the video that shows what happened in those
last seconds, just before and as the shots were fired. We've
discussed this here before and so far, you're the only one claiming
to have seen this definitive video/s.


Cops just can't SHOOT people. Why didn't the other officers present
also shoot the man? If he had been aggressive, don't you think those
other officers would have had their guns drawn, too, and would also have
used them??


Again, show us that video. And all the above gets sorted out at a
trial. As I recall, one other officer was ready to use his taser,
so he could have felt he was in danger too.




The video
shows that he was standing with his arms up and had not moved towards
the officers.


What video would that be? The only video I've seen doesn't show
what happened in the last seconds, because the camera is blocked
by the cops that are around the perp.

In all the videos, the man can be seen standing in the same position and
not moving towards the officers. EVEN if the man moved his hand and
appeared to be trying to reach into a window, it's STILL not an action
that required anyone to shoot him.


So, there you have it. You haven't seen a video that shows what
actually happened, just as I thought. The video I saw, the video
others here saw, doesn't show what happened at the end, because
the view is totally blocked by the cops that are near the perp.
So, rather than wait for all the statements, all the forensics,
all the facts, once again, you're rushing to judgment based on
partial facts. How did that work out for you in the Michael Brown
case? The recent deaf guy case? Why can't you learn?



Also no one else here has
claimed to be able to see those last few, critical seconds.
I suspect you're making up BS *again*.

How many times have you actually watched the videos available to the
everyone?? It isn't rocket science to be able to SEE what happened and
the time frame that it happened.


Stil waiting for the link to that video. Where is it?
Link challenged? What you're claiming doesn't require rocket science,
but it does require either X-ray vision or videos that don't exist,
because none show what happened in the final moments.



She jumped the gun... literally. She had previously seen there was no
gun in the vehicle because she's the cop that secured it because the
front door was open when she found it abandoned. The video shows the
front door was CLOSED and the window was UP. If there had still been a
gun in the front seat of that vehicle, she'd have been negligent when
she originally secured the vehicle and closed the front door.

Again, provide us with the video that shows what you claim.
Why can't you ever wait for the facts and a fair trial?

Fair trial?? Gee, did the dead man get a FAIR TRIAL??

Now you're reached village idiot status, again.



When an incident is on video and there's multiple videos available of
that incident, and the public has access to those video's, said public
already KNOWS what happened. Even the DA's office determined the
officer reacted unreasonably.


Still waiting for that link.


If the man had taken steps toward the officers, I can see him being
tased, but shot?? There were at least 4 officers there close by, and
there are other ways to subdue big men besides killing them.


Maybe so, but that that probably isn't what the jury has to decide.
Whether to use a taser or a gun isn't the issue. Typically all that
is required is for the jury to find that the officer believed their
life, or the life of others, was in jeopardy at that moment.

You're wrong. Several other officers were there, too, so if her life was
in jeopardy, why weren't there's in jeopardy, too?


you have statements, depositions from them saying they didn't feel
their lives were in jeopardy? Why can't you ever wait for the facts?