What Tulsa police say happened

Page 2 of 3  
On 9/22/2016 1:28 PM, Bod wrote:

I would have to agree. She said he was reaching in the window. My only question is, which one?...the drivers side or the moon roof which is clearly opened.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/22/16 3:37 PM, Meanie wrote:

So is the back window.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unless you're from another planet "the car window" does not mean moon roof.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/22/2016 5:05 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:

Is it a window on a car? Yes but it is not up to me to conclude what ones interpretation means. You may not deem it a car window, others may.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/22/16 1:25 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:

Since the reason allegedly, that they opened fire was he was reaching for something in the car, the state of the windows seems to be very important.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt V. Ullman was thinking very hard :

I've heard it both ways, reaching in the window and/or reaching for his pocket. Either way, he appeared to be reaching for something other than the sky.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/22/2016 1:54 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:

AND, since the officer that shot the man secured the open driver's door, she would know what was in the front seat, too. If she knew what was in the front seat, why would she think there's a gun there?
If there had been a gun on the front seat when she secured the open driver's door, wouldn't she have confiscated it before she shut the door?
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:47:55 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Actually, that's not the law. A cop does not have the automatic right to use lethal force against you simply for ignoring them or trying to walk away from them, no. Some conditions apply, obviously.
The supreme court has a bit of a double standard concerning it and it's not a cut and dry issue. You're welcome to use a search engine and read what they decided for yourself, if you'd like.
I'll just quote this snippit for you:
The Supreme Court has ruled that officers can use deadly force against an escaping suspect only if they believe the person poses "a significant threat of death or serious physical injury" to the officers or someone else. Use of less-than-lethal force also requires officers to determine the seriousness of the suspected crime, and whether the suspect poses a safety threat or is attempting to evade arrest.

I don't know why you feel the need to compare them. They are different. Nobody is claiming this guy went after any of the cops or tried to beat one to death with his hands, either. Based on what's come out so far, he was ignoring them and walking towards his own car that stalled out (or was it running? the cops are contradicting each other on that detail) on the highway. Was A window up or down? that's being contradicted by them as well. How was he supposed to reach into the Window if it was rolled up as some have said it was? How was blood able to get all over this Window, if it was rolled down and he was able to reach into it at the time? Something smells rotten here.
What did he do after getting shot? stand there and drop a pile of blood into the door frame? If the Window was down, that's the only way blood would be getting onto it. OTH, If the Window was up and he was shot, that's more likely to explain the blood on it. And, you can see that in the video, too. That's not a seatbelt. [g] Which causes yet another problem for me. If the Window was up, how the fuck did he reach into it as the shooting officer claimed? Did he have the ability to pass thru solid objects without breaking them in the process?

I'm not jumping to anything. You have a dead civilian who wasn't armed that didn't try to beat the snot out of any of the cops and wasn't under arrest at the time...He ignored them, and, for that, he should be shot?
The cops are contracting themselves. He was reaching into the Window.. A rolled up window? Really? How does one put his hand thru glass without breaking it? Other cops that reached the car before he got back to it already 'secured' it and closed the doors.
We've even got the police spokesperson contradicting themselves and passing the buck; "Oh, I was relying on what someone else told me, didn't know you had video of it. Oops" - Paraphrased.
The police chief wouldn't be so quick to issue a statement concerning the fact he (the now dead guy) had no gun and promised an investigation and justice if he didn't think something might be wrong with this situation, either.
And then you have the audio recording from the helicopter (that certainly didn't diffuse the situation). You also have Betty failing to turn on her emergency lights as she stops in the road? I don't know why she wouldn't have turned them on for safety reasons, unless she didn't want her dashcam on for some reason?
She went for her pistol, despite having a taser available to her. Why did one use the taser and she opted for lethal force, right away? Obviously the one using the taser didn't think lethal force was necessary at that point. Most likely, the taser was deployed to force compliance with their commands, not, because they thought he was going for a gun.
I'll wait until all the facts come out, as a normal person would/should, but, just going by what I've read/seen so far from video, it's not looking like the cop was justified here. It really does look like she jumped the gun and applied lethal force when it wasn't necessary to do so. I can't wait to read what the official determination is concerning the shooting. I won't hold my breath that the cop is in any way punished for killing someone, though.
--
MID: <nb7u27$crn$ snipped-for-privacy@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Was he under arrest? No, he wasn't. So, how could he have been escaping?

Unless various conditions apply (I've already posted what the supreme court said, but, I'll humour you and do it again:
The Supreme Court has ruled that officers can use deadly force against an escaping suspect only if they believe the person poses "a significant threat of death or serious physical injury" to the officers or someone else. Use of less-than-lethal force also requires officers to determine the seriousness of the suspected crime, and whether the suspect poses a safety threat or is attempting to evade arrest.
They approached him not knowing anything about him, he wasn't under arrest at the time. They didn't even have a reason to arrest him, yet. They didn't even know it was his ride, until he came back to it, after the original cops on the scene 'secured' the vehicle prior to his attempting to return to it. He was ignoring them and walking towards his ride when they decided to issue commands to him.
In fact, he didn't live long enough to be arrested. You can't very well 'arrest' a dead person.

See above.
--
MID: <nb7u27$crn$ snipped-for-privacy@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 8:56:36 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/23/2016 12:48 PM, trader_4 wrote:

Don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER said that.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 2:07:07 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

The village idiot rides once again and demonstrates why she gets no respect. Here are just some of your posts where you say and/or imply exactly that:
Why were there 4 cops point weapons at the man all standing inline facing him at the same time? Why did none of the cops move to any other position to gain a different view of the man? WHY did they choose to SHOOT a man who was STANDING there not advancing on them??
WHY did they have to kill him?? Why couldn't they TALK to him? Seek out another means of assessing the situation?
Orders?? I don't follow orders from most people, and if cops were shouting orders at me I probably wouldn't understand them because I don't read lips very well, and I'm hard of hearing, too. Heaven help me if the cops actually tried to communicate with me, and if they drew guns on me because I wasn't responding like they expected, I'd probably panic while trying to tell them "I've no idea what I did or why you're doing this to me!!"
Since when do we live in a militarized society, and that's what this kind of response by law enforcement is! The military warns you - if you don't comply - they shoot you dead.
YET, once again, they go from tasering to killing. That's just wrong.
It doesn't MATTER if the cop told the man to sit down and he walked backwards instead, it's NOT punishable by death.
Resisting arrest is STILL NOT punishable by death!! Not in America.
Tell me, WHY is resisting arrest an offense punishable by death?
They end up treating jaywalkers like dangerous drug dealers. They approach people who are just ordinary joggers running down the street for exercise ... they're wearing earbuds listening to music, and the cops tackle them because they don't respond to orders to "stop".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/23/2016 2:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:

WHERE did I even come close to saying "that he was shot just for ignoring them"?
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 3:28:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Reading comprehension problems as usual I see. I posted it all right there for you. These couple alone are sufficient:
"It doesn't MATTER if the cop told the man to sit down and he walked backwards instead, it's NOT punishable by death.
Resisting arrest is STILL NOT punishable by death!! Not in America.
Tell me, WHY is resisting arrest an offense punishable by death? "
Again, this is why you get no respect and get people pissed off. You just weasel around and won't even own up to what you post. I suppose next you'll tell us that you didn't also tell us those perps in Austin were arrested for just "jaywalking"? You know, the ones where everyone else saw a video where they were clearly resisting arrest? Are you going to tell us you didn't claim that deaf guy was "executed" for speeding? You've done this many times, claimingbthe police "executed" someone, carried out a "sentence". In short, you're the village idiot!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:48:15 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Ahh. My apologies then.

Agreed. I doubt we'll hear all about the investigation though. Various reporters on both sides will no doubt, add their spin to it.

Unfortunately, the jury typically consists of lay persons who aren't lawyers, forensic experts, etc. They go with what 'feels right' to them based on what the judge allows them to hear and see. Our legal system is a shady, shady business.

Yes, but, it's not usually phrased like that and it doesn't always make the news, either. I know of several police involved shootings here that weren't big national news. I think they scored a blip on the local news outlets and that was about all. I can't find anything on the driver of a pickup truck who was shot 3 times in the head, for example.

That isn't what I wrote...I was going by what they do here. If they stop in the road, they tend to turn the lights on. It's a safety thing. You want to be visible when conducting a traffic stop and/or sitting in the middle of the road.
So that drivers (who tend not to pay close attention to their surroundings because their too busy chatting/texting on a damn cell phone) not to see you in time to be able to avoid hitting your cruiser, or worse, you or the individuals you're assisting/arresting (whatever the case may be)

I don't trust cops. That's why I have so many questions. I wouldn't mind seeing her service records, either. I'm not convinced the investigation will be impartial either.

Maybe he was scratching his balls? I knew someone who worked for a decent IT/communications company here who was shot dead on his own porch due to a misunderstanding, by the Kingsport PD. They are such good shots here, btw, they nearly got one of his kids who was still inside the house with a trigger happy stray round.
He was half asleep (they hit the wrong house, surprise surprise) and was groggy because they woke him up. I don't know about you, but when I first wake up, I'm not quite myself yet. I'd hate to be shot because you thought I was going for something. Plenty of witnesses testified to this too. It didn't make the national news though, so you wouldn't know anything about it. Oh, and as expected, the cop was cleared of any wrong doing. Alas, the Father of three kids is still 6feet under.
--
MID: <nb7u27$crn$ snipped-for-privacy@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:10:41 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:

I think most of us think that we have a jury of our fellow citizens instead of lawyers or similar experts deciding guilt or innocence is a very good thing. Would you want Ruth Ginzberg deciding your fate on a gun charge? How do you think she'd treat you versus some lib cause case guy?

Hopefully they go by what they think is right based on the law and the instructions about how to interpret it given them by the judge. And it should be only based on what they see and hear in court. Are you suggesting jurors should make decisions based on what they hear on TV? On some kook websites? On what friends tell them?

Every police shooting that I've ever heard of today has an investigation and it's called exactly that. Meantime, the cop goes on desk duty or similar.

Sure, that happens. If it's a white guy shot, for example, less likely it's going to be national news. A white guy shot holding a gun, even less likely there will be big news stories about it. But how much coverage is given in the news is very different from whether an investigation is conducted or not.

I agree that is the normal procedure. But then why are you bringing it up here? There wasn't a motor vehicle accident because of her not putting on the cop car lights. No one died or was injured because of it. So, what was the point, if not to suggest that it was deliberate, to avoid having the dash cam going, to hide what she was going to do?

Then you'll never be satisfied because we don't get to see all the evidence, hear all the testimony, etc.

That isn't the issue. Assuming a perp is reaching into his pants, the cop doesn't know why he's doing it in that critical second when a life or death decision is being made. Juries realize that and typically give the benefit of doubt to the cop. I would.
I knew someone who worked for a

Very different circumstances than the two incidents here, starting with the cops apparently going into the wrong guy's house, where he had done nothing wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Do they offer any explanation for sending four cars and a helicopter to investigate an abandoned car? Something does not smell right.
Dave M.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/09/2016 12:15, David L. Martel wrote:

Apparently they were searching for some other wanted guy when they came across the deceased man's car in the middle of the road.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bod expressed precisely :

I believe that you are conflating two separate incidents.
The guy with the gun was not the guy they were looking for, but he had a gun and was uncooperative.
The guy without a gun was uncooperative too, but he didn't have a gun.
They are both dead now, and there is at least one commonality.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/09/2016 15:41, FromTheRafters wrote:

> Sorry for any confusion. This is the instance that I'm talking about:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/19/police-involved-shooting-black-man-tulsa-prompts-investigation/90716058/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.