Two killed by police brutality in the USA

Scroll to see replies

take for example this video, it's extremely similar to the situation in OP's story. The only difference is the suspect managed to actually pull a gun from his car after being told to stop, in the case in OP's post the male was shot before he could do anything.

Except that Crutcher wasn't trying "to do anything" because not only was he completely unarmed but he had his hands raised, and his lawyer has photos of blood on the car window after the shooting, showing that the windows had been closed. The cases cannot be compared because there is no evidence that he wanted to harm the officers, and even if he wanted to, he didn't have the means to.

Reply 41

spotify95

Original post by PrinceOfOrange

It's not as if they go out to kill, it's incredibly different here because we don't have much of a gun culture, I think if I was a yank on the beat I'd be incredibly paranoid as well. And be careful being proud of our law enforcement who have covered up child rape gangs and done some really shady **** over the years.

We sometimes use Tasers though, for serious offences, and they aren't as lethal as guns with live bullets in them. Though I get what you're saying: in the UK we don't have guns, whereas in the US, they have a lot more households with guns (for whatever reason). hence I suppose the US police carrying guns is more of a case of self defense so they don't get shot themselves?

Though anyhoo, shooting a potential suspect is a last resort, as it could kill the suspect - and if the suspect was innocent, you've just committed murder.

Reply 42

remiremi

Original post by WBZ144

He is on camera ignoring police commands and walks away from them, even if he puts his hands up he is still ignoring commands by walking back to the car. (I'm no expert here but I've never seen a police video where they tell any potentially armed suspect to walk back to his car, usually they are told to freeze until they can be cuffed)

When he was beside the window he may or may not have reached inside according to different accounts. I think they are comparable yes.

I'm not justifying the shooting, I'm explaining the police point of view.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 43

username471863

Original post by remiremi

The video clearly shows that he stopped at the car before he was shot. He was standing there for more than a few seconds before the shot was fired. The pictures show that the window was closed, it was covered in blood. And they were saying that he "looked like a bad dude" when looking at him from the helicopter, so an element of bias is more likely than not in this case.

Reply 44

TDawam

Original post by WBZ144

Even the military doesn't do this, they resort to shoot to kill as a last option (I think? I watched many documentaries on conflict and war as I like to understand why things happen)

Reply 45

sek510i

Accusing people of police brutality while investigations are still ongoing isn't helping anybody. By jumping the gun, posts like this risk spreading anti-police sentiment where it's not needed, as well as distracting from cases where police officers have acted wrongly.In one of these cases, body camera evidence has been reviewed but has not been publicly released. For all the public know, this was not a case of police brutality.

In the case where there is footage of the incident, the officer appeared to shoot a man who was unarmed but refusing to comply and getting into a possible getaway vehicle. It appears the officer fired her gun when perhaps she should have used a taser, but again, it's not completely clear what happened.

Tl;dr This thread's title is misleading and we don't know what happened yet.

Reply 46

teenhorrorstory

Manslaughter charge? What a joke

Reply 47

Truths

Original post by sek510i

In the case where there is footage of the incident, the officer appeared to shoot a man who was unarmed but refusing to comply and getting into a possible getaway vehicle. It appears the officer fired her gun when perhaps she should have used a taser, but again, it's not completely clear what happened.

....

You're not allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects anyway.

Reply 48

Truths

Original post by teenhorrorstory

Manslaughter charge? What a joke

Yeh the cop deserves worse. Hopefully it will be bumped up to at least 2nd degree murder.

Reply 49

BaconandSauce

Original post by Truths

....

You're not allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects anyway.

source

edit : -
Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

so ass fact exposed :biggrin:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 50

Truths

Original post by BaconandSauce

Why would they believe he posed a threat of serious physical harm? When they saw no weapons, and he didn't even match the description of any suspect at the time, yet alone a suspect who committed a violent crime. My point remains. What they did was illegal.

Reply 51

BaconandSauce

Original post by Truths

Don't know. But your claim was wrong don't now try and move the goal posts

You said and I quote 'You're not allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects anyway.'

I have shown this to be wrong as they ARE allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects

Reply 52

sek510i

Original post by Truths

....

You're not allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects anyway.

Most states allow it if there's reasonable grounds to believe that they are about to cause harm to somebody. I don't know what this state's rules are, but some can also define vehicles as weapons in certain circumstances, so they could (at a stretch) argue that the risk from him getting into a car and making off might have justified it.

I'm not saying that I agree, just that it's possible that this officer won't be prosecuted for this shooting.

Reply 53

mackemforever

Original post by WBZ144

Do you have evidence that they were "gun wielding maniacs"?

The first one may have had a gun, which isn't a crime if you are licensed. The second one was unarmed. Neither of them were criminals so yes, it is brutality.

Even if it is perfectly legal for the individual involved to be carrying a firearm that doesn't change the fact that no matter how calm you may seem a police officer has a responsibility to themself and to their fellow officers to assume that the individual is a potential threat until such time as the gun is out of their possession.

If you are stupid enough to refuse to drop the firearm that you have in your possession and comply with the orders of the police then you are backing them into a corner where they have no issue but to treat you as a threat to their safety and act accordingly.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't racist police officers in America, I'm not saying that there aren't cases where individuals, both black and white, have been shot and killed when they were entirely innocent and posing no threat to the officers, however in the vast, vast majority of cases that Black Lives Matter claim show institutionalised racism within the police force the common factor is that the individual who was shot was refusing to comply with police instructions and gave them no way to verify that he was not a threat to their safety.

It's really not complicated, if you want to minimise your chances of being shot by the police then don't give them a reason to shoot you. If they tell you to keep your hands where they are visible, keep your hands where they are visible. If they tell you to step out of your vehicle, step out of your vehicle. If they tell you to drop whatever you are holding, drop whatever you are holding. Don't give them any reason to think that you are a potential threat.

If you want a good example to show why the police in America treat everybody as a potential threat to their safety I present to you this video:

[video]https://youtu.be/G5pgZ0yq1-E[/video]

Skip to 1:50 if you want to.

What you see in that video is a relatively simple confrontation between a police officer and a suspect. Nothing out of the ordinary, no reason for the officer to even draw a weapon.

Then after 1:50 you see the suspect reach behind him, draw his firearm, take a shot at the police officer (difficult to see at full speed, he misses badly and the muzzle flash can be seen in the bottom left of the screen) and start running. The total time from when he starts reaching behind his back to when he fires a shot at the officer is less than 1 second.

That is why police officers in America treat every single person as a potential threat until they have personally verified that they are not one, because they are in a country where somebody can go from being perfectly peaceful and calm to shooting at them in less than 1 second.

Reply 54

InnerTemple

This sort of thing is actually fairly surprising for Charlotte.

Despite being in North Carolina, a southern state, Charlotte itself is fairly cosmopolitan. It has a fairly diverse community and is quite artsy and liberal compared to the rest of the state.

The local police department is also fairly well regarded in the area, and is probably one of the better depts. in terms of community relations/policing.

Even so, I guess this has to be seen in the wider context of what is clearly a massive problem in the US. It's just a shame that it has now affected what is actually a nice area.

Reply 55

Truths

Original post by BaconandSauce

I don't care for the pedantry. It's neither here nor there :bebored:

Original post by sek510i

The officer most certainly will be prosecuted.

Reply 56

sek510i

Original post by Truths

The officer most certainly will be prosecuted.

The US has an awful track record for prosecuting serving police officers, or even neighbourhood watch volunteers. They do sometimes get put on trial, but unfortunately they are generally less likely to get convicted.

Reply 57

QE2

Original post by Rk2k14

This is the norm in America now. Don't see the 'shoot first, ask questions later' policy changing.

If you watch the videos, you can hear the police repeatedly shouting "drop the gun!", so while that isn't strictly a question, there was certainly a period of dialogue during which the issue could have been resolved non-violently.

I suppose that you could argue that the victim had no way of knowing that the police would be likely to open fire if he didn't drop the gun.