Tulsa cop Betty Jo Shelby found not guilty in death of Terence Crutcher

I thought you a different kind of black, turns out you're not so different than any other black. How's that Stop Snitchin' program working out for you in the hood. Shortstop? Sharpwhit? Why call people names unless it's because your arguments have no merit?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-police-shootings-race-20160711-story.html

 

Different kind of Black? What are you basing your premise upon?

 

He thought you were like Herman Cain or Ben Carson.

 

Your responses to questions. But when you pressed you react predictably.

 

Thank you, Superbad, you know, I thought that is what he was asking, but I wanted him to state himself. Those persons, I do not consider Black at all. Nor do I consider Hip-Hoppers, criminals, preachers, nor any other types of black mankind, Black. Black is something that is ordinary and unique at the same time. It has nothing to do with the mythologies of the present world with all of its derogation from Black. Black is Original and has existed from the beginning of Creation, it always has been and always will be; eternal. It is the essence of Creation, Original thought, and Original Life. Yes, I am one of THOSE Black Men and am proud of it and cannot be any thing nor any one other than me.
Herman Cain, Ben Carson and the other knuckleheaded sheriff from out in Western United States, are nothing more than children and the sheriff is a coward. The easiest target to stardom in these United States is to target some Black, such a BLACKLIVESMATTER to make a name for yourself so that the majority population in this country see that you are "safe". This tells me that during the time of chattel, such bastards would have been the ones telling the overseers, who was plotting to run away from the miseries and after slavery, during outright "Jim Crow", would have been some of the ones helping the Ku Klux Klan and the bastards who MURDERED Emmett Till. Such people, are not Black, they are Toms and Coons.

 

What is predictably? Does it have anything to do with "WHITE WASHING" reality so that you are comfortable in your opposition to what is right, exact, and correct? If it is, let me inform you now, that I am not a female nor a woman. I am a BLACK MAN.

 

I agree plus if he had obeyed what the cop asked him to do he would not have been shot. Once your out of your auto in a traffic stop Cops are very weary of you reaching into your auto unless they have full view of the inside and they told you to get your ID.

 

This is a song about the Damage Inside from existence in this world, resulting in alienation from the Self:


Machine Head is truly a great band with excellent songs.

 

I don't think not doing what a cop tells you to do warrants a death sentence a lot of people get shaken when pulled or approached by a cop and many times don't think straight especially when the cop is screaming at you with his gun pulled

 

You believe that to be the case here? Haha. Wow, it's so simple...
Drugs. Running away. Refusing to obey...

 

does any of that deserve a death sentence? pulling a gun on a cop you deserve one but reaching into your vehicle shouldn't unless you are reaching for a gun and the cops does see the gun not assume that is what you are doing
Cops have the right to protect them selves against a verified threat not an assumed one

 

Cops didn't know WHAT he was going to do. He was a danger to the public.

 

and you wait and see not assume
should I be allowed to shot someone I'm having a disagreement with because he reached into his back pocket not waiting to see if he pulls out a weapon?
Cops like everyone else have the right to protect them selves against a verified threat not an assumed one

 

Wrong. You don't wait for someone to pose a threat to the public. You eliminate the threat by non lethal or lethal force if the public or officers are POSSIBLY in danger. You don't give a someone who isn't obeying commands the "benefit of the doubt". That's how you get an INNOCENT person killed. Thank goodness you don't make the rules.

 

no that is where you are wrong you give one the benefit of the doubt when you are about to take a life It is why we have the rule beyond a reasonable doubt when you convict anyone of a crime we don't put people in jail because we assumed they committed a crime or about to
assuming one is reaching for a gun isn't a verified threat seeing that gun in his hands is
according to you logic I can shot someone just walking towards me because I feel threaten by him doing so with no other verified reason to be threatened like him having a weapon in his hands just me assuming he is a threat

 

This occurs due to FEAR OF COPS because of their belligerent attitudes. Like any oppressive force, fear is what motivates them and like ravenous BEASTS, they sense and feed off of FEAR! The governments of this country (state, local, and federal) also thrive off of FEAR, so what does that make these entities? By definition, the described actions (reality) defines them as TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

ter·ror·ist
ˈterərəst/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
   "four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
   synonyms: extremist, fanatic; More
   

adjective

1. 1.
   unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
   "a terrorist organization"

Now, the definition uses the phrase, "unlawful" use of violence and intimidation. What is "lawful" use of violence and intimidation? The use of either, unless it is in the defense of your own life or the life of another person, is unjustified, e.g., UNLAWFUL.

 

Part of wrongful conviction deals with the reasoning that a person if guilty of committing a crime based on the assumption that said person or persons committed the offense. The Central Park Jogger case is an excellent example of this. Because the defendants, who are now exonerated, are Black and Hispanic and the victim was a Caucasian female, it was assumed that they committed the crime when they were and are innocent of the accusation(s) and were convicted of said crime(s). This is one of the main problems with the systems of jurisprudence in this country. Because what is called "racism", innocent people have been and still are convicted of crimes that they had nothing to do with. This is why I, for one, do often comment on what is being presented to the public through television, governmental actions, music, etc., and its impact upon the overall society. Many like to use or misuse, "freedom of expression" as a defense for said behaviors, but in actuality it goes far beyond supposed freedom of expression. For all intents and purposes, it speaks to the belligerence within this society and why it is doomed to failure.

 

I'm not talking about average joe. We're discussing law enforcement officers. And you're over exaggerating the premise. If there's a threat to innocent people OR police officers, that threat needs to be eliminated the quickest way possible.

Hence why you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt how this was murder.

 

what you use is what is called the "reasonable person standard" what a reasonable person would believe if put in the same situation
for example
if I'm having an argument with someone and he reaches into his back pocket would a reasonable person believe that his life is endanger for him reaching into his back pocket? no a reasonable person wouldn't not from that action alone
now if the person I was arguing with says I'm going to kill you then reaches into his back pocket a reasonable person would then have a reasonable belief his life is in danger because he specified his intent

 

no you have to use the reasonable person standard cops should be held at a higher standard not a lower one because they had training

and you keep talking about a threat like it was a verified threat when it was just an assumed threat he had no weapon in hand he didn't have another person in his grasp to do any bodily harm to he was just disobeying orders disobeying an order doesn't make you a threat stupid and defiant maybe but not a verified threat

 

What you're saying is "should" and "should not" which are irrelevant to our laws. Police aren't waiting for a suspect to quickly whip something out that can kill innocent people. If they perceive a possible threat, it's going down.

 

and that is when you use what a reasonable person would perceive as a possible threat

 

This is another "should" post.

 

You have yet to explain how he was a threat to the officer or the public.