Posted on 10/09/2016 12:16:32 AM PDT by Trump20162020
It will probably be a long time before Shelby sees the inside of a courtroom. But her lawyers are already previewing her case in the media — and Shelby’s attorneys have a strange argument they’ll use in her defense.
Shelby had no idea her backup was right behind her, prepared to subdue Crutcher with a less-lethal taser, the lawyers are saying, because she was temporarily deaf due to the stress of the situation. The law enforcement community calls it “auditory exclusion.”
“She didn’t hear the gunshot, didn’t hear the sirens coming up behind her just prior to the shot,” defense lawyer Scott Wood told the Associated Press last week. Auditory exclusion is “the no. 1 perceptual distortion by people I have represented who have been involved in shootings,” he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at thinkprogress.org ...
I honestly believe this is also a product of scenario based training. I am betting at some point she had a training scenario where a role player gets to his vehicle and retrieves a gun. There are several famous dash cam videos of that happening and police being shot.
“When I copied High Speed Morse, I was able to carry on a conversation, listen to music OR tune out everything else around me.”
I could never do that. I got comfortable enough where I could lag a group or two behind, but that was about it. I knew guys who could keep track of two “conversations” at once, but I never got that good.
This fails by the “Twinkie defense” standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
While the defense worked, in that case, just barely, it resulted in considerable embarrassment to the courts, and eventually a change in California law, that was for once, reasonable.
“...the term ‘diminished capacity’... was replaced by the term ‘diminished actuality’, referring not to the capacity to have a specific intent, but to whether the defendant actually had the required intent to commit the crime with which he or she was charged.”
In this case, *it wouldn’t matter* if because of “temporary deafness” she was unaware of other officers wanting to use other means. Her intent was to shoot to kill.
And given the circumstances of the case, that the man was unarmed and posing no immediate threat her intent and actions were unlawful.
He wasn't doing anything wrong. And it proved fatal.
He was walking back to his vehicle. Google Kyle Dinkheller about what can happen when the suspect gets back to his vehicle when the officer doesn't stop him from doing such.
He was unarmed and not threatening anyone. If that's ground for shooting him then why did she wait so long?
Google Kyle Dinkheller about what can happen when the suspect gets back to his vehicle when the officer doesn't stop him from doing such.
What you are saying then is that in both cases the officer misread the situation resulting in a tragic outcome. In one case an unarmed suspect died for no reason. In the other a police officer was murdered in cold blood. Shouldn't both instances be viewed equally as tragedies? And shouldn't the person needlessly causing the death be prosecuted for it in both cases?
Situations can explode in no time at all. Walking away from the officer and towards his vehicle put the officer on edge. I'll wait for the trial for better evidence, but he wasn't just standing still in the road with his hands up.
Shouldn't both instances be viewed equally as tragedies?
Ever hear of the saying better judged by twelve instead of carried by six?
Thank you. I have re-posted the comments in post 60. There were some glaring grammatical errors.
Nor was he posing a threat. To her or anyone.
Ever hear of the saying better judged by twelve instead of carried by six?
Do you agree that her actions should be dispassionately judged by 12? Or was it a good shoot and she should be freed?
He wasn’t complying with the officer’s commands. He was going to be taken into custody for public intoxication. If he had gotten back behind the wheel, driven merrily of and into oncoming traffic and killed someone, would that have been doing nothing wrong and a senseless tragedy?
Then why didn't she shoot him right off the bat? Why wait? And of the four officers on the scene why was she the only one who thought the suspect had to die?
The jury pool is now tainted, and he seems to have no other defense, except "she couldn't hear".
That is patently untrue. He stopped his vehicle in the middle of the road. He was refusing or unable to comply with the officer's lawful commands. There was ample evidence he was under the influence of drugs, both from his behavior on the scene, and possibly reflected in his arrest record. We know now from his family that he was a PCP user.
Whether or not the officer should have shot him at that moment will be decided in court.
But the idea that Mr. Crutcher was "doing nothing wrong" and "a threat to nobody" is 100% straight-up BS.
I note again you argue in a duplicitous way, assuming and creating strawmen instead of addressing what was actually stated.
So I guess the cop should have waited for him to pull out a gun and start shooting before returning fire? Like Dinkheller did?
I'm sorry, walking towards the car gave both cops concern, and he must have made some significant movement because both cops fired - one a taser, one a gun.
Do you agree that her actions should be dispassionately judged by 12?
I have been saying that consistently. But to claim the target did nothing wrong is ludicrous. Failing to comply with the directions of the officers to stop walking towards the vehicle jacked up the situation. And the cop that fired the taser is not facing disciplinary action that I am aware of. So the question is not that force was justified - more that was the level of force justified?
Got to where I would be a line & a half or two behind - in groups of 5 letters or numbers...
about 20 groups to a line - 100 characters...
Funny thing though, I was a ‘master’ on the bug but my hand sending on standard key was choppy and sounded forced -
That was MY critique of myself, can imagine how I sounded towards others..
Speed Key came sort of natural and copying was a snap
Of course when one is sending it sounds GREAT because the person sending knows what he is saying.... <: <:
I’ve never sent a dit in my life. My job was all receive.
Trailerpark Badass has very ably addressed the reasons that anyone, cop or otherwise, would have been wise to treat that suspect with great caution. But, something that no one has brought up yet, is this. These officers are almost certainly guilty of only one thing: poor tactics.
They let the suspect control the encounter, and though they tried to deploy less lethal (Taser), they didn’t use it soon enough, waiting until the suspect reached into his car. (At least it looked that way to me on the tape.) Not that the Taser is all that reliable with a PCP user anyway, but at least they had the thought.
But, considerwhat the cops knew, and what they didn’t. They knew, or at least had the reasonable suspicion that the was high on PCP (She was a DRE). They had at least the warrant returns, and possibly the prior assault conviction if he was still on parole.
They did NOT know if he was armed or not. They did not know why he wanted back into the car so badly. They did not know why he was ignoring their (lawful) orders. And most importantly, they did not know what would be in his hand after he reached into that front seat.
So as to your assertion that he posed no threat, many would disagree: given the totality of the circumstances, trying to reach into that car was most definately a threat to everyone present. Granted, in an ideal world things would never have gotten that far, and it’s fair to ding the cops for that, assuming they had proper training (many smaller departments don’t).
The suspect is dead, in short, because of his actions. He chose to ignore the officers lawful orders. He chose to return to his car, and he also chose to take an action that any reasonable person could construe as an attempt to arm himself. It’s very easy to not get shot by the cops. That narrative keeps getting lost. Yes, the police has a positive obligation to follow the law and use only objectively reasonable force. But people also have the obligation to themselves follow the law. Our entire legal system rests on that cooperation. When that goes, you get a very different kind of society.
I believe the police officer should have waited until there was a threat to her safety or the safety of others before shooting the man.
I'm sorry, walking towards the car gave both cops concern, and he must have made some significant movement because both cops fired - one a taser, one a gun.
Then why not shoot him the moment he started walking to the car if that is and of itself a threat to the safety of the officers? And you will note that of the four officers on the scene only one so totally misjudged the situation that she felt it necessary to use deadly force. Were the other careless?
But to claim the target did nothing wrong is ludicrous.
To say that walking away from a police officer is threatening enough to justify shooting him is ludicrous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.