Cop Who Shot Terence Crutcher Has History Of Drug Use, Domestic Disturbances

[tatteredsoul]

There's no need for a smear campaign. She killed an unarmed, innocent man. That should be bad enough on its own.

Unless it wasn't important the person that died was a person...

 

[tatteredsoul]

Lying mean's covering the truth up with an untruth. Claiming that someone has a history of drug use when it was pot smoking in their teens, decades ago, is trying to make more of events than really happened. Claiming that someone has been involved in domestic disturbances, mentioning restraining orders before admitting all were thrown out, is again seeking to mislead.

This is what I mean about turnabout. Black young men are constantly thrown in prison for much less than an ounce of cannabis, and you can't seem to understand why it is a big deal the cop "smoked pot," and why people are saying she has a history of drug use.

Firstly, without spin it is the truth. In the past, she smoked cannabis. Marijuana is categorized as an illegal drug by the government of the United States. So, she did do drugs in history. So, she has a history of drug use.

Secondly, the young black men that were killed by cops recently who "smoked pot" were posthumously reviled by many on these forums, and in the world, as being a "thug" who is on drugs.

Soon, everyone killing victim of cops had their drug, criminal and personal histories posthumously exposed , and people used that history to justify their deaths.

So, as per turnabout, the cop needs the criminal, drug and personal history exposed, and it will likely be used against her to justify her manslaughter. We see a history of drug use - what else was done? Was the cop ever on something while on duty? Is there a history of racist rhetoric? Let's get it all out; inquiring, minds want to know.

Turnabout.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

That is for a court and jury to decide, not a mob or media gossip-mongers.

Is he not dead?

Did she not admit to firing the shot?

 

[tatteredsoul]

I meant having higher standard than those who trash dead people to justify bad shootings, not the cops.

Although they certainly need to be held to a higher standard, too.

Gotcha. I am not going to trash this cop because there is no point. Besides, she is alive, so she is capable of defending herself and dealing with any backlash.

But, I really do want it to hit home the turnabout point. It really isn't about this cop so much as it is about the behavior and mentality of people.

 

[cow451]

The cop should be held to higher standards than a civilian, yes I agree.


Mark Wahlberg was denied a job as a deputy in/around his Mass. Neighborhood because some people that knew him when he was 18 - people who were brutally attacked by him and his friends - heavily protested his involvement with police at all. At the same time, he wanted the job to film his relaity show he wanted to shoot.

See, his past mattered and rightfully so. One of his victims, and their family, are still dealing with the way he and his friends beat up their son, and constantly threw around racist slurs.

So, we should look deep into the cop(s) record, and make public what can be public from their past.

People do it all the time, often posthumously, bring up one''s past in order to justify their death. So, turnabout is fairplay. Ironically, the past of the cop may work to justify the manslaughter charge.

Actually, that is not the way the criminal system works. That stuff may have some play, as will his background, in a civil case.

Both sides in these cases try them in the media.

 

[Inkfingers]

Firstly, without spin it is the truth. In the past, she smoked cannabis. Marijuana is categorized as an illegal drug by the government of the United States. So, she did do drugs in history. So, she has a history of drug use.

Which the Huff is trying to make more of than is just, as can be seen by tagging it with domestic disputes. Ever had an argument in your home...that's a domestic dispute too, but the Huff is clearly trying to imply more than that.

Secondly, the young black men that were killed by cops recently who "smoked pot" were posthumously reviled by many on these forums, and in the world, as being a "thug" who is on drugs.

I think you'll find a difference between people who smoked some pot decades ago and those are still using it now (often around the time of being shot).

So, as per turnabout, the cop needs the criminal, drug and personal history exposed, and it will likely be used against her to justify her manslaughter. We see a history of drug use - what else was done? Was the cop ever on something while on duty? Is there a history of racist rhetoric? Let's get it all out; inquiring, minds want to know.

Absolutely, just not in click-bait headlines that are only going to inflame an already riotous situation.

 

[Inkfingers]

Is he not dead?

Did she not admit to firing the shot?

The unarmed and innocent remain to be proven IN COURT.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The unarmed and innocent remain to be proven IN COURT.

The police have stated that no weapon was found in the vehicle or on his person. Why does a court have do decide this FACT.

The deceased was not arrested, tried or convicted the day he was killed. Therefore in this country, he is innocent.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Actually, that is not the way the criminal system works. That stuff may have some play, as will his background, in a civil case.

Both sides in these cases try them in the media.

He wasn't acting for, with or against the criminal justice system when he was trying to be a deputy, because he wasn't a criminal. So, his past mattered in the decision to hire him as a member of the police.

Anything can matter in a civil case if you can attach merit to it, so that is neither here or there. This is now a criminal case of manslaughter, so posthumous history should not matter in the cops decision to kill.

Why? Because the cop did not know the history of the person, and so it should not bare on her decision to kill. That "history" is inert because the decision of the cop to pull the trigger did not take his history into account. The cop had no idea of it. (This is one thing people on these forums try to say: that the history of the dead mattered in the decision even though the killer knew nothing of the history of the killed.)

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That is for a court and jury to decide, not a mob or media gossip-mongers.

It's pretty obvious she's the one who fired the fatal shot. There's no question she killed him. The question comes up if she was justified in doing so.

Personally, I don't think she was, going off what was seen in the released footage of the shooting.

 

[Inkfingers]

The police have stated that no weapon was found in the vehicle or on his person. Why does a court have do decide this FACT.

Not if Officer Shelby and the other one pretty much simultaneously tasered him had very good cause to think otherwise.

The deceased was not arrested, tried or convicted the day he was killed. Therefore in this country, he is innocent.

That's word games when we don't know the events leading up to his being shot.

 

[Inkfingers]

It's pretty obvious she's the one who fired the fatal shot. There's no question she killed him. The question comes up if she was justified in doing so.

Personally, I don't think she was, going off what was seen in the released footage of the shooting.

I don't know if she was or was not, but trial by media is disgusting (and all the more so when media tries to mislead).

 

[Armoured]

The unarmed and innocent remain to be proven IN COURT.

That's not how it works. It is assumed there was none until it is proven in court there WAS.

 

[SummerMadness]

This is not a smear campaign, it is simply doing the same exact thing done to African Americans when they are shot or killed by the police. If you have an arrest record, even if it was something you did 20 years ago, it is brought up as relevant. If you sold drugs when you were younger and turned your life around, they'll still call you a drug dealer. There is a constant push to label the person a "thug." Suddenly, those same tactics are now considered "unfair" and "lying." Well then, I expect to see you stand up for Trayvon Martin, Philando Castile, Terance Cruthers, and the other black men and women who have their past used to justify their deaths, whether accurate or not.

 

[cow451]

He wasn't acting for, with or against the criminal justice system when he was trying to be a deputy, because he wasn't a criminal. So, his past mattered in the decision to hire him as a member of the police.

Anything can matter in a civil case if you can attach merit to it, so that is neither here or there. This is now a criminal case of manslaughter, so posthumous history should not matter in the cops decision to kill.

Why? Because the cop did not know the history of the person, and so it should not bare on her decision to kill. That "history" is inert because the decision of the cop to pull the trigger did not take his history into account. The cop had no idea of it. (This is one thing people on these forums try to say: that the history of the dead mattered in the decision even though the killer knew nothing of the history of the killed.)

Forgive my very unclear post.

I meant to say that the past behaviors of either the officer or the deceased are not germane to the facts of the case as the two had no known relationship. These other matters only get consideration in the civil suit or in sentencing if the officer pleads or is found guilty. The question to be resolved in court are whether the officer acted in a reckless matter, thus unnecessarily taking the victim's life.

 

[cow451]

This is not a smear campaign, it is simply doing the same exact thing done to African Americans when they are shot or killed by the police. If you have an arrest record, even if it was something you did 20 years ago, it is brought up as relevant. If you sold drugs when you were younger and turned your life around, they'll still call you a drug dealer. There is a constant push to label the person a "thug." Suddenly, those same tactics are now considered "unfair" and "lying." Well then, I expect to see you stand up for Trayvon Martin, Philando Castile, Terance Cruthers, and the other black men and women who have their past used to justify their deaths, whether accurate or not.

It is not right, regardless, and it is world-class poor journalism, if it can be dignified as such. I appreciate the "turnabout" motive, but a professional should not engage in such. It is no better than Fox, Breitbart, etc.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Forgive my very unclear post.

I meant to say that the past behaviors of either the officer or the deceased are not germane to the facts of the case as the two had no known relationship. These other matters only get consideration in the civil suit or in sentencing if the officer pleads or is found guilty. The question to be resolved in court are whether the officer acted in a reckless matter, thus unnecessarily taking the victim's life.

The cop's history DOES matter, because she was the one who cleared the car, the occupants, and then pulled her gun out and killed someone.

If she has a history of drug abuse, then that would definitely matter. Any and all of her history is up for scrutiny, because she is the one who pulled the trigger, and is still alive.

 

[Inkfingers]

That's not how it works. It is assumed there was none until it is proven in court there WAS.

Stop playing word games. We are not talking about convicting a man without a trial but whether the police officer may have had good cause to shoot.

Seriously, you need to think on what you are arguing for if you are presuming or implying otherwise.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

This is not a smear campaign, it is simply doing the same exact thing done to African Americans when they are shot or killed by the police. If you have an arrest record, even if it was something you did 20 years ago, it is brought up as relevant. If you sold drugs when you were younger and turned your life around, they'll still call you a drug dealer. There is a constant push to label the person a "thug." Suddenly, those same tactics are now considered "unfair" and "lying." Well then, I expect to see you stand up for Trayvon Martin, Philando Castile, Terance Cruthers, and the other black men and women who have their past used to justify their deaths, whether accurate or not.

Exactly. I guess not too many non-minority people are pleased since the shoe is on the other foot now.

 

[Armoured]

Stop playing word games. We are not talking about convicting a man without a trial but whether the police officer may have had good cause to shoot.

Seriously, you need to think on what you are arguing for if you are presuming or implying otherwise.

back atcha.