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

[SummerMadness]

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

A federal investigation is looking into the police shooting of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which has also prompted a deeper probe into the history and past conduct of the cop involved in his death.

Officer Betty Shelby, a white woman, fatally shot 40-year-old Crutcher, a black man, on Friday after she came upon his vehicle, which was stalled in the middle of the road, while responding to an unrelated call. Crutcher was later tased by another officer just seconds after Shelby fired her weapon. Crutcher’s family is seeking criminal charges against his killer. But Shelby’s lawyer said she fired her weapon because she feared for her life, despite the fact that Crutcher was unarmed and had his hands raised mere moments before he was shot, as seen in video footage.

Aren't these the characteristics that describe a "thug"?

 

[KCfromNC]

Cop Who Shot Terence Crutcher Has History Of Drug Use, Domestic Disturbances
Aren't these the characteristics that describe a "thug"?

I'll pull out the relevant quote : "a white woman". So no, not a thug.

 

[cow451]

She used marijuana twice when she was 18. Really? That qualifies as "drug user"? Now she's 40? She probably said "bad words", too. Whoever wrote the headline needs to be canned for a click bait offense.

 

[iluvatar5150]

She used marijuana twice when she was 18. Really? That qualifies as "drug user"? Now she's 40? She probably said "bad words", too. Whoever wrote the headline needs to be canned for a click bait offense.

 

[Inkfingers]

"her ex-husband’s new wife filed a protective order against her in 2002 to put an end to harassing phone calls the new wife claims Shelby made. The order was eventually denied and Shelby maintained her innocence."

"a breakup with her then-boyfriend led to the two damaging each other’s cars. Temporary restraining orders were filed and eventually tossed out"

"she marked “yes” under a prompt that asked whether she had “possessed and used illegal drugs” in the past. Shelby said she used marijuana twice when she was 18 years old"

SHAMEFUL click-baiting from the Headline writer and from anyone who goes along with it. If this is the level of argument on this subject its no wonder that it comes from people who hate the police.

 

[iluvatar5150]

"her ex-husband’s new wife filed a protective order against her in 2002 to put an end to harassing phone calls the new wife claims Shelby made. The order was eventually denied and Shelby maintained her innocence."

"a breakup with her then-boyfriend led to the two damaging each other’s cars. Temporary restraining orders were filed and eventually tossed out"

"she marked “yes” under a prompt that asked whether she had “possessed and used illegal drugs” in the past. Shelby said she used marijuana twice when she was 18 years old"

SHAMEFUL click-baiting from the Headline writer and from anyone who goes along with it. If this is the level of argument on this subject its no wonder that it comes from people who hate the police.

 

[tatteredsoul]

"her ex-husband’s new wife filed a protective order against her in 2002 to put an end to harassing phone calls the new wife claims Shelby made. The order was eventually denied and Shelby maintained her innocence."

"a breakup with her then-boyfriend led to the two damaging each other’s cars. Temporary restraining orders were filed and eventually tossed out"

"she marked “yes” under a prompt that asked whether she had “possessed and used illegal drugs” in the past. Shelby said she used marijuana twice when she was 18 years old"

SHAMEFUL click-baiting from the Headline writer and from anyone who goes along with it. If this is the level of argument on this subject its no wonder that it comes from people who hate the police.

Things like this have been used to justify killing unarmed black persons on this very forum. And, so it is very important and necessary to scrutinize this cop.

So, turnabout is fair play.

 

[Armoured]

Things like this have been used to justify killing unarmed black persons on this very forum. And, so it is very important and necessary to scrutinize this cop.

So, turnabout is fair play.

Fair point. But still, higher standards and all that.

 

[Inkfingers]

Things like this have been used to justify killing unarmed black persons on this very forum. And, so it is very important and necessary to scrutinize this cop.

So, turnabout is fair play.

This isn't scrutiny.

It's lies by a media who want those lies to direct people's behaviour in a situation where there are already riots happening.

 

[tatteredsoul]

This isn't scrutiny.

It's lies by a media who want those lies to direct people's behaviour in a situation where there are already riots happening.

Like I said...

 

[tatteredsoul]

Fair point. But still, higher standards and all that.

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.

 

[Armoured]

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.

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.

 

[Inkfingers]

Like I said...

How?

These are out and out lies. What other lies are you comparing them to?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

How?

These are out and out lies. What other lies are you comparing them to?

Hmmm...

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

1. She's admitted to using drugs, hence she has a history of drug use.
2. Damaging a ex's car led to a filing of a temporary restraining order, hence she has a history of domestic disturbances.

So... no lies here...

Although the headline would be more accurate if it said "... Shot and Killed Terrance Crutcher, Who Had His Hands Up ...".

 

[Inkfingers]

Hmmm...

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

1. She's admitted to using drugs, hence she has a history of drug use.
2. Damaging a ex's car led to a filing of a temporary restraining order, hence she has a history of domestic disturbances.

So... no lies here...

Although the headline would be more accurate if it said "... Shot and Killed Terrance Crutcher, Who Had His Hands Up ...".

The lying is in making far more of these events than they clearly are; the restraining orders were all refused, and the drug use was years ago.

It's like saying she has a history of assault because she pulled someone's hair when she was 4.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The lying is in making far more of these events than they clearly are; the restraining orders were all refused, and the drug use was years ago.

It's like saying she has a history of assault because she pulled someone's hair when she was 4.

You seem to have an odd definition of "lying". The word, to me, means telling an untruth. Which the headline does not do.

You also seem to be missing the point of all this entirely...

 

[Inkfingers]

You seem to have an odd definition of "lying". The word, to me, means telling an untruth. Which the headline does not do.

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.

You also seem to be missing the point of all this entirely...

No, I fully recognise the point - to throw mud at this officer before she even reaches court for shooting a man who had a record of serious drug offences, had parked his car in the wrong side of the road partway over the centre line, and who was wandering back to his car when already told to put his hands up, and had given cause for another officer to taser...all with many police officers appearing rapidly and a helicopter already overhead.

There is more to this case than meets the eye, but it is already being used by anarchists to rampage and riot across Charlotte....all as part of an overall situation this year which has seen mobs chanting for cops to be killed, several cops killed in an ambush, and police injured in riots.

So no, I am not missing the point at all. I know it all to well.

 

[iluvatar5150]

No, I fully recognise the point - to throw mud at this officer before she even reaches court for shooting a man who had a record of serious drug offences

...

So no, I am not missing the point at all. I know it all to well.

It would appear that you are missing the point by quite a lot.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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

 

[Inkfingers]

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

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