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

[jazzflower92]

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.

That's not good at all. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's petty, and perpetuates more shoddy journalism when we need more facts than entertainment when addressing news coverage.

 

[SummerMadness]

That's not good at all. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's petty, and perpetuates more shoddy journalism when we need more facts than entertainment when addressing news coverage.

Where were you people on the thread chastising posters for saying Terance Crutcher was previously arrested and was a drug dealer. You were silent until you saw this thread.

 

[SummerMadness]

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.

Actually, I think it's quite right. The purpose of the article isn't to draw a picture of the officer as bad because of her past, it is to point out that everyone has a past, it's just that when it's a black person, it is used against them. A similar tactic could be applied to this white woman, and now people are throwing their arms up saying it's not right to look at her past.

 

[jazzflower92]

Where were you people on the thread chastising posters for saying Terance Crutcher was previously arrested and was a drug dealer. You were silent until you saw this thread.

The thing is you are going against your own principles, and it shows.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Where were you people on the thread chastising posters for saying Terance Crutcher was previously arrested and was a drug dealer. You were silent until you saw this thread.

Actually, I think it's quite right. The purpose of the article isn't to draw a picture of the officer as bad because of her past, it is to point out that everyone has a past, it's just that when it's a black person, it is used against them. A similar tactic could be applied to this white woman, and now people are throwing their arms up saying it's not right to look at her past.

QFT.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The unarmed and innocent remain to be proven IN COURT.

No, you don't prove innocence. You are presumed innocent until someone proves otherwise.

Since a dead man can't have his day in court, he'll never be proven guilty.

 

[Sistrin]

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.

The other side of this coin is the virulent backlash directed at those who report the backgrounds of suspects shot by police. The fact they had criminal records, to include the commission of various felonies, is never supposed to enter the conversation.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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).

Then I'm sure you'll agree that it works both ways. The conservative tactic to portray every past infraction in a shooting victim's life as grounds to the shooting, no matter how small, is just as abhorrent.

Which was the entire point of the Huffington Post article. Which you still don't seem to understand.

 

[tatteredsoul]

That's not good at all. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's petty, and perpetuates more shoddy journalism when we need more facts than entertainment when addressing news coverage.

As I said, turnabout is fair play.

 

[Inkfingers]

No, you don't prove innocence. You are presumed innocent until someone proves otherwise.

Since a dead man can't have his day in court, he'll never be proven guilty.

Pack it in, you lnow I am speaking about the justification of the officers actions not convicting the man shot.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Then I'm sure you'll agree that it works both ways. The conservative tactic to portray every past infraction in a shooting victim's life as grounds to the shooting, no matter how small, is just as abhorrent.

Which was the entire point of the Huffington Post article. Which you still don't seem to understand.

QFT

 

[Inkfingers]

Then I'm sure you'll agree that it works both ways. The conservative tactic to portray every past infraction in a shooting victim's life as grounds to the shooting, no matter how small, is just as abhorrent.

Which was the entire point of the Huffington Post article. Which you still don't seem to understand.

It certainly does work both ways, but there is a big difference between muck raking to make more of something and looking at whether people were active serious criminals.

 

[tatteredsoul]

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

View attachment 183086

 

[cow451]

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.

Her recent history could be argued as well as whether she had personnel actions. Her training also matters. But it is silly to say that two joints over twenty years ago matters. I'll wager you've done more weed than she has.

Unless you can show some real connection rather than some Oliver Stone-type connection, the only things that matter are what happened once she got the call that day.

Based on what I have seen, she was too quick on the trigger. Note that the other officer chose Taser rather than service weapon and it appears that she shot before the other officer did. But, the victim's behavior was curious at minimum.

I would not want to sit on a jury in a case like this one with so much projection from the public.

 

[tatteredsoul]

The other side of this coin is the virulent backlash directed at those who report the backgrounds of suspects shot by police. The fact they had criminal records, to include the commission of various felonies, is never supposed to enter the conversation.

It can, and does enter the conversation all the time.

It just isn't supposed to be used as justification for death. The idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty is an abstract that transcends religious foundations. It is basic decency of life and liberty.

When a lawyer uses the history of someone in order to prosecute, persecute or justify a death, they are called "sleazy," or some other insulting word. People understand this.

What do you think someone who uses the history of a dead person to justify their death is called? That has been happening very often on these forums, and in the States.

This thinking is the opposite of Christianity''s overall message - that one''s history justify one''s death (of the spirit.) It is like saying repentance doesn't matter, because God is going to judge you on all of your sins in history (even the ones He promised to "forget" through repentance.)

 

[cow451]

The other side of this coin is the virulent backlash directed at those who report the backgrounds of suspects shot by police. The fact they had criminal records, to include the commission of various felonies, is never supposed to enter the conversation.

It should not unless there is a known history of violence. Felons are not fair game just because they are felons.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It certainly does work both ways, but there is a big difference between muck raking to make more of something and looking at whether people were active serious criminals.

I sometimes listen to conservative talk radio, because I'm fascinated by insane people. I've heard more than one "journalist" list off every incident in the shooting victim's past, including seat belt violations.

There is absolutely no difference between bringing up the past drug use of the officer and bringing up seat belt violations. Neither have anything to do with the incident. The only real difference is that the Huffington Post did what they did to point out hypocrisy, and the conservatives did it because... they're terrible, horrible people...

 

[cow451]

I sometimes listen to conservative talk radio, because I'm fascinated by insane people. I've heard more than one "journalist" list off every incident in the shooting victim's past, including seat belt violations.

There is absolutely no difference between bringing up the past drug use of the officer and bringing up seat belt violations. Neither have anything to do with the incident. The only real difference is that the Huffington Post did what they did to point out hypocrisy, and the conservatives did it because... they're terrible, horrible people...

The problem with this tactic, even if one decides it is OK, is that it can backfire. The most recent domestic incident was fourteen years ago. And she has four letters of commendation as well as an Oklahoma meritorious service award. The only way this carries any weight is if you are channeling Donald Trump in attacking her.

 

[jazzflower92]

I really think that the media should try to not make things worse than it already does. These days stories like this need to be handled carefully by both sides, in order so that justice can be served.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The problem with this tactic, even if one decides it is OK, is that it can backfire. The most recent domestic incident was fourteen years ago. And she has four letters of commendation as well as an Oklahoma meritorious service award. The only way this carries any weight is if you are channeling Donald Trump in attacking her.

Again, the point isn't to point out her past as reasons to vilify her for the shooting. Her past doesn't matter. Neither does the past history of the shooting victim.

Similarly, letters of commendation mean absolutely nothing. The only thing that matters is whether she, on that particular day, shot and killed someone she had no good reason to shoot.