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

[Sistrin]

Correct, since it had nothing to do with the incident that killed him.

The police do not operate in a vacuum. The length of Freddie Gray's criminal record is absolutely relevant to the incident which ultimately led to his death when you allow yourself to acknowledge the painfully obvious. The police working the streets knew who he was. As opposed to the loving, benevolent, righteous saint the liberal left made Gray out to be the police on the ground knew he was a low-life dirt-bag drug dealer with an arrest record dating back to 2007, an arrest record which included acts of malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault, fourth-degree burglary, trespassing, and multiple counts of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to sell.

Given the acquittals following the show trials of the police involved, the original claim Gray's own actions within the van led to his death appears to be the truth.

Correct, since there's video that shows the police retrieving the gun from his pocket after he was shot means the gun wasn't a threat.

A gun in the possession of a convicted felon is always a threat. What you are advocating is the ridiculous standard police must not be proactive, they must wait until a suspect actually points his weapon at them and fires a round before they are allowed to respond. I have operated under such restrictions before, and know exactly where that leads. But as has been repeatedly proven the liberal/progressive crowd in general is perfectly content with police, and in like manner combat soldiers, being gunned down if it means the criminal is well treated. One of the true icons of the American left is Mumia Abu-Jamal, after all.

Unless you believe in magic guns that shoot the police without being touched.

A statement written by someone who has never found himself on the business end of a gun. Sterling was armed and resisting arrest, actively struggling with the police. If he had a gun on him, which he did, the police have no choice but to conclude he was struggling in an attempt to reach that weapon.

This one seems like the gun might have been a factor, so yes, you can point out the gun. But not the conviction by itself.

Same as with Freddie Gray. Scott had a criminal record dating back to 1992, and included crimes such as aggravated assault, assault with intent to kill, assault with a deadly weapon, felony assault with a deadly weapon, misdemeanor assault on a child under twelve, all wrapped around a seven year stint in prison for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

How do you expect the police to act when encountering such a person, particularly when he has a gun in his hand?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

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.

Count your lucky stars certain ones in that thread haven't decided to bring their hatred and personal attacks,flaming, flame baiting, goading, and racism, into this one.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

How was this woman permitted to get on the force after her own admission on the application? Is Tulsa that desperate for police candidates?
From the article:
"In the same job application where Shelby noted various domestic disturbances, 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. "

Smoking pot twice when she was 18 is no big deal. But admitting various domestic disturbances?Wouldn't that indicate a anger issue?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

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

You do realize you've just implicated yourself and everyone who's posted in any thread reporting this incident, right?

 

[Sistrin]

Count your lucky stars certain ones in that thread haven't decided to bring their hatred and personal attacks,flaming, flame baiting, goading, and racism, into this one.

Someone must have voiced an opinion you didn't like.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Someone must have voiced an opinion you didn't like.

I have no problem with counter opinions. What I don't enjoy are racist flame baiting evil people. Who have more than just this one woman in their sights when they trash a thread.

 

[Sistrin]

The point in bringing it up is not to suggest this past is relevant to the case, it's to point out that this officer has a past and the same people that would indict the victim of a shooting based on something from their past are quick to argue that this officer's past transgressions should not be considered.

The transgressions should be considered in context.

Person A truthfully admits in context of a job application to having used a controlled substance on a few occasions at the age of 18.

Person B has a criminal record which includes the trafficking, use, and distribution of PCP.

Answer a question. Which of these transgressions do you actually believe contributed to the outcome on that particular day?

The turnaround is valid because it highlights such racist hypocrisy.

Because everything is racist. At least, everything you disagree with.

 

[variant]

Given the acquittals following the show trials of the police involved, the original claim Gray's own actions within the van led to his death appears to be the truth.

The trials said there wasn't enough evidence to convict the police of killing Gray. We can only conclude the truth of such an assertion by simply buying the polices story outright.

To say that a man's arrest record is relevant when he had committed no crime during the incident that lead to his death seems fairly off.

 

[KCfromNC]

The transgressions should be considered in context.

Person A truthfully admits in context of a job application to having used a controlled substance on a few occasions at the age of 18.

Do we know for sure that person A's claims have been investigated and found to be truthful, though?

 

[grasping the after wind]

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

Except for the word innocent I agree. Let us not pretend someone is innocent here. The victim was not just out for a stroll and suddenly for no reason at all police were pointing guns at him. But even if this man were the most low life scum on the planet that would not give anyone the right to shoot him. From what I can see, the woman in question acted criminally. Why she did so is not in my power to judge. She will be tried and most likely convicted of manslaughter. If she did what she did because she hates blacks or hates men in general or was simply frightened and acting impulsively and irrationally out of fear is beyond my ability to tell. No matter the cause of her action, the action itself IMO was criminal . We do not need to look for anything from her past to make that judgement.

 

[cow451]

Her marijuana use could have continued into adulthood, so she was on the job impaired, that would account for her pulling out her gun and firing while no one else thought to use deadly force. It's relevant to the incident. In addition, taking her history retaliatory actions, it stands to reason that her motivation for shooting was perceived offense she was retaliating against. She was also accused of police brutality and as we know from the DOJ reports on police departments, most of those cases are unfounded or thrown out because no investigation is conducted. It's all relevant.

And the evidence says ......... Inadmissable.

 

[Sistrin]

Do we know for sure that person A's claims have been investigated and found to be truthful, though?

Have you ever applied for a job as a police officer? The background checks are rather extensive. If hired you are then subject to random drug screenings whenever the department decides. Even improper use of alcohol can get you fired. The days of The Choirboys are long over.

Unless you work for the Secret Service. But I digress.

 

[SummerMadness]

And the evidence says ......... Inadmissable.

This is not a court of law.

 

[cow451]

This is not a court of law.

I was noting that a court of law is the one that counts in the end.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The police do not operate in a vacuum. The length of Freddie Gray's criminal record is absolutely relevant to the incident which ultimately led to his death when you allow yourself to acknowledge the painfully obvious. The police working the streets knew who he was. As opposed to the loving, benevolent, righteous saint the liberal left made Gray out to be the police on the ground knew he was a low-life dirt-bag drug dealer with an arrest record dating back to 2007, an arrest record which included acts of malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault, fourth-degree burglary, trespassing, and multiple counts of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to sell.

So he was a bad guy. So what? How dangerous is he in the back of a police van? The real question is do you believe that someone deserves a "rough ride" based on their past misdeeds?

Given the acquittals following the show trials of the police involved, the original claim Gray's own actions within the van led to his death appears to be the truth.

No, the acquittals only suggest there wasn't enough evidence to convict. It's exceedingly hard to prove intent in these cases. Although the police never admit they're intentionally injuring those in police vans, several departments have settled out of court to the tune of millions of dollars.

A gun in the possession of a convicted felon is always a threat. What you are advocating is the ridiculous standard police must not be proactive, they must wait until a suspect actually points his weapon at them and fires a round before they are allowed to respond.

No I'm not. You know that putting words in people's mouths is intellectually dishonest, right?

I'm advocating that the moment a suspect has a weapon in hand the police can respond, preferably with non-lethal methods if possible.

Oh, and the gun has to be an actual gun, not the BB gun that got John Crawford killed in a Wal-Mart, or the toy gun that got Tamir Rice killed.

A statement written by someone who has never found himself on the business end of a gun. Sterling was armed and resisting arrest, actively struggling with the police. If he had a gun on him, which he did, the police have no choice but to conclude he was struggling in an attempt to reach that weapon.

Of course they had a choice.

"Muflahi’s video does not appear to support the officer’s claim that Sterling’s gun represented an active threat: It appears to have been in a pocket and never reached his hand. Instead, the video shows Sterling pinned down, shot twice in the chest, and then shot four more times."

Same as with Freddie Gray. Scott had a criminal record dating back to 1992, and included crimes such as aggravated assault, assault with intent to kill, assault with a deadly weapon, felony assault with a deadly weapon, misdemeanor assault on a child under twelve, all wrapped around a seven year stint in prison for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

How do you expect the police to act when encountering such a person, particularly when he has a gun in his hand?

I expect the police to act appropriately. In this case, they may very well have. But not because of anything Scott did prior to this incident. The only factor the police should take into consideration is what Scott was doing at the time.

 

[Waterwerx]

Her marijuana use could have continued into adulthood, so she was on the job impaired, that would account for her pulling out her gun and firing while no one else thought to use deadly force. It's relevant to the incident. In addition, taking her history retaliatory actions, it stands to reason that her motivation for shooting was perceived offense she was retaliating against. She was also accused of police brutality and as we know from the DOJ reports on police departments, most of those cases are unfounded or thrown out because no investigation is conducted. It's all relevant.

"Could have" does not equate to "did" unless they did a drug test and established it as fact. If there is a problem with a lack of investigations, then that is up to the justice system and lawyers to pursue. Why should me or my property get damaged, which would've had absolutely nothing to do with the incident?
As I said, the news media and armchair commentators do not help at all and only make things worse. Being that they(i.e. the media and armchair commentators) are not taking part in the investigation, they have no business making premature assumptions and stirring people up. ALL the facts need to be established first minus the "what if's", "maybe's", and "should've", commentaries during the process.

 

[SummerMadness]

"Could have" does not equate to "did" unless they did a drug test and established it as fact. If there is a problem with a lack of investigations, then that is up to the justice system and lawyers to pursue. Why should me or my property get damaged, which would've had absolutely nothing to do with the incident?
As I said, the news media and armchair commentators do not help at all and only make things worse. Being that they(i.e. the media and armchair commentators) are not taking part in the investigation, they have no business making premature assumptions and stirring people up. ALL the facts need to be established first minus the "what if's", "maybe's", and "should've", commentaries during the process.

But if you have a past criminal record or have done wrong in the past, we should bring that up and talk about that subject constantly. Whenever someone is killed by the police how can we not talk about criminal cases from that person's past? Like if you were convicted of a crime over a decade ago and were shot, we should focus on that conviction because it is relevant and important.

 

[Waterwerx]

But if you have a past criminal record or have done wrong in the past, we should bring that up and talk about that subject constantly. Whenever someone is killed by the police how can we not talk about criminal cases from that person's past? Like if you were convicted of a crime over a decade ago and were shot, we should focus on that conviction because it is relevant and important.

Then there may or may not be a definitive pattern, which again, goes back to the investigators to determine and not the news media & armchair commentators to use as propaganda to pressure the investigation to go in one or the other direction. You can't say someone is guilty of a crime or convict them simply because they have a pattern in their history prior to the investigation being completed and the individual prosecuted. This is like putting the horse before the carriage, trial or riot by outside popular opinion.

Just look at how big of a circus the OJ Simpson trial was turned into by having it televised day by day and everything being followed up with commentaries, opinions, etc.

 

[SummerMadness]

Then there may or may not be a definitive pattern, which again, goes back to the investigators to determine and not the news media & armchair commentators to use as propaganda to pressure the investigation to go in one or the other direction. You can't say someone is guilty of a crime or convict them simply because they have a pattern in their history prior to the investigation being completed and the individual prosecuted. This is like putting the horse before the carriage, trial or riot by outside popular opinion.

Just look at how big of a circus the OJ Simpson trial was turned into by having it televised day by day and everything being followed up with commentaries, opinions, etc.

I have a feeling most of you do not understand the article in the OP. Your complaint is the exact point made about African Americans that are shot, beaten or killed by the police. No matter the case, if there is an arrest in their past, it is brought up as evidence and the person becomes a "convict" or "ex-felon." Suddenly, they are labeled as unworthy of innocent until proven guilty, they are criminals that must prove their innocence. The moment this is done to a police officer that commits possible wrongdoing, the tears begin, as if this is unfair and no one should have their character assassinated... except when they're a black person that is the victim of police brutality.