SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The Washington Post reports that a police officer has been charged with "first-degree manslaughter" after the on-duty, fatal shooting of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Oklahoma. If found guilty, she would be imprisoned for at least four years. KJRH-TV has a transcript of the district attorney's press conference.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Tulsa, Oklahoma Police Officer Charged with Manslaughter
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 40 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Fraud is the homage that force pays to reason.
-- Charles Curtis, "A Commonplace Book"
(Score: 5, Interesting) by BK on Monday September 26 2016, @02:18AM
Smart money says she gets off on a hung jury or an outright acquittal. Not a lawyer and definitely not current on Oklahoma law, but this is going to be a tough conviction. This isn't just because of the inherent conflict of interest between police and the rest of the judiciary, but also because of the way the law about things like murder and manslaughter work.
If I (or you) were to shoot some guy in a random parking lot and claim self defense (fearing for our life!), we'd face a skeptical judicial system and lots of questions. Why were we there in the first place? Why did we have a gun? Why did we draw our weapon? Why did we point it at a person? What caused us to fear for our life? Why didn't we retreat? (even in a 'stand your ground' state, the question will be asked) Finally, why we actually pull the trigger?
Presumably, the parking lot is one you visit all of the time... otherwise you're almost certain to lose. You can claim the 2nd amendment for 'Why did you have a gun?'... but only if you customarily carry. Each step beyond that point will be used by the prosecution to show criminal intent. You drew your weapon because you wanted to shoot a Big Scary Black Man. You feared for your life because of the Big Scary Black Man. You are a racist because you sang 'Nigger' in the lyrics of some song in High School. The jury is ultimately told that they can infer intent and weight the facts as they choose. That's you and me.
For a policeperson, it's harder... She is armed because she is required to be armed. She is there because she was told to be. She engaged with the Big Scary Black Man because her supervisor told her to. She drew her weapon because that's police procedure. She feared for her life because she was told in training that people (especially Big Scary Black Men) who don't enthusiastically comply with degrading and contradictory commands from policepersons and who position themselves so that one or more hands are out of view are surely armed and about to kill her. And the thing is, that's all true.
So she feared for her life because she had been taught to. And she was acting in accordance with well established police procedure. Or maybe she wasn't. Maybe she did everything by the book... and in the last moment she accidentally pulled the trigger (making it just an accident). She's real sorry someone died. Is there evidence to disprove either theory? Either is reasonable doubt.
Manslaughter usually requires gross negligence or recklessness. Either is going to be hard to show. Honestly, I think there is a better case to be made for either against whichever policeperson was in command at the scene.
...but you HAVE heard of me.