• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Officer found not quilty.

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
Officer Betty Shelby of Tulsa PD was found not guilty of first-degree manslaughter for fatally shooting an uncooperative black man she thought was reaching into his SUV for a gun to use against her.

After reading a detailed analysis on Force Science News, I agree with the verdict.

Unfortunatly, I cannot download my link to that as it would go direct to my email page. Suggest that interested parties subscribe.
http://www.forcescience.org/fs-news.html

There is this (see following link) but definite bias is noted. A little teeny, tiny detail was left out - enhanced video from the helicopter shows clearly that the man did reach in his vehicle.

Now the officer has to deal with a civil suit for wrongful death.

Not many of us could survive that same journey.
 
Last edited:

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
895
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
I have not heard of this incident, myself. I'm wondering why he was there, why she was there, why there was a helicopter over them... or was he a bank robber, wanted for murder or.... what was the initial situation? A broken tail light or license plate light? So many of these things start out with such BS. If the cops are really worried about tail lights, etc. send him a "ticket" in the mail. They know who he is and where he lives before they exit the patrol car. Why should anyone be injured or killed over such nonsense? Oh, I forgot... the traffic stops extortion, and the forfeiture of people's property helps support the cop's budgets - and buys them fancy lethal toys....
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
I have not heard of this incident, myself. I'm wondering why he was there, why she was there, why there was a helicopter over them... or was he a bank robber, wanted for murder or.... what was the initial situation? A broken tail light or license plate light? So many of these things start out with such BS. If the cops are really worried about tail lights, etc. send him a "ticket" in the mail. They know who he is and where he lives before they exit the patrol car. Why should anyone be injured or killed over such nonsense? Oh, I forgot... the traffic stops extortion, and the forfeiture of people's property helps support the cop's budgets - and buys them fancy lethal toys....
I believe that the man had multiple warrants outstanding - perhaps she recognized him, gave pursuit and called for backup - I don't know.

What surprises me, MamaLiberty, is neither do you know and you make a lot of presumptions. You apparently have not read the suggested material, yet leap to conclusions.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,649
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I believe that the man had multiple warrants outstanding - perhaps she recognized him, gave pursuit and called for backup - I don't know.

What surprises me, MamaLiberty, is neither do you know and you make a lot of presumptions. You apparently have not read the suggested material, yet leap to conclusions.
I believe MamaLiberty was attempting to separate the wheat from the chaff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuWVR2Dv5vM
Going after BGs is totally different than raising revenue. I believe that is his point.
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
895
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
I believe that the man had multiple warrants outstanding - perhaps she recognized him, gave pursuit and called for backup - I don't know.

What surprises me, MamaLiberty, is neither do you know and you make a lot of presumptions. You apparently have not read the suggested material, yet leap to conclusions.
Grapeshot, I read an AWFUL lot of this type of story, every single day. There is no way I can read them all... and I have no expectation of learning the truth from the mainstream media. I don't "subscribe" to every website that offers information, such as you posted, so my conclusions are not always crystal clear, but I do see the preponderance of evidence to expect less than rational and honest actions by police and the "justice" system. You say you don't "know" what really happened here either... but I suspect you wouldn't argue with the idea that a great many of the actions and decisions by the police are driven by revenue and other things, not simply justice. That they are free to kill people because they fear some small twitch is sad... and you nor I would avoid jail time from making the same response. I'd call that a problem...
 

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
452
Location
FreedomVA
I believe MamaLiberty was attempting to separate the wheat from the chaff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuWVR2Dv5vM
Going after BGs is totally different than raising revenue. I believe that is his point.
Would this be consider "unlawful firearm discharged" by the officer? Do average citizens get special immunity also when we make these type of mistakes?

I haven't seen anymore logos on police vehicles like in the old days "To protect and Serve".
I have the utmost respect for LEO for doing their duties, it's a dangerous country we live in nowadays, but they knew this when they accepted the job. Just like a soldier know what he/she is getting into when he/she enlists. I don't believe they would think enlisting to be a soldiers is to sit back in the sun and drinking lemonade, do they? If they can't handle the pressures that comes with the job, then find another profession.
There are consequences for every decisions made in life, whether it's good or bad and circumventing the law to get around it, is doing to our Justice system, Injustice.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
Would this be consider "unlawful firearm discharged(sic)" by the officer? Do average citizens get special immunity also when we make these(sic) type of mistakes(sic)?
--snipped--
Unlawful discharge? Not hardly - the court found her not guilty of a higher crime which would have included lesser charges.

Mistake? I see no mistake.

Apparently you see an officer being found not guilty a mistake, even when the facts say differently.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
Grapeshot, I read an AWFUL lot of this type of story, every single day. There is no way I can read them all... and I have no expectation of learning the truth from the mainstream media. I don't "subscribe" to every website that offers information, such as you posted, so my conclusions are not always crystal clear, but I do see the preponderance of evidence to expect less than rational and honest actions by police and the "justice" system. You say you don't "know" what really happened here either... but I suspect you wouldn't argue with the idea that a great many of the actions and decisions by the police are driven by revenue and other things, not simply justice. That they are free to kill people because they fear some small twitch is sad... and you nor I would avoid jail time from making the same response. I'd call that a problem...
MamaLiberty though I hold you in high regard and know some of your history, I will still judge each case/event on its individual merits - there is no one size fits all.

For those that might wish to pile on, let me remind you have Forum Rule #6.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,898
Location
North Carolina
Unlawful discharge? Not hardly - the court found her not guilty of a higher crime which would have included lesser charges.

Mistake? I see no mistake.

Apparently you see an officer being found not guilty a mistake, even when the facts say differently.
Just like OJ, they found not guilty, that does not change my opinion. She got away with it because, IMO, she lied. I do not think it was murder but a clear case of negligent discharge, but she did not admit to it. Instead she played the I feared for my life card. The sad part is that no matter what I as an individual think, or what you do, this damages the trust of our justice system every time someone gets away with a lying. Good police officers are having their reputation destroyed by these few.

The Minneapolis police officer is now using the same card for shooting a woman in her PJ's, he will get away with it too.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,140
Location
northern wis
Each and every one of these cases are different and needs to be judged on the facts.

"MamaLiberty
I have not heard of this incident."

After This statement alone.

Maybe some research should be done before commenting on the situation.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
Each and every one of these cases are different and needs to be judged on the facts.

"MamaLiberty
I have not heard of this incident."

After This statement alone.

Maybe some research should be done before commenting on the situation.
Precisely my point.

Using a flashlight can be a good thing.



A road flare will give very different results.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Just like OJ, they found not guilty, that does not change my opinion. She got away with it because, IMO, she lied. I do not think it was murder but a clear case of negligent discharge, but she did not admit to it. Instead she played the I feared for my life card. The sad part is that no matter what I as an individual think, or what you do, this damages the trust of our justice system every time someone gets away with a lying. Good police officers are having their reputation destroyed by these few.

The Minneapolis police officer is now using the same card for shooting a woman in her PJ's, he will get away with it too.
Totally agree 100%...

And let me add, if said LEOs were properly trained they would be less afraid, their lack of proper training helps elevate their fear.. Proper training equates to competence and confidence, I see neither regarding the officer in the case at bar.

Vince Lombardi said " fatigue makes cowards of us all" I say, " fear makes cowards of us all".

CCJ
 

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
452
Location
FreedomVA
These type of irresponsible behaviors need to be dealt with harshly because if this allows to continue then anyone of us or our family members could be the next victims because of a nervous/untrained LEO's.

The truth is, most of us don't really care for or do anything about these misconducts until it happens to us. By then, it will be too late.

Looked like she has no remorse, by her facial expressions. She has that look of, "I'm a LEO and i have immunity to do what i want"
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,933
Location
White Oak Plantation
The only remorse was.. darn, some scum bag prosecutor actually defied QI...err, tried to defy QI. Place the "blame" on the jury, the defense did a good job of obfuscating the obvious.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
We should know better than to trust what or how the media does or doesn't report

With apologies for going a tad bit off the main topic, but in response to some who express very negative views toward police officers being just revenue raisers or getting away with really bad conduct....

I have to wonder what kind of experiences some folks have had. In my lifetime, starting with illegally riding dirt bikes (motorcycles) on the street as a kid of 10, I can recall a grand total of 15 officer-initiated contacts and a half dozen contacts I initiated for one reason or another over my lifetime. That includes a number of speeding tickets as a lead-footed teenager in Utah (where it is 100+ miles between gas stations on I-70) during the DC-imposed "double-nickel". I've also been OCing a handgun since I was 25. And in many cases I OC into "traditionally sensitive" areas like the neighborhood middle school, the city offices, and my State capital: always in compliance with laws. I also spent years driving a classic muscle car that was in dire need of body and paint work and basically screamed, "uninsured minority teenager."

Out of those ~20 official contacts, about 3 were mildly negative, a couple were totally unjustified stops (pure profiling and fishing trips), the rest were all completely justified under the laws existing at the time. I think the nationwide 55 mph speed limit was complete garbage. But it was the law and if States didn't show good-faith efforts to enforce the law, they lost their federal highway money. And every time I've been stopped for speeding in my life, I was, actually speeding. Whether my speed presented a credible risk of harm to anyone around me under the circumstances could be debated, but the fact is, I was speeding. There were a couple of other stops that were for violation of equipment laws. I've worked to repeal one of those laws in Utah. But at the time the stop was made, I was in technical violation.

Simply put, the vast majority of my interactions with police officers have not been negative and a couple were in the realm of legitimately, not justified under existing laws. Given how my younger self viewed traffic laws, and given my active and visible political involvement, I've had a fairly high number of interactions with police for a fellow who--excepting traffic laws--has lead a peaceful, boring, and law abiding life.

I then consider on my interactions with the media. In every case where I've had personal knowledge of an event that ended up in the media, the media has gotten something wrong. Every time. Like everyone else here should be, I am also well aware that criminal uses of firearms get a lot more and a lot wider coverage than do legal self-defense uses of firearms. The media has clear bias.

That bias has long included a bias against police officers (or even law-abiding private citizens) as they interact with racial minorities.

As a law abiding gun owner, I'm well aware of and have felt victimized by the biases of the media. I would be a rank hypocrite to allow media reporting (including what they choose not to report) to color my vision of the overall conduct of police officers or any other group.

Additionally, I'm well aware of federal biases when it comes to inter-racial interactions. Of the four officers involved in the Rodney King incident, for example, three were acquitted in State court, with one convicted on some charges. All four then faced federal charges of violating King's civil rights with two convicted and two acquitted. Those convicted served 30 months in federal prison. In the vast majority of cases of alleged police brutality over the past decade (with Obama and Eric Holder in charge of federal investigations and prosecutions for much of that time), the feds have been unable to obtain convictions or even enough evidence to justify indictments. Those who have looked beyond typical media reports have also learned that there is very strong evidence that "hands up; don't shoot" was quite often a flat out lie on the part of violent criminals or others unhappy with any police presence in their neighborhoods.

When it comes to gun laws we think are unconstitutional, or mandatory national speed limits we think are useless or even dangerous, or even drug laws that offend libertarian sensibilities, it is easy to want police to refuse to enforce laws. That view of wanting police to not enforce laws we find unjust gets a little more difficult to sustain when we realize there is always someone who finds a particular law offensive and doesn't want it enforced. There are those who would prefer that laws preventing female genital mutilation not be enforced. There are those who don't want various anti-discrimination laws enforced. Violent criminals would be much happier if the police were not around to enforce laws against theft, assault, rape, and murder. Expecting rank and file cops to determine which laws to enforce and which to ignore is a very slippery slope. Far better to hold lawmakers accountable for what laws they pass, and judges accountable for what laws they allow to stand.

Yes, there are a few bad cops. Some of them are dirty, others merely incompetent for the job. There are also a lot of laws we don't like. No doubt some laws have far more to do with revenue than with public safety. It is also clear that in some cases the courts have granted the police far more power and leeway than the constitution should tolerate.

But those who jump on every incident with an inherent bias against the police officer are no better than, no different than, those in the media, the Brandy bunch, or other institutions, who hold biases against the private ownership of firearms and lawful use of firearms for self defense.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Just like OJ, they found not guilty, that does not change my opinion.
My opinion is that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be wrongly punished. I think the occasional OJ outcome is part of the price we pay to live in a free society that protects all of our rights.

In the case of OJ, his conduct following the trial--including the outcome of the civil trial, the whole "If I Did It" book, and his subsequent conviction for armed robbery and kidnaping--confirm to me that he was one of the 10 guilty to went free to protect the rights of the wrongly accused innocent.

If this officer is another one of those, so be it. Her conduct moving forward will either confirm or refute those concerns.

I expect things have changed a bit under the current administration. But under Obama, and with Holder at the helm trying his best to crucify any cop who had the temerity to keep the peace and enforce the laws when suspects and criminals happened to be black, even the full force of the federal government failed to convict very often even with a never ending chorus of claims of "police brutality" from the inner cities, amplified by an agenda driven media. A neighbor who was a federal prosecutor (against white collar fraud such as bilking old ladings out of retirement savings) during the Obama years privately confided to me that he was quite dismayed at the hostility the AG and President had toward peace officers. And yet, very few convictions. I take that as one evidence that most allegations of police misconduct are nothing more than sour grapes or defense techniques from career criminals.

So while the frequency of the feds attempting to prosecute will likely go down under Trump, the history of what Obama/Holder tried, and their failure to make cases, remains an evidence that the claims of police misconduct greatly outnumber the actual occurrence of such misconduct.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,933
Location
White Oak Plantation
I chafe at the notion that a cop is/was acting reasonably given the information they had at the time.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441013/police-shootings-terrence-crutcher-why-cops-are-not-convicted?target=topic&tid=

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449990/police-threaten-second-amendment-raid-wrong-home-shoot-innocent-man


I submit that the wrongful (unlawful?) acts of cops is more prevalent than we care to know.

http://www.businessinsider.com/police-officer-will-not-be-charged-in-killing-of-napster-executive-2014-8

When the laws are tilted towards not holding cops to account by default, as we are/or would be in a similar situation, then the term "reasonable" has two distinct and differing meanings. QI protects cops and they do know this. A good faith mistake must not be a license to harm any citizen, unfortunately good faith mistakes most certainly protect cops from their unlawful acts...and they know this too. No cop is required to stand a take a shot, just as a soldier know to dive for cover before engaging a enemy. There are situations where seeking cover is impossible, this particular case is certainly not of of those situations.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I chafe at the notion that a cop is/was acting reasonably given the information they had at the time.
Only a myopic idiot (or someone who hates others more than he loves his own self interest) would ever want to set up a system where his own acts of self defense get judged by what can be learned well after the incident is over rather than by what a reasonable man could know and what he would believe in the moment. When it turns out your armed assailant really only had a highly realistic replica gun or that your home invader was a harmless drunk who staggered into the wrong house, you'll very much want to be judged by what a reasonable man could determine in the moment, not by what comes to light days later in the safety of an ME's office.


I submit that the wrongful (unlawful?) acts of cops is more prevalent than we care to know.
On what basis other than a bigotry against police officers do you make this submission? Is the modern, 24/7 internet media routinely failing to report on these crimes? Are victims choosing to remain mute? Is there a shortage of ACLU ambulance chasing lawyers willing to cash in when a government employee has done something wrong and exposes the deep pockets of taxpayers to civil damages?

Do we also need to question whether the moon landings really happened or were faked in a studio in the New Mexico desert?

How many personal, official interactions have you had with the police in your life? In how many did the officer give you a reasonable man fear that your life or limb were in danger?

QI, dynamic entry to wage war on drugs, checkpoints for DUI or illegal aliens, Terry stops, and a host of unconstitutional gun laws? I agree we've got problems to fix.

I simply don't see the evidence nor can I find reasonable man logic to support a belief that police are routinely violating statute. Violating the constitution (as we see it) as they uphold court sanctioned statutes that we believe the violate the constitution? Sure. But routinely violating statute? Routinely harming innocent citizens through malice or negligence? Show me something beyond emphatic assertion.
 
Last edited:

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
452
Location
FreedomVA
There are a lot of good and righteous LEO out there that want to help their communities and protect their citizens, but one rotten apple will spoil the rest in the basket just like a virus.

I think most LEO dept. needs to review their hiring practice and raise the bar of standards and proper training....training.....training..
 
Last edited:
Top