Tulsa officer, arrest warrant issued, she is being charged with 1st degree manslaughter.

In reply to z31maniac:

is that true?

I have three cousins who are cops. I just don't know.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: In reply to z31maniac: is that true? I have three cousins who are cops. I just don't know.

Yep.

In the state of OK, it's like 664 hours of training to become an LEO (at least Tulsa Police require a bachelors degree as well).

In the state of OK, it's 1500 hours to become a cosmetologist.

I know this because my ex-wife did hair, and I have a brother who is a state narcotics officer.

Kind of terrifying to think about isn't it?

In reply to z31maniac:

yes

z31maniac wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: In reply to z31maniac: is that true? I have three cousins who are cops. I just don't know.

Yep. In the state of OK, it's like 664 hours of training to become an LEO (at least Tulsa Police require a bachelors degree as well). In the state of OK, it's 1500 hours to become a cosmetologist. I know this because my ex-wife did hair, and I have a brother who is a state narcotics officer. Kind of terrifying to think about isn't it?

Not really. Cosmologists have a lot of responsibility and work with sharp objects. If they aren't properly trained people could get hurt, or worse, look foolish.

At least there will be Justice in Tulsa. I like how the police officer said that the dead man was reaching into his car when she shot him.. The blood trail down the driver's side door window proves otherwise.

What is really a shame.. friend of mine applied to be a Philly cop. She got washed out in the psychological exam. She is the nicest and most helpful person you could want to have around. She genuinely wanted to help people.. but they didn't want her

The training for the group I was going to join was 6 months at training camp then three months field training. I passed the tests but the pay was so low during the training period that we would have not been able to make the house payments so I didn't further pursue it. But that was a state trooper, not a city Leo.

mad_machine wrote: At least there will be Justice in Tulsa. I like how the police officer said that the dead man was reaching into his car when she shot him.. The blood trail down the driver's side door window proves otherwise. What is really a shame.. friend of mine applied to be a Philly cop. She got washed out in the psychological exam. She is the nicest and most helpful person you could want to have around. She genuinely wanted to help people.. but they didn't want her

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/01/too_smart_to_be_a_cop.html

mndsm wrote:

EastCoastMojo wrote: "I try to just shoot 'em in the leg or something" /Sgt. Murtaugh strategy unfortunately doesn't work in real life. If you have a reason to shoot at all, you go for the kill shot.

Basic gun 101.....don't point at what you don't intend on killing.

mad_machine wrote: basic Gun 101.. I would hope that the police are beyond 101 and have attended at least a 400 level course.

I think we have hit the nail on the head on to a very big reason we are having issues.

The number of times I have heard the defense "I felt threatened" or "I was scared" is such a horrible defense.

1. I am lucky to be raised in a law enforcement and military family and know this BS line is taught to cover your own ass.

2. Given the job, I would expect you not to scared by people bigger than you, especially when you have 4 other officers there. Kind of the point in calling backup. To keep anyone from getting seriously hurt. Backup is not just there to be a corroborating witness. That is the point of the cameras.

My wife said something today really kind of hit the nail on the head.

"If they hadn't been breaking the law, they wouldn't have been killed," is the white person version of "if she hadn't been drinking/dressed like that, she wouldn't have been raped."

There is racism on this board and in this thread. There is racism in the world. There are bad cops. There are far more good cops. IMHO the issues is compound. Between a culture that Law Enforcement requires unwavering authoritarian control and re-enforced social dominance, an internal law enforcement culture of defending the thin blue line and cops not stopping or even speaking out against other cops, and a recruiting process that attracts authoritarian and previously bullied personalities, it is easy to see how it only takes one or two cops with even a slight racial bias to cause a whole department to go bad, or at the very least, complicit in abuse of the public.

Flight Service wrote: "If they hadn't been breaking the law, they wouldn't have been killed," is the white person version of "if she hadn't been drinking/dressed like that, she wouldn't have been raped."

That is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard.

The CRIMINAL is responsible for breaking the law.

Someone who is raped is not the person breaking the law.

z31maniac wrote:

Flight Service wrote: "If they hadn't been breaking the law, they wouldn't have been killed," is the white person version of "if she hadn't been drinking/dressed like that, she wouldn't have been raped."

That is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. The CRIMINAL is responsible for breaking the law. Someone who is raped is not the person breaking the law.

So innocent until proven guilty isn't your thing.

I'd like to see the good cops talk a lot more about the bad cops. What bothers me is this code of silence. I'm feeling like you aren't a good cop if you let the bad cop act as a bad cop and you don't talk about it.

Flight Service wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

Flight Service wrote: "If they hadn't been breaking the law, they wouldn't have been killed," is the white person version of "if she hadn't been drinking/dressed like that, she wouldn't have been raped."

That is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. The CRIMINAL is responsible for breaking the law. Someone who is raped is not the person breaking the law.

So innocent until proven guilty isn't your thing.

No, you're equating someone being responsible for their own actions to someone being responsible for someone elses actions.

and I'm out. We went past reasonable discussion to strawmen. I wish you all well in your armchair QB positions. I'm just not cut out for it. I'd rather look at BOTH sides and make my own conclusions and not dog pile.

What I can tell you is this had nothing to do with the man's race and likely everything to do with a jumpy officer scared and on adrenaline.

In reply to z31maniac:

I actually think it's one of the better analogies, because it's not saying which side is the criminal. let's use an example of an unfortunately frequent occurrence, shall we?

I am asleep in bed, the baby in her crib beside me. I hear noises, of the front door being kicked in. Instinct is to grab a gun and defend the house. I come downstairs to find police, guns drawn, at the wrong address for a search warrant, and I am then killed for already having a gun in hand, even though they can't read an address but are already psyched up for a big take down. Am I criminal who needs killed because officer dipE36 M3 couldn't tell 99 from 97 and invaded my home in threatening manner?

This happens with alarming frequency, usually resulting in the children being killed or injured. Maybe they get paid leave after a shots fired incident, maybe the survivors get a settlement (ha, almost never happens). But now a life is over and a family is ruined because someone couldn't tell the difference in house numbers or physical description while the criminal is back on the job inside of a month ready to do it again.

Was I the criminal when my truck broke down and I was robbed at gun point by chp? Is that an illegal offense, to break down and wait for a tow truck?

The body cams were a great idea, except whoever designed them left a way for them to be shutoff by the user. It's surprisingly scary how many times the body cam magically quits working as situations escalate.

It doesn't seem that hard to adjust training to "unless you're being shot at grab the tazer instead of the gun" 12 words. If they're not trained to use a tazer, as seems to be an excuse in some cases, why are they carrying them? And really, if they're that jumpy and trigger happy, maybe they shouldn't be given weapons and authority in the first place.

I love how everyone talks about tasers as being analogous to a Star Trek phaser. Guess what they are unreliable and less accurate than a nerf gun. When they work they are awesome when they don't what then? Most agencies still carry the single cartridge X26. So you get one shot.

The longest standard cartridge is 25ft with a more realistic range of around 15ft. If you are by yourself and it fails guess what the suspect is on you before you could even think about another weapon.

Always remember every fight an officer gets in involves a firearm. Because he brought one that could be taken away.

Looks like Tulsa is just going through the motions to look like they are charging the officer. 1st degree manslaughter makes no sense based on the incident and she will easily be found not guilty. This will clear her of ALL wrongdoing and only leave her open to civil charges. 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter would have been more appropriate and had a chance of a conviction.

mad_machine wrote: my biggest complaint with the police.. they too often go for the kill shot. As shown with the NYC bomber earlier this week, they are perfectly capable of wounding a suspect so they can bring them in.

EastCoastMojo said: "I try to just shoot 'em in the leg or something" /Sgt. Murtaugh strategy unfortunately doesn't work in real life. If you have a reason to shoot at all, you go for the kill shot.

I heard an interesting discussion on NPR yesterday with a retired old school sounding policeman. I forgot his name, or where he was from, but I think it was one of the bigger cities.

He was very critical of modern police tactics. Particularly the militarization of police and the mentality that goes with that. Especially the fact that police today will draw thier weapons in a heartbeat instead of risking "getting dirty" in a physical altercation with a suspect. He said in his career he'd been in at least a dozen fights, but could count the number of times he'd drawn his gun on one hand.

It worries me that police can shoot a person getting out of a car for not obeying an order. How clear an order is needed to be considered ignored? Is not instantly responding to a verbal order really a deadly threat?

I can't hear E36 M3 in areas with back ground noise, like on the side of a busy road. If a cop sneaks up on me because he thinks there is a warrant on me, and I don't instantly drop to whatever "gun like object" that I'm holding, because I didn't see or hear them, will I get shot? Probably not because I'm white, but I have experienced completely unjustified police aggression that I'm sure would have ended much worse for me if I had different skin.

What are the police actually protecting and serving? Many citizens can honestly say not them.

NEALSMO wrote: Looks like Tulsa is just going through the motions to look like they are charging the officer. 1st degree manslaughter makes no sense based on the incident and she will easily be found not guilty. This will clear her of ALL wrongdoing and only leave her open to civil charges. 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter would have been more appropriate and had a chance of a conviction.

I feel they charged her to calm everybody down. Give it some times for the facts to come out.

Remember the rush to judgment in Baltimore? The DA DA should be fired.

^My thought as well. I "hear" they filed charges before the Homicide dept even turned over the file to the DAs office.

In reply to spitfirebill:

Exactly. It's the TPD's way of looking like they are doing something in the interest of the public.

HappyAndy wrote: I heard an interesting discussion on NPR yesterday with a retired old school sounding policeman. I forgot his name, or where he was from, but I think it was one of the bigger cities. He was very critical of modern police tactics. Particularly the militarization of police and the mentality that goes with that. Especially the fact that police today will draw thier weapons in a heartbeat instead of risking "getting dirty" in a physical altercation with a suspect. He said in his career he'd been in at least a dozen fights, but could count the number of times he'd drawn his gun on one hand.

I've had the exact same conversation with other retired officers myself. They fault the training as it increases aggression and paranoia in new officer recruits.

All of this just makes me sad.

I saw an interesting position the other day is that social media is responsible for this being a conversation. It isn't that this didn't happen before, it's just that this is the first time everyone is seeing it.

In reply to Flight Service:

That's probably true, but it doesn't mean that it's not a real problem.

Is it really a problem though? In 2015 there were 12 million arrests. In that same year 456 people were killed by police. Thats just arrests. Not total interacions like tickets, domestic disturbances when no one is locked up etc. So it's pretty easy to assume there would be at least twice that many interactions with officers involving non-officers.

But even using these numbers, Youve got a .004% of getting killed by the police while being arrested. WE're talking a half of a percent. I'm not so sure it's this pandemic problem that the media has made it out to be.

Does that mean we ignore it? No. It still needs to be addressed and every death should be investigated. but this boogey man we're dangling out there is just not there.

In reply to Bobzilla and HappyAndy:

No, I agree it is a problem. I took the comment to believe it is just now being shown to us. It is a problem that we should have addressed a long time ago, but didn't.