• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma cop acquitted in shooting death of unarmed black man is now an NRA gun instructor

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,776
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Oklahoma cop who was acquitted in shooting death of unarmed black man is now an NRA gun instructor

Betty Shelby, the ex-Tulsa cop who fatally shot Terence Crutcher in 2016, will soon teach an NRA course. Crutcher's family calls it "a slap in the face."

A white Oklahoma police officer acquitted in the shooting death of an unarmed black man is now teaching pistol lessons through the NRA.

Betty Shelby, the former Tulsa police officer who fatally shot Terence Crutcher in September 2016, said she shot him in self-defense. Video of the shooting showed Crutcher holding his hands above his head prior to the shooting. Crutcher then appears to reach into his vehicle, which is when Shelby opened fire. She was charged with manslaughter of the unarmed father in 2016, but acquitted by a jury in 2017.
==============================================
This is the way things work in the bizarro world of Trump. Nothing makes any sense any more.
 
Crutchers family would be wise to not visit her shooting range.
 
What does "acquitted by a jury" meaning within our society based upon the rule of law?
 

:doh
 


And trump had what to do with this exactly?
 

bizarro world is right! It's bizarro that someone continues to walk away towards their vehicle while being told to stop, and then reach into their vehicle! How bizarre that people think that's a safe and ok thing to do.
 

Good for her. The suspect refused to stop and tried to reach inside his vehicle despite being told to stop and told to not reach into his vehicle. She did the right thing. Her life shouldn't be ruined because she possibly saved her life and that of her fellow officers. Not sure what Trump has to do with this.
 
Interesting. Meanwhile the black cop in Minnesota who shot a white female (Australian, the fiancee of a white American) got convicted of murder. It was called a "rare conviction" when compared to similar cases. The cop is Somali and Muslim. One wonders how much his race, her race, his religion, and his ancestry played a role for the jury in calling him guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...-called/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b27194055854
 
Last edited:
If all these cops shooting suspect cases was tried in the same state, in the same county and by the same judge,jury and prosecutor then you could fairly answer that question.
 
jamesrage said:
If all these cops shooting suspect cases was tried in the same state, in the same county and by the same judge,jury and prosecutor then you could fairly answer that question.
Click to expand...

The article says that cops *in Minnesota* are rarely convicted. So I guess that when they got a black foreign born Somali Muslim cop who shot and killed a white woman, they saw it quite differently. It is really hard to NOT think that these characteristics played a role in the minds of the jury. Sure, I can't read the jurors minds, but it's just likely that this is what happened. Just talking about probabilities. Would you bet your house that the jurors didn't for a second consider the cop's race, national origin, and religion when they were thinking about the case?
 
How many of these cop killing suspect cases actually happen in Minnesota, with the same judge,jury and prosecutor?On top of that where the details of those cases where other cops acquitted exactly the same as this case with just the race and religion and of the cop being different?
I am not a left winger so I don't assume everybody is a racist until proven otherwise.

Half the jury the jury in that case are people of color and they agreed he was guilty.
Who were the jurors in the Mohamed Noor trial? - StarTribune.com
 
JacksinPA said:
She was charged with manslaughter of the unarmed father in 2016, but acquitted by a jury in 2017
Click to expand...




1. If one believes in the jury system, then one must presume the jurors felt that her action was justified under the circumstances.

2. Why is the dead man's ethnicity of any importance? If he had been, say, a Martian, she would have probably opened fire, too.
 

Knowing what I do of the events from the court proceedings and testimony, I would think it far more likely his actions secured his conviction, not his skin color.
 

Well, OK, I'm convinced. There were jurors who were immigrants from Ethiopia, the Philippines, Pakistan, and other people of color. OK, so, maybe I misjudged the situation. Sorry. I take it back.
 
Bum said:
Knowing what I do of the events from the court proceedings and testimony, I would think it far more likely his actions secured his conviction, not his skin color.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, my post was misguided and I took it back.
 
Interesting that in 17 posts not a single one addresses the original issue.

She's an acquitted person now certified to teach a hands on pistol course. She obviously has some experience with hands on use of pistols. Now she's teaching.

i don't have a problem with that.
 

Considering the poster who started the thread I don't think the fact that someone with some experiance in pistol use teaching as an instructor was ever an issue to him. I think he was trying to demonize a former police officer for trying to saver her life and the lives of her fellow officers by shooting a suspect continued to reach into the vehicle despite being told not to reach into that vehicle.I am also sure he was trying to slam the NRA for hiring that former police officer. And for some reason tried to blame Trump for it as though somehow before Trump was elected cops were always found guilty of shooting uncooperative suspects who reaching for something potentially dangerous when told not to.Which we know that part is not true.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Well, OK, I'm convinced. There were jurors who were immigrants from Ethiopia, the Philippines, Pakistan, and other people of color. OK, so, maybe I misjudged the situation. Sorry. I take it back.
Click to expand...

Even if those weren't people of color you still misjudged the situation for assuming those jurors were racist without any evidence. Btw people of color can be racist,anti-ethnic, and anti-religious.
 

Not the same facts.
 
jamesrage said:
Even if those weren't people of color you still misjudged the situation for assuming those jurors were racist without any evidence. Btw people of color can be racist,anti-ethnic, and anti-religious.
Click to expand...

Jesus, I acknowledged my error, apologized, something rare here, and you still pile up on me??? I said I misjudged the situation. What else do you want? Should I knee on broken glass, hit myself with a whip, kiss your feet while asking for forgiveness?

Unbelievable!
 
joko104 said:
Not the same facts.
Click to expand...

I hate it when knee-jerkers respond without reading the whole freaking thread. I've already apologized and took it back. Gee!
 

Had I not posted the link about the makeup of the jury your response still would have been to peg the former officer's conviction due to racism and anti-Muslim sentiment. But since I posted the link you were basically like "Oh minorities can't be racist,anti-ethnic and anti-religious". Thats not an apology nor is it acknowledging your error. Because if the link was posted you will still be playing the race card.
 
Last edited:

Yes, these are just statistical facts. A jury made of 12 white US-born Christian people would be more likely to be biased and find fault against a black, foreign-born Muslim who shot and killed a white Christian woman. A jury made of several people of color including several immigrants from Muslim countries would be less likely to exercise the above-mentioned bias. Only a fool would not know that these probabilities hold in the large picture even if one specific jury might be coincidentally made of 12 absolutely non-racist, non-xenophobic, non-religiously intolerant people regardless of their own characteristics (but it's not likely; it's just human nature).

Again, only fools will not recognize these odds, although of course exceptions to these odds do exist (and I guess, even some fools would recognize it, so obvious it is).

If not, why in the hell lawyers would engage in jury selection and would veto several potential jurors??? Care to explain that one??? Answer: that's because the probability I've mentioned above *is* reality-based! Duh!

Oh, and by the way, you put words in my mouth. You said I assumed people are racist. No, read my initial post. I said "one wonders how much... etc.. played a role."

So, I'm not allowed to wonder? Wondering is NOT assuming! It's just introducing a point for consideration and exploration. One wonders; one gets more data, one stops wondering, which is exactly what I did.

I take back my apology. You don't deserve one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…