- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tulsa cop charged with first-degree manslaughter
Posted on 10/11/16 at 4:49 pm to CtotheVrzrbck
Posted on 10/11/16 at 4:49 pm to CtotheVrzrbck
Well, it is troubling that they charged the officer before they had the blood tests back, if that is indeed what they did. Even if the facts were looking bad for the officer, why not wait until all the substantial evidence was available? A defense attorney could certainly use the "rushed to judgement defense here.
1
Posted on 10/11/16 at 5:30 pm to Jimbeaux
They 100% charged her just to placate the BLM crowd. Plenty of people, who don't understand the criminal justice system, think no worries since she can clear herself at trial. They don't understand that her career is over and she is on the hook for untold attorney's fees. Charge them now and sort it out later is NOT how our system is supposed to work. That is what happened in Baltimore and look what a cluster that turned out to be. At the same time, I in no way support this bullshite of taking 9 months to a year to make a decision either.
It's not that hard. Do a thorough and complete investigation and then announce the findings. Hillar Moore has done this a couple of times in the last year to little fanfare. He went so far as to make the complete investigation file available online and there hasn't been a single complaint. Not sure why others can't figure this out.
I can get on board with the protestors on this single point. The public does have the right to know the facts in a timely manner. Whether those facts give them what they want or not is irrelevant.
It's not that hard. Do a thorough and complete investigation and then announce the findings. Hillar Moore has done this a couple of times in the last year to little fanfare. He went so far as to make the complete investigation file available online and there hasn't been a single complaint. Not sure why others can't figure this out.
I can get on board with the protestors on this single point. The public does have the right to know the facts in a timely manner. Whether those facts give them what they want or not is irrelevant.
Posted on 10/11/16 at 6:05 pm to jbgleason
quote:
ailing to follow orders/acting like he might have a weapon?
You lump those two together like they are one in the same. How again did he act like he had a weapon?
This post was edited on 10/11/16 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 10/11/16 at 6:09 pm to jbgleason
quote:
They 100% charged her just to placate the BLM crowd.
They may have been pressured to charge her more quickly but she would have been charged anyway. It was pretty clear she should never have been a cop.
Posted on 10/11/16 at 6:29 pm to jbgleason
quote:
career is over and she is on the hook for untold attorney's fees. Charge them now and sort it out later is NOT how our system is supposed to work
This is how the system has always worked. Fling a bunch of charges and see what you can get them on. The fact that it's a cop being treated like a normal citizen is what's got you lickers in an uproar.
Posted on 10/11/16 at 6:56 pm to bencoleman
You know the difference? This wasn't some A hole out on the street acting the arse. This was a legit citizen trying to do their job under a bunch of laws and regulations. I truly wish we could go to full anarchy so all you pussy "boot licker" commenters could find out what it's like when you call 911 and no one shows up.
Posted on 10/11/16 at 7:16 pm to bencoleman
quote:
This is how the system has always worked. Fling a bunch of charges and see what you can get them on. The fact that it's a cop being treated like a normal citizen is what's got you lickers in an uproar.
It doesn't work when the shoe is on the other foot either: LINK
Prosecutors also contended Watson was armed with a pistol when he approached Langston, therefore he was not free from fault in creating a dangerous situation "and cannot prevail on an assertion that he acted in self-defense." Also, they argued, Watson had no reason to suspect that Langston possessed a deadly weapon and therefore his use of a deadly weapon was not justified.
The appeals court, in a unanimous decision, disagreed with prosecutors' arguments.
"Contrary to the state's assertion, the record validates the trial court's finding that the preponderance of the evidence was in favor of granting Watson immunity from prosecution," the appeals court stated in its opinion.
Reeves in his order tossing out the murder charge against Watson outlined what he said were the facts in the case:
1) The events of Dec. 5, 2013 happened in an isolated neighborhood in rural Shelby County, in the dark of night,
2) and after Watson received a call about an erratically behaving woman approaching his property.
3) Watson first saw the unknown woman when she was on all fours, rolling around the ground and acting very erratic.
4) Watson "calmly and repeatedly" tried unsuccessfully to get the woman to leave the property.
5) The woman rushed towards Watson screaming that she was going to kill him.
6) Watston was in possession of a gun, "which he has a license to carry, for his safety as well as his family's safety."
7) Watston warned the woman that he was armed and she needed to stop. She refused and instead threated to kill him and charged at him.
8) A cousin of Watson testified at the hearing that Langston began running after him screaming "you killed my baby. You killed my baby."
9) The woman continued to aggressively approach Watson and threatened to kill him even after he fired a warning shot towards the ground.
10) Scared for his life as well as his families, Watson had to make a "split-second decision" and fired a second shot at her.
11) Watson testified clearly he had no choice.
This post was edited on 10/11/16 at 7:23 pm
Posted on 10/11/16 at 7:18 pm to redneck hippie
That was no reason to kill him. Like she said, she feared for her life. I would bet it's the first time she was in a situation like this one. She couldn't handle it, but it was obvious the other officers with her could. She jumped the gun, literally.
Posted on 10/11/16 at 7:58 pm to jbgleason
quote:Why wouldn't the ambulance or the fire dept not show up? I wouldn't call the cops for anything other than having something documented for insurance or something similar, like if someone stole something but need a police report to verify it, etc.
you call 911 and no one shows up.
Plus this is another reason why people should ultimately defend and protect their selves, rather than relying on someone else to do it for them.
Posted on 10/11/16 at 8:01 pm to Isabelle81
There was only one other officer in a position to shoot and he shot he taser. She was the first officer on the scene and had observed his behavior for the longest. She knew and felt that he was out of his mind and was a loose cannon and once he continually ignored her commands and reached for something in his vehicle she shot him.
Now remember this was after he said he car was about to explode, wouldn't give her his name, wouldn't stop walking towards his car, acting erratically then reached for something.
Maybe you should read up on the facts before you make assine statements as you did.
As a matter of fact she was trained to be able to observe and determine if someone is on drugs by watching their behavior.
Now remember this was after he said he car was about to explode, wouldn't give her his name, wouldn't stop walking towards his car, acting erratically then reached for something.
Maybe you should read up on the facts before you make assine statements as you did.
As a matter of fact she was trained to be able to observe and determine if someone is on drugs by watching their behavior.
Posted on 10/11/16 at 8:08 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
As a matter of fact she was trained to be able to observe and determine if someone is on drugs by watching their behavior.
And if he was, she had the authority to shoot him dead?
Posted on 10/11/16 at 8:10 pm to slackster
quote:Yeah DUH!
And if he was, she had the authority to shoot him dead?
Cops can openly murder you if you don't listen to them and it is justified!
/s
Posted on 10/11/16 at 8:40 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
She knew and felt that he was out of his mind and was a loose cannon and once he continually ignored her commands and reached for something in his vehicle she shot him.
I'm literally stunned at how many people think that police officers should be able to shoot a person because that person MIGHT pose a threat. Not because the person is. Just because they MIGHT.
What a very strange view
Posted on 10/11/16 at 8:52 pm to slackster
Not what I said. It doesn't matter at this point. It's up to a jury in which I'm confident will find her not guilty.
Posted on 10/11/16 at 8:54 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I'm literally stunned at how many people think that police officers should be able to shoot a person because that person MIGHT pose a threat. Not because the person is. Just because they MIGHT.
What a very strange view
A guy high on PCP, wondering around the middle of the hwy, claiming his car was about to explode, ignoring police officers commands and reaching into a vehicle, I'd say posed a legit threat.
Posted on 10/11/16 at 8:57 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
A guy high on PCP, wondering around the middle of the hwy, claiming his car was about to explode, ignoring police officers commands and reaching into a vehicle, I'd say posed a legit threat.
Really? Which part of that constitutes a "threat" cause if it does, I'm heading downtown and hunting druggies for fun.
"They're all wandering around talking to themselves and holy shite, that one reached in a bag....... Shoot him......... It's POSSIBLE there's a gun in that bag"
This post was edited on 10/11/16 at 8:58 pm
Posted on 10/11/16 at 9:06 pm to ShortyRob
I've never paid attention to your post. Are you really this dumb or just fricking with me?
Posted on 10/11/16 at 9:10 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:There's nothing dumb about it.
I've never paid attention to your post. Are you really this dumb or just fricking with me?
Shooting people because you think it is possible they MIGHT be a threat should damned well NOT be OK.
Yes. I know a cops job is dangerous but the frick if that means they get to PREEMPT danger!
Posted on 10/11/16 at 9:11 pm to ShortyRob
Okay. You answered my question.
Posted on 10/11/16 at 9:20 pm to tgrbaitn08
If the best you have is name calling then yes, you did establish you're not very bright.
Not that I asked you to prove it. But thanks anyway.
Not that I asked you to prove it. But thanks anyway.
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News