A baffling defense counsel move results in BWC and dashcam video release of cop killing

In late June of this year a Tulsa officer was killed and another critically wounded during a “routine” traffic stop. Guy’s defense attorney took issue with how the police described the killing, taking particular umbrage with the phrases “stood over” and “walked away.” Video shows that rather than standing directly over either officer the subject was a few feet away as he fired follow-up shots, then back-pedaled away before turning and trotting a few car lengths to a friend’s car who had arrived to pick him up. The baffling part is that the defense attorney is convinced that this video will somehow help his client, despite the video showing dozens of lawful orders given, multiple attempts to use non-lethal and less-lethal force with no effect, and his client shooting two police officers multiple times. Not to mention showing the aftermath of the shooting, which is not included in the released video.

Rather than linking to the video that’s been released, I’m linking to an article about the court’s decision. If you want to watch the video, you can find it yourself.

Article

Those of you who call for more training and more focus on non/less lethal forces, rest assured that this incident will be used to fulfill your wishes. It will be used to show officers how routine traffic stops aren’t. It will be used to show why you don’t let suspects reach around in their vehicle. It will be used to show why non/less lethal options are not the magic ticket to avoid a shooting.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I watched this video yesterday and its a heart breaker. They gave the guy waaaay more opportunities than I would have. It also goes to show just how useless tazers and less lethal can be.

It won't MATTER to the anti-cop mob.

It won't matter to them that this incident wasn't (to my knowledge) widely reported, and for all we know was deliberately kept off national MSM outlets (can't have those pesky shooting of police undermining the narrative)

It won't matter to them that this incident just reinforces what many have been repeating over and over about the Jacob Blake case, and justification for why police act in the manner they do, to evaluate threatening behavior by subjects and act accordingly.

It won't matter to them that very act of disobeying MULTIPLE police orders IS BY DEFINITION threatening behavior. This point is particularly hard to infiltrate their skulls.

Nothing else matters, not data, not video evidence, not stories that challenge The Narrative. These people cannot be reached, it would seem.

a reply to: Shamrock6


I just watched the video its sad the officer gave his life over this moron. I know if i were in the military he would have got a rifle butt to the face and draged out right when they attempted to tazer him. But this is the problem law enforcement has they are not military. You can see they didnt want to use force and kept trying to get him to comply. And here lies the problem in the military refusal to comply will get you hurt. Police try to rely on non lethal restraint thinking pepper spray and tazers can do the trick.

So now we have the problem we trained our officers to handle things like the military but we draw the line on what level of force they can use. There is no easy answer here the only solution is to make resisting arrest a more serious crime maybe? The other alternative is to give real hand to hand combat training and teach them how to put someone into a hold. The problem with that if not done properly yes you can kill someone. When in training I sprained someone's arm by accident so its easy to do. Submission holds is all about twisting body parts in directions they are not supposed to go. But i can see a police officer being sued if he had injured this fool.

Well, I truly hope this individual is convicted and minimum spends the rest of his life in jail.

Maybe the defense lawyer has some ethics and simply wants to put the truth before the court and the jury. Not saying he's sabotaging the case by any means, but of it's what really happened...

Well, as the saying goes, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." That perhaps applies to moral and spiritual freedom more than physical freedom.

a reply to: incoserv

well, ethics would be doing whatever he can to get his client off, or a reduced sentence. Which is why we generally hold lawyers in such low esteem, as ethics and morals clash.

I don't think i can watch the video. 2020 is ruining my mental state, and im not volunteering for any more of it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Does anyone have a link to the video?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Google is a thing.

a reply to: incoserv

Mmmm no, more like he thought it would help his client because it shows his client asking for a ticket instead of being arrested and having his car impounded.

You can like...read this stuff.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Google is a thing.

Yeah no Sh!t the first thing I did was do a search. Couldn't find it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Seems like someone making an entire thread about a video would include the video. Apparently that would be too much work and would add to the quality of the OP, wouldn't want that.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: incoserv

Mmmm no, more like he thought it would help his client because it shows his client asking for a ticket instead of being arrested and having his car impounded.

You can like...read this stuff.

Yeah, well, there's what's said and then there's what's done, then there's actual intent (which may be unspoken or hidden).

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: incoserv

well, ethics would be doing whatever he can to get his client off, or a reduced sentence. Which is why we generally hold lawyers in such low esteem, as ethics and morals clash.

I don't think i can watch the video. 2020 is ruining my mental state, and im not volunteering for any more of it.

Right, then I should have said "morals" instead of "ethics."

a reply to: Alien Abduct

You must be pretty terrible at googling then because I did one search and found a couple dozen direct links to video, articles with video, and articles with links to video.

Seems like someone desperate to watch a video would spend more time being an adult and helping themselves rather than whining but apparently that’s too much work and time is better spent demanding to be spoon fed.

You’ll note the thread title is about the attorney’s request for video to be released, not about the video itself beyond why I think it was an idiotic move by the defense. Since the thread is about what I provided a link for rather than what you’re incapable of finding for yourself, sorry about your google skills I guess.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You must be pretty terrible at googling then because I did one search and found a couple dozen direct links to video, articles with video, and articles with links to video.

"Links to video" yes but not the released video you mentioned in your OP.

Seems like someone desperate to watch a video..

I'm not desperate to watch the video. It just seems prudent when the entire topic is about a video to include said video. It's a decent OP dont get me wrong you did a good job writing it. But it is obviously lacking context. Its kind of like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich minus the peanut butter.

You’ll note the thread title is about the attorney’s request for video to be released, not about the video itself

Are we discussing the OP or just the title of the OP?

I found the video though thanks, have a good day.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

"Links to video" yes but not the released video you mentioned in your OP.

What video are the links I found linking to then?

I'm not desperate to watch the video. It just seems prudent when the entire topic is about a video to include said video

It’s not, and continuing to try and tell me what my own thread is really about isn’t going to get terribly far.

It's a decent OP dont get me wrong you did a good job writing it.

I’m overwhelmed by your approval. Thanks so much.

But it is obviously lacking context.

It’s not, unless one is trying to change the topic of the thread. If the thread was about what you think it’s about, you’d be correct. Luckily for me the thread is about what I thought it was about when I wrote it.

Are we discussing the OP or just the title of the OP?

My thread titles tell you what the thread is about. They and the gist of the OP are like peanut butter and jelly, as you put it.

I found the video though thanks, have a good day.

Super. Glad you took the time to try and give a creative writing class while offering zero opinion or commentary on the thread subject, whether that be your opinion of what the subject is or what the actual author’s opinion of what the subject is. You take care now

This is something I have a hard time understanding about non-lethal restraint devices.
Humans have been tranquilizing animals at least my entire life but officers have never used that technique in circumstances such as this.
Pepper spray and tazers but no sedative tipped air darts.

a reply to: CharlesT

At what point during this encounter do you think the officers should have figured out the subject’s weight and drug allergies and then figure out how much anesthetic to administer to incapacitate the driver?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
At what point during this encounter do you think the officers should have figured out the subject’s weight and drug allergies and then figure out how much anesthetic to administer to incapacitate the driver?

What? You missed your Marlin Perkins section of the police academy?

"We now see the psychotic, violent felon is his natural surroundings. The officer waits with tranquillizer gun a the ready. The felon pounces! The dart hits true, but sadly the dosage is too low and the officer becomes lunch. Such is the way of life in Baltimore."

a reply to: Shamrock6

Are you trying to tell me they can't administer a minimal dose to anyone without effect? It may not have put him out into lala land but it certainly would have made him drowsy and controllable.
I don't buy your argument.