Tulsa cop Betty Jo Shelby found not guilty in death of Terence Crutcher

Tulsa cop Betty Jo Shelby found not guilty in death of Terence Crutcher

This is a discussion on Tulsa cop Betty Jo Shelby found not guilty in death of Terence Crutcher within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I didn't see this posted anywhere yet. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.3174049 Guess it was a good shoot according to a jury. It would be interesting to read transcripts ...

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 62
Like Tree91Likes

Thread: Tulsa cop Betty Jo Shelby found not guilty in death of Terence Crutcher

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array SIGP250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    MO - Rock Ranch
    Posts
    3,705

    Tulsa cop Betty Jo Shelby found not guilty in death of Terence Crutcher

    I didn't see this posted anywhere yet.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.3174049


    Guess it was a good shoot according to a jury. It would be interesting to read transcripts of the trial.
    Rhinoman likes this.
    If you understand, things are just as they are... If you do not understand, things are just as they are....
    - Zen Saying

  2. #2
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    873
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGP250 View Post
    Guess it was a good shoot according to a jury. It would be interesting to read transcripts of the trial.
    A not guilty verdict does not equate to a "good shoot." The not guilty verdict means they were unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that her assertion that she was afraid for her life was unjustified when she killed him.

    I'm not saying the jury got the verdict wrong or right, but a jury's verdict does not equate to an unequivocal determination of the truth. Jurys get the verdicts wrong all the time.
    Mike1956, maxwell97 and TeflonDon like this.

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,669
    Article I read earlier said she feared for her life because he didn't listen to her. What a BS reason to shoot someone. His window was also rolled up, as shown by his blood being splattered all over the side. And people wonder why people are pissed off about cops getting away with this stuff...
    TeflonDon likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Ex Member Array Dave909's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    South Indiana
    Posts
    2,569
    And what if she hadn't shot and he did reach in (and he did reach in we can see it) and pull out a gun? The guy was on PCP, that alone means he was extremely dangerous. This crap needs to stop being about race and about safety and law enforcement.

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho41 View Post
    A not guilty verdict does not equate to a "good shoot." The not guilty verdict means they were unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that her assertion that she was afraid for her life was unjustified when she killed him.

    I'm not saying the jury got the verdict wrong or right, but a jury's verdict does not equate to an unequivocal determination of the truth. Jurys get the verdicts wrong all the time.
    Nothing about this case was right, from the shooting victim's actions to the shooting and aftermath. The jury had a tough job, and did it as well as they were able.
    Rhinoman, Havok, OldChap and 3 others like this.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array SIGP250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    MO - Rock Ranch
    Posts
    3,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho41 View Post
    A not guilty verdict does not equate to a "good shoot." The not guilty verdict means they were unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that her assertion that she was afraid for her life was unjustified when she killed him.

    I'm not saying the jury got the verdict wrong or right, but a jury's verdict does not equate to an unequivocal determination of the truth. Jurys get the verdicts wrong all the time.
    It was good for her and if she keeps her job, cops will call it a good shoot. From the video I originally saw and from her televised interviews, I would have thought at best a hung jury.

    I'm glad she got off but if I were her, I'd probably leave Tulsa and find another line of work. So far, Tulsa's not burning but I'd expect to see more protests there and in other cities. After Baltimore though?

    It's really tough being a cop. I support all of them.
    Rhinoman and The Old Anglo like this.
    If you understand, things are just as they are... If you do not understand, things are just as they are....
    - Zen Saying

  8. #7
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Article I read earlier said she feared for her life because he didn't listen to her. What a BS reason to shoot someone. His window was also rolled up, as shown by his blood being splattered all over the side. And people wonder why people are pissed off about cops getting away with this stuff...
    She didn't get away with anything in this case. She was found not guilty by a jury of her peers. The jury was privy to much more information and evidence than we'll have as viewers of a video recording.

  9. #8
    Ex Member Array Dougb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Minn
    Posts
    894
    The standard is what the average cop would find reasonable, and nobody here saw it go down or attended the trial to see all the evidence and testimony.

    Our "not guilty" is actually "not proven", but is the same verdict you would get if found not proven. Drugs in the blood stream change the situation.
    Implying that she shot "because he didn't listen" is simplistic. "He didn't listen" and acted against lawful orders. You use a gun, you know how fast a situation goes south. Decision time is minimal or your dead. TV show Blue Bloods had the commissioner explain to a reporter how it works. Guy was shot by cops, reporter asked why, PC asked the reporter what he would do. Reporter said he would observe the situation and.... PC said "Too late, you're dead".

    The jury thought the cop was acting reasonably. If you were not there, you don't know. You have an opinion based maybe on media, well known for accuracy.
    Dave909, SIGP250 and AzQkr like this.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Rhinoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Panama City, FL
    Posts
    2,549
    Now comes the civil suits.
    SIGP250 and OldVet like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. 74-96.

    An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry. ~George Eliot,

  11. #10
    Ex Member Array Dave909's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    South Indiana
    Posts
    2,569
    That and all the idiot "rights activists" blocking the street with a bullhorn and pictures of the guy when he was a little boy.
    SIGP250 and The Old Anglo like this.

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    873
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougb View Post
    The jury thought the cop was acting reasonably.
    [Disclaimer: I will state again that I am not saying the verdict was wrong or right as I did not sit through all th efacts of the case]

    Again, no. A not guilty verdict does not equate with innocence. The fact that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was unreasonable in killing him does not mean that she acted reasonably. My "opinion" based on the information I have seen/read is that she was unjustified in shooting him, but if I was on that jury I would probably have had to vote not guilty because the video only captured part of the altercation and it did not show it from her point of view.

    And, if the assertion is going to be made that this officer was objectively justified because the jury found her not guilty, then the same should be said for OJ, Casey Anthony, et al.

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho41 View Post
    [Disclaimer: I will state again that I am not saying the verdict was wrong or right as I did not sit through all th efacts of the case]

    Again, no. A not guilty verdict does not equate with innocence. The fact that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was unreasonable in killing him does not mean that she acted reasonably. My "opinion" based on the information I have seen/read is that she was unjustified in shooting him, but if I was on that jury I would probably have had to vote not guilty because the video only captured part of the altercation and it did not show it from her point of view.

    And, if the assertion is going to be made that this officer was objectively justified because the jury found her not guilty, then the same should be said for OJ, Casey Anthony, et al.
    Right or wrong, one of the underlying fundamentals of our entire system of law in this country is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Having said that, the jury believed that guilt was not proven, therefore, the verdict.
    AzQkr, Libertywheel and OldChap like this.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,669
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    She didn't get away with anything in this case. She was found not guilty by a jury of her peers. The jury was privy to much more information and evidence than we'll have as viewers of a video recording.
    Honest question, do you remember when this happened, and the videos shown of it? I understand that there is more that is shown in the trial than in the news. If she had kept her mouth shut about why she shot him, I might have a different opinion, because then she could make up any story she wanted to attempt to justify it, but that didnt happen. Im very confident in my opinion that she realized she screwed up and tried to create a justification for it, and she got lucky and it worked out in her favor.
    We get the government we deserve.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Libertywheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    3,249
    It's important to trust the judicial system. The civil court will follow if appropriate and render another decision.
    Doing my best to stay left of boom.

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,738
    I would not have bet on that outcome, not even in Vegas.
    LimaCharlie and Libertywheel like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •