Tulsa PD shoots unarmed black man

[Glocktogo]

I think it is, it does not mean the charge cannot be dropped.

Which would still indicate he leapt before he looked. What do you have against gathering all the readily available facts before committing to a specific action? Can you name one positive reason for operating that way?

 

[Pokinfun]

Which would still indicate he leapt before he looked. What do you have against gathering all the readily available facts before committing to a specific action? Can you name one positive reason for operating that way?

Regardless of what the report states, the charge is still the correct charge. I would not care what the guy was on, if she was wrong, file the charge.

 

[Pokinfun]

So what. Just because someone doesn't have a weapon doesn't mean they are innocent. He was obviously disobeying commands and walked back to his vehicle. Then he drops one hand down by his waste. I guess she was supposed to wait until he pulls a gun and starts firing. How was she supposed to know he didn't have a weapon on him? I can see why she fired. Obviously the other cop thought he was reaching for something too. Only he shot a tazer and not a gun. I guess Michael brown was innocent because he didn't have a weapon. This guy had a history of being a criminal. I guarantee he wasn't listening to the officers commands. Had he done that he wouldn't have gotten shot. That's the bottom line.

I am not saying anything you are saying, not following orders is not a reason to kill someone. IT does not matter what his history was, she did not know it. Also, comparing firing a taser to firing a gun, is just wrong.

 

[Glocktogo]

Regardless of what the report states, the charge is still the correct charge. I would not care what the guy was on, if she was wrong, file the charge.

You didn't answer the question. You're on record here supporting the decision to publicly charge someone with a felony BEFORE having all the readily available information. Its not like he will never get the autopsy and tox reports. So I ask again, what is the benefit of charging her today rather than next week or the week after?

If your check engine light comes on, do you ask the shop to begin replacing parts before they get the diagnostics report? If not, then why would you want a DA to file charges before getting all the reports back from the labs? I think we're talking about something a bit more critical than an engine miss here, so what gives?

I'm not disputing the charge, I'm disputing the timing. You're defending the timing so give us more than your emotional opinion that it's better to do it without all the available facts in evidence. I'm truly trying to understand your point, so please explain?

 

[Pokinfun]

You didn't answer the question. You're on record here supporting the decision to publicly charge someone with a felony BEFORE having all the readily available information. Its not like he will never get the autopsy and tox reports. So I ask again, what is the benefit of charging her today rather than next week or the week after?

If your check engine light comes on, do you ask the shop to begin replacing parts before they get the diagnostics report? If not, then why would you want a DA to file charges before getting all the reports back from the labs? I think we're talking about something a bit more critical than an engine miss here, so what gives?

I'm not disputing the charge, I'm disputing the timing. You're defending the timing so give us more than your emotional opinion that it's better to do it without all the available facts in evidence. I'm truly trying to understand your point, so please explain?

I did answer the question, you just failed the agree with my point.

 

[Glocktogo]

I did answer the question, you just failed the agree with my point.

Never mind, your unfounded emotional opinion isn't worthy of debate.

 

[dennishoddy]

Probably, but I'd have expected the determination of charges to at least wait until the death had been certified and the toxicology reports were back.

An effort to keep BLM and the head race baiter in check.

 

[Frederick]

She should get a fair trial before a jury of her peers. If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not fear for her life and killed him in a negligent manner, then the appropriate convictions should be made. We can postulate, but let's not forget the importance of the rule of law. Unlike BLM.

 

[Glocktogo]

An effort to keep BLM and the head race baiter in check.

Which would be a political motivation and require Kunzweiler to recuse himself. This is still the United States of America, where justice is blind and we don't prosecute people on political motivations.

Some people around here find that acceptable, I don't. Two wrongs don't make a right and this smells wrong. Her attorney now has a good case for having the trial moved out of Tulsa County and a different prosecutor appointed. In his haste, Kunzweiler has been reckless and subjorned justice to expediency. We don't need a reckless prosecutor any more than we needed a do nothing prosecutor like his predecessor.

 

[RidgeHunter]

There is the video where she accidentally shot him on video.

Or is the 'one shot, awkwardly wait 13 seconds for threat to fall, retreat behind cover to cry' standard training since 2011? She without a doubt took a little to much slack from that trigger.

Racism aspect should be dropped in lieu of focusing how grossly incompetent she was with a firearm. Should have stuck to what she was an expert in - "drug recognition". Lawl.