Make no mistake. Im not defending her actions, just attempting to explain other potential scenarios. I've been teaching cops for close to a decade now. Unlike some of the other armchairs out there on the net, I actually have a tiny bit of knowledge on these issues.
As for the background of the suspect, I am admitted to the bar in Oklahoma. I know my way around the courthouse website in Tulsa. His record is his record. If the media doesnt want to risk being accused of "Trayvonning" him and omitting details that MIGHT have influenced the actions of the officers IF she/they knew them, they shouldn't be putting stuff in the newspaper about him being a pastor either. His record is his record. Unless there is a different person with the same name in Tulsa County, and that is quite possible, he has been convicted of multiple violent felonies and there was an active warrant for his arrest for violation of probation relating to drug trafficking. Not possession, not sale, trafficking. The same people who claim he was some kind of saint in the community are the same people who hired Ben Crump (Trayvon and Ferguson lawyer) within HOURS of his death before they could possibly know the circumstances surrounding the shooting. So forgive me for discounting what the paper says.
But let's be fair. Why in the hell is a 40 year old woman with 3 years of experience out on patrol alone in a violent crime area? Who joins the police department as a second career in their late 30s? Even if you do, if you are a road toad, you either wanted that job or they wouldn't give you anything else. Neither is a good sign. You have to wonder about the psychological profile and fear factor here. Plenty of questions about hiring, not just training here.
I have watched the videos. I was talking about the time period before the other officers arrive and she is alone and he is walking back to the car. We simply don't know what she knew at the time, what he said, what he was doing, or why he was going back to the car.
All of that said, contrary to your assertion, non-compliance under certain circumstances is grounds for using deadly force. It depends on the context of the use of the weapon and what weapon is used. Deadly force is a baton. In some departments the taser is deadly force, but lower on the lethal scale than the firearm. I invite you to go to your local sheriff's office citizen academy. Most of them have "shoot-dont shoot" training simulators available to the citizenry so you get a chance to understand what decision making is all about. I went through an extended training program as a prosecutor because I was assigned to a community policing unit and had to be out on the street a lot. I scored higher than any cadet that had gone through the entire training that year -- and I still got killed twice. Once by a guy in a convenience store (I was supposedly dispatched to check on the welfare of a female after a domestic battery in the parking lot.) As I walked up in the simulator, a guy approached me, told me that his wife was in the car and that his 2 year old was upset and choking on something. He handed the baby to me and I informed the training officer that I would begin infant choking EMS. The guy shot me in the forehead before I could finish the sentence. If I had looked over to see that the woman was dead in the car, he would have shot me too. It can be that quick. Everyone in Oklahoma has guns. EVERYONE. You have to operate on the assumption that anyone that is reaching into their pocket when a cop is telling them not to, no matter how unreasonable the situation, is carrying a gun and could use it. You cannot wait until the gun is produced to react in every situation. If you do, you'll be dead. So you have to take procedures under certain circumstances to minimize that risk. For whatever reason, this guy didnt want to do that. What I think happened is that he got agitated, her fear and stress level went up, and she accidentally discharged the firearm thinking that she was holding a taser. But it is also possible that she thought he was connected to the violent domestic disturbance she was responding to when she saw the car, she knew he was a violent felon, that he wasn't obeying commands, she thought he might know there was a warrant for his arrest so he could be a flight risk, and the guy reached into his pocket after being told not to. I don't think that happened here, but its an example of how the context of the video can change the perception of what you see.
Im sure the feds will figure it out. Until then, forgive me for discounting your take based on what Ben Crump and his family have told the media looking for a payout.
