Terence Crutcher
Tulsa Police Officer Betty Shelby fatally shot 40-year-old Terence Crutcher in September when he experienced car trouble after leaving night classes at Tulsa Community College. On Monday, Shelby testified in her own defense to attempt to justify the killing of this unarmed man — and shamelessly blamed him — stating she has "no regrets" about what happened.
Shelby, who faces up to life in prison if convicted of first-degree manslaughter, blames Crutcher for his own death.
Incidentally, this is not the first time this killer cop blamed the victim. In a brazenly despicable fashion, Shelby went on
60-minutes in April and explained to host Bill Whitaker that Crutcher — who had no weapon on him or in his car — caused her to fear for her life, and her only option was taking his life.
"His hands were in the air from all views," pastor Rodney Goss of the Morning Star Baptist Church, who viewed footage from both dash cams and a police helicopter prior to the public release,
told the Tulsa World in September. "It was not apparent from any angle at any point he lunged, came toward, aggressively attacked, or made any sudden movements that would have been considered a threat or life-threatening toward the officer."
The video evidence was so compelling that several days after it was released, a warrant was issued for Shelby's arrest.Apparently, at least to this fearful officer, putting your hands in the air is suspicious and grounds for escalation and violence.
On the sixth day of trial, Shelby testified that videos she saw in training indicated that if suspects are allowed to reach into their cars, "they can pull out guns and kill you," the
Tulsa World reported.
"If you hesitate and delay, then you die," Shelby reportedly told her attorney, Shannon McMurray, of Tulsa. "It impacted me so much that I saw the video in my head during that situation."
But Crutcher had his hands up.
"He's got his hands up for her now," the pilot, who happened to be Shelby's husband, says of Crutcher, adding a moment later that the man appears uncooperative and may need to be tased.
Officer Tyler Turnbough, who had arrived as backup, took the less lethal route and deployed his Taser against Crutcher. However, Shelby fired before the electric jolt could even knock him to the ground. Also, video from one patrol car's dash cam and one that is seen from a police helicopter circling above clearly shows Crutcher not acting aggressively as the cops surround and then murder him.
During the trial, Shelby said she was trained to not "let them pull their arm back out" and that deadly force can be warranted. She said she fired
"because I feared for my life.""I did everything I could to stop this," Shelby said Monday.
"Crutcher's death is his fault."The mindset that it takes to believe this unarmed man is responsible for his own death is truly frightening. When Crutcher was killed, he posed no threat, was not violent, and was merely stopped on the roadside. Acting oddly is hardly a reason to deploy deadly force — much less attempt to justify it.
Shelby's defense attorneys have accused prosecutors of bringing the charges against her because she is white and Crutcher is black. The defense will call its final witness this week and the jury will ultimately decide Shelby's fate. All week long, the defense has focused on Crutcher's past, noting two previous arrests, one from 22 years ago, in which Crutcher was charged with public intoxication and obstruction for being non-compliant.
In April, Whitaker asked Tiffany Crutcher, Terrance's sister, how she felt about Shelby's tactics of blaming her brother for his own death.
Whitaker asked, "Officer Shelby says that your brother's actions caused his own death. What do you say to that?"
Tiffany Crutcher's response was heartbreaking. "
My brother's dead because she didn't pause. And because she didn't pause, my family, we've had to pause. We've had to stop. We've had to lay down every single night with tears in our eyes. There was absolutely no justification whatsoever, with all the backup, for Officer Shelby to pull that trigger. No justification whatsoever."
If this bitch walks, that jury is made up of scum.
Important note:
Please realize that in many of these cases, prosecutors will 'take a dive' and:
- make critical, basic legal errors 'accidentally-on-purpose;
- do a half ass job of the prosecution; showing through body language that they can't believe they are being forced by their boss to prosecute this innocent lady cop, etc. (the transcription record can't descrive what the jury is seeing in the faces of the witnesses or prosecutors: hence it's referred to as the cold hard black and white record/transcript or similar.)( I.e., raw text can't show these things.)
- bring on too many witnesses beyond those they need to prove the case (such as those witnesses favorable to the defendant) This then allows the defendant's attorney to ask loaded, leading questions to folks that they would have called on behalf of the defense.) The difference is this; say the prosecution brings as a witness, the cop's supervisor to ask about a single complaint previously lodged against her for yelling at someone - e.g., calling an Arabic American a stupid f'g Haji. (US Army term for all opponents in Iraq, Afqhanistan, etc.)
That would / should not be allowed by rules of evidence; but the Defendant Cop's Defense attorney would not object, as same would represent "opening the door" allowing that attorney to spend a half day of cross examination of that Chief etc.
"Sir, isn't it true that she was awarded Rookie of the year; the first female so awarded?" And thereby, bit by bit, going over all the accolades which the folks in blue go out of their way to write. ( That's why these murders are often headlined this way: "Former Officer of the Year Charged with Manslaughter." Why? Because if they've served long enough, they ALL get that award!)
(This is where the OJ criminal trial erroneously went sideways on the N-word.)
If the prosecution had done its job: They would have moved to have the venue of the action changed, I see no indication that they did so. This is just one of a thousand ways that the prosecutor can 'take a dive.'
My guesses are are:
If jury is allowe d to find defendant guilty of lesser included charges (in many places, the defense can waive the right to be convicted of ser included charges; such as Assault with a Deadly Weapon; Simple Assault and Battery, etc.) and say prove your worst charge; we don't want the jury to be able to find guilty of anny lessers), they will find her guilty of one of the least lesser included defenses... maybe that or an aquittal.)
If lesser included offenses are not allowed to be considered by the jury, i.e., Jury can vote for Manslaughter or nothing
- an aquittal or a hung jury, at best.
I will be pleasantly surprised if she is convicted.
R.C.