So today during my hour break at work, I read an article about a 40 year old man named Terence Crutcher who was killed by the police a few days ago. From what I read, Crutcher was unarmed, but acting very strangely as his SUV was parked in the middle of a road in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It appeared as if he was on some sort of drugs since he was not answering/listening to what officer Betty Shelby was saying to him, but did not pose any threat. He then proceeded to raise both hands so he was clearly unarmed. Aside from putting his hands in his pockets and supposedly reaching into his car window with one hand, he did not appear to pose any threat. At that moment, officer Shelby fatally shot Crutcher with one bullet while approaching officer Tyler Turnbough tazed him. This was at a simultaneous moment, mind you. Ask yourself this. Was a gun shot AND tazer really necessary for only muttering incoherant words and keeping hands in the pockets?
|Officer Betty Shelby & Terence Crutcher|
Now, let's look at this situation from both perspectives, shall we? Let's take it from the police officer's perspective. Now, if I was a police officer and I found a semi-coherant man standing in the middle of the road and not understanding what I'm saying to him, I'd be kinda frightened too, not gonna lie. I wouldn't have any idea if he was armed, unarmed, mentally unstable, suicidal, etc. I'd most definitely call for back up if I felt diffusing the situation alone was too much to handle. But I would absolutely NOT kill him. Arrest him for walking/driving while supposedly being under the influnece of some sort of drug(s)? Sure. A quick taze to apprehend him and get him some help? If the police officer felt threatened, she should have at least shot him in the leg or somewhere NOT fatal. If the person was armed and dangerous, yes, shoot the criminal to disarm, not to kill. Since Crutcher didn't have a weapon in his hands, did he seriously have to die? Did he have to get shot AND tazed even though he had no weapon? Did the cops really have to kill him? I still ask this question with the deaths of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in Staten Island, NY. All over this country, lives are lost and families are destroyed.
|The crime scene where Keith Lamont Scott was killed.|
Today I found out about the death of 43 year old Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina yesterday. Unlike Terence Crutcher's case, Scott was supposedly armed while sitting in a car. Some sources say that he was simply reading a book in the car, when others said that he was armed.When he did not comply with the police officer's commands, he was fatally wounded. Why? This man was a husband a father, and now his children have to live the rest of their lives without their dad. His wife, now widow, is forever heartbroken that her husband was taken from her. Why did the police officer have to kill the man for solely having a weapon on him? I mean, the second ammendment clearly says we have a right to bear arms, but it seems that even if you're armed, you're considered dangerous and at risk to be killed by the police. As a result, riots have broken out in Charlotte, North Carolina, in the wake of Scott's death. Tear-gas fired in the streets, cops getting hurt, innocent people getting hurt, and people are getting killed because of wrongful deaths.
That's it, enough is enough. This Black Lives Matter/Blue Lives Matter insanity has gone too far, and it's completely and utterly unacceptable. So many innocent people are getting killed because of the lack of communication between human beings. This "protest" is just adding fuel to the fire and frustration of these wrongful deaths. Rioting in the streets is not going to fix what happened to these victims. Killing cops won't bring back those victims. If anything, murdering police officers will result in their families who will grieve and mourn for the rest
of their lives. Police officers are human beings too; think about their families. Destroying property, attacking the police and threatening the lives of innocent people are not going to fix what's already been destroyed, and this has to stop.
Now, should the victims have complied with what the police said? Yes, because if an authoratative figure tells you do to something, you do it. A police officer wants to see your licence and registration when you get pulled over? Do it. A police officer tells you to drop your weapon? Do it. Listen to the police officer and no one gets hurt, so I've always been told. But then here comes my question again, DID THEY HAVE TO DIE? Did the police have to kill those people? People always wonder and question why other people feel paranoid and scared around police officers. Only in America do people fear police officers instead of feeling safe and protected. Isn't that sad?
My last thoughts? Riddle me this. Why is it that these people are brutally murdered by the police, yet armed terrorists who bombed Seaside Park, New Jersey, and New York City, MY CITY, are alive and simply detained? Are you kidding me right now? Armed terrorists are alive and breathing, yet Terence Crutcher, Keith Lamont Scott, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner are dead simply for not listening to an armed police officer? Riddle me that.