Did anyone see 60 Minutes' interview of Tulsa police officer Betty Shelby last night?

What are your thoughts on whether she should have done the interview at all, what she said, and what effect it might have on her trial next month?

I can't believe her attorney allowed her to do it.

If her backup testifies he also saw the guy reaching into his vehicle, she might have a chance. She came across pretty well on the interview, I thought. The deceased tested to be on PCP, so that may have been why he was acting very strangely, and not obeying commands. I feel very bad for the officer. She is in a tough spot. Thank goodness her backup was there and is validating her story. Just my take as a civilian, who is sympathetic to her situation. It all hinges on what happened when the deceased was hidden from the camera. I think actually the interview may have helped her. She came across believable to me. If I were on the jury and her backup confirmed her story, I would not vote to convict. But I imagine I would not make it on to the jury....

Yes I was surprised that she did the interview. Bold move on her part. It makes me believe her version of events. It's a sad situation all around. If the man had simply followed her instructions there would be no story.

He also had PCP in the car which may be what he was reaching for in his numbed condition. I think she stated her concerns and how many of us would have done the same thing? I know I enjoyed going home after a shift without injury!

I bet the attorney set it up, then coached her on what to say. A well orchestrated interview can be very useful to the defense in a criminal case. Ask George Zimmerman.

In the end, I think she'll get off. These cases always go back to the motive of the shooting officer. I think the video confirms that the subject was being passive aggressively uncooperative in trying to get back to his vehicle, and, while not definitive, it does appear that he's reaching into the car. Before the fact, there's no way she could have known that he didn't have a weapon in there.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Huffman:
I can't believe her attorney allowed her to do it.

quote:

In the end, I think she'll get off.

As she should.

Although I would prefer an officer actually see a weapon prior to shooting, those who disobey commands bring it on themselves. But there are two sides to this. On one side you have the police who don't know anything other than what they see at the time. They don't know if the person they are dealing with is armed or their intentions. On the flip side, they don't know if the person they are dealing with is impaired, deaf, or otherwise incapable of following commands.

This is why I would prefer they see the weapon first, but at least in this case, hindsight is 20/20. The guy was doped up, and ultimately was the one who refused to follow orders. Too bad for him.

She's in a tough spot. She accurately assessed PCP use, which means she knew how quickly the situation could turn sideways. It's easy to say she overacted after the fact. At the time, given what she knew, she absolutely acted accordingly.

I wish her the best.

We watched it. I don't know what to say about the advisability of doing a 60 Minutes interview, but I have a couple thoughts.

The interviewer did not ask the sister of the dead man or any of the black leaders of the community to comment on the fact that he refused to obey commands and kept walking over to the vehicle.

At one point the dead man's sister said something to the effect of: "There's no debate, it's all there on video."

No, it's not. The helicopter and the dash cam were both out of position to clearly show the man's actions at the door of the car. Two officers fired at the moment of decision, one with her side arm, the other with a taser. Obviously, he made a threatening move, but the cameras neither support or deny the officer's statements.

quote:

Originally posted by Spokane228:
She's in a tough spot. She accurately assessed PCP use, which means she knew how quickly the situation could turn sideways. It's easy to say she overacted after the fact. At the time, given what she knew, she absolutely acted accordingly.

I wish her the best.

I do too. If he was reaching, one would have to assume there was a weapon. Does not matter what was there. He was reaching. That is all that matters to me, again, as a civilian. As she said, his actions are the reason he was shot. He was not obeying any orders. She should not be convicted imo.

Also the interviewer's question about "why didn't you shoot him in the leg or the foot" was predictable. Officers are trained to STOP the threat. Try stopping someone on PCP by shooting him in the foot. Good luck with that. He could have grabbed a weapon and killed her before he even felt a shot in the leg or foot.

I believed her. The interviewer was biased and hoping she'd screw up.

I am ashamed to say I watched that drivel last night. Out of the entire segment, only a few statements were relevent, and they came right at the end of the piece.

One, this loser had documented drug problems, had served time for selling crack cocaine, and was found in his autopsy to be on PCP at the time of the incident.
Two, that worthless race baiting piece of garbage Bill Whitaker asked Betty Shelby if there was any way this incident could have been avoided. Her answer, "If he had simply complied with my directions, none of this would have ever happened." Wow, ain't that some kinda rocket science right there.

Apparently those 'of color' don't think they have to comply with the law and/or the directions of the police any longer. This dead scumbag brought this entirely on himself and I have 'zero' sympathy for him and the rest of that race baiting garbage reflected throughout that piece. Oh and special disdain goes to the pastor for weighing in and stirring the pot.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

In the end, I think she'll get off.

As she should.

Although I would prefer an officer actually see a weapon prior to shooting, those who disobey commands bring it on themselves. But there are two sides to this. On one side you have the police who don't know anything other than what they see at the time. They don't know if the person they are dealing with is armed or their intentions. On the flip side, they don't know if the person they are dealing with is impaired, deaf, or otherwise incapable of following commands.

This is why I would prefer they see the weapon first, but at least in this case, hindsight is 20/20. The guy was doped up, and ultimately was the one who refused to follow orders. Too bad for him.

I remember another case a few years back when a deputy sheriff was accused of manslaughter for shooting an unarmed man in a car. In this case the deputy fired when he witnessed the suspect reach quickly under his seat without warning. He had his firearms instructor testify at his trial as to his training. The instructor stated that "Those who wait to see the weapon usually get killed." In otherwords, a suspect who isnt obeying commands who reaches for something could be considered a threat, and that an officer has reason to fear for his life and safety. The deputy was found not guilty based mostly on that testimony.

Case can be argued on both sides to me. Not an easy situation. We ask these officers to put themselves in harms way every shift. They get a PCP'd out idiot not following instructions. It's just an unfortunate situation all around. His vehicle was parked right in the road and he's roaming around on foot like a Zombie on pcp. On a jury no way could I vote guilty and put that officer in jail. Area is hostile, crime laden.

Her responses were well coached and her attorney ok'd this to get out in front of it as public opinion will sway the jury.

quote:

The instructor stated that "Those who wait to see the weapon usually get killed."

I can't speak for the instructor's experience, but I can speak from my own real life experience. I have been shot at a few times, and have seen several weapons pointed in my direction. Not once have I been killed, and that included an ambush scenario where I was unarmed, and the douchenozzle who was trying to kill me made it within 2 or 3 feet of me with a shotgun. He was so close, I can still recall the green shell as he chambered it while swinging it around.

I also have a handful of police officer friends, many of which have dealt with weapons being pointed at them. They are all still alive, and only one of them actually having been shot (but not by a bad guy).

You ever see Southpark, where uncle Ned is teaching the kids how to hunt? "It's coming right for us"!

Sometimes we take jobs knowing the risks. After the ambush situation described above, I decided that line of work was no longer worth it for me personally. Sometimes firemen have to run into building burnings, road crews have to work around moving cars, linemen have to worry about electrocution, and police officers have to face the potential of having guns pointed in their direction. I know a spit second or two may mean the difference between life and death, but that's a two way street. At least it should be.

Just to be clear though, I don't believe that to be the case here.

^
So are you saying that LEOs cannot be justified in shooting a subject unless they actually see a weapon in a case like this?

quote:

So are you saying that LEOs cannot be justified in shooting a subject unless they actually see a weapon in a case like this?

Nope. That is clearly not what I said.

I saw parts of it. I switched off when the interview went, "Was he acting threateningly?" "No." "Were you afraid because he was black?"

How are you supposed to answer that question other than no? But asking it brings up the possibility that you could have been afraid because the guy was black.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I saw parts of it. I switched off when the interview went, "Was he acting threateningly?" "No." "Were you afraid because he was black?"

How are you supposed to answer that question other than no? But asking it brings up the possibility that you could have been afraid because the guy was black.

Actually, there is a way to address such ridiculously loaded questions. I believe Morgan Freeman showed us the way with an interview he did with Mike Wallace some time ago. Any such questions should simply be turned around on the interviewer. The response should be confident, aggressive, and unapologetic, not conciliatory and/or weak, putting the interviewer on the defensive. Just like this...

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I saw parts of it. I switched off when the interview went, "Was he acting threateningly?" "No." "Were you afraid because he was black?"

How are you supposed to answer that question other than no? But asking it brings up the possibility that you could have been afraid because the guy was black.

Actually, there is a way to address such ridiculously loaded questions. I believe Morgan Freeman showed us the way with an interview he did with Mike Wallace some time ago. Any such questions should simply be turned around on the interviewer. The response should be confident, aggressive, and unapologetic, not conciliatory and/or weak, putting the interviewer on the defensive. Just like this...

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GeixtYS-P3s" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

Badass. One of my favorite actors. Thanks for posting this, handn't seen it.