[QUOTE=Sonador;48327339]Excellent reply, but what elements of the video lead you, in your qualified and expert opinion, to believe the police officer was in no danger and should not have feared for his life?[/QUOTE]
Really? Feared for his life? I guess he would be scared but not because he was in a situation where he could lose his life but maybe, i don't know, his toe.
IMO, the cop realized that the guy was going to accelerate and run him over his legs, panicked and had the bad luck of lading a shot right in his head.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48327244]yeah upfront maybe however this is different, there is a video, the cop was not in any danger except maybe of getting his foot run over[/QUOTE]
Cars can drag people as shown in the video, and at high speeds it can easily fuck you up pretty badly.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48327193]The prosecution seems to think otherwise, [B]he's charged with murder.[/B][/QUOTE]
Charged is different from convicted. Murder is with intent, and from the video he doesn't seem to have that.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48327350]Still justification according to American laws. Losing a foot counts as grievous bodily harm. He could have been dragged under the vehicle, too. There should have been no indictment. There was no intent to commit murder, and there is no reason to believe that he was not reasonably in fear for his life.[/QUOTE]
i dunno man maybe if he'd taken a step back instead of reaching in he would've been a bit more safe. Even safer than reaching in the vehicle and pulling his gun while doing so I think.
The prosecution seeemms to agree.
There was no evidence for murder. Period. There was no malice aforethought that could have been proven.
So the question is why do we have a justice system that says people are guilty of charges that they are innocent of?
A car is a fucking weapon.
Oh Jesus Christ, what's next?
LOOK THAT GUYS HAS HANDS AND ARMS
POTENTIAL WEAPONS!
FIRE!
Come on, you guys can't be such pricks. There's no reason for a cop to pull a gun on somebody who's unarmed and has the CLEAR intention of RUNNING away, NOT HURTING someone.
Really? I'm not asking you to be like the Judges here who are pricks and let everybody who commited a crime free, but let's not go to the other extreme and try to justify and defend everything a cop does....
[QUOTE=maxspeed3006;48327403]Really? Feared for his life? I guess he would be scared but not because he was in a situation where he could lose his life but maybe, i don't know, his toe.
IMO, the cop realized that the guy was going to run and run him over his legs, panicked and had the bad luck of lading a shot right in his head.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, you can kill someone if your believe any part of your body is in danger of serious damage. Even for a toe, he could have done what he did. People aren't really realizing how easy it would have been for him to get dragged under the vehicle if he had been taken with it.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48327424]Like I said, you can kill someone if your believe any part of your body is in danger of serious damage. Even for a toe, he could have done what he did. People aren't really realizing how easy it would have been for him to get dragged under the vehicle if he had been taken with it.[/QUOTE]
sorry to say, but if that's what the law says in the USA, then guys, you have a somewhat fucked up law....
[QUOTE=plunger435;48327411]
Charged is different from convicted. Murder is with intent, and from the video he doesn't seem to have that.[/QUOTE]
It's still pretty conclusive
[url]http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/29/publish/30830777/[/url]
[quote]The video proved to be crucial evidence to the grand jurors who indicted Tensing, and it stunned city officials, prosecutors and the relatives of shooting victim Samuel DuBose.[/quote]
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48327416]There was no evidence for murder. Period. There was no malice aforethought that could have been proven.
So the question is why do we have a justice system that says people are guilty of charges that they are innocent of?[/QUOTE]
We don't.
He's not convicted yet.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48327439]sorry to say, but if that's what the law says in the USA, then guys, you have a somewhat fucked up law....[/QUOTE]
Why should people risk losing an appendage so a malicious person can live to take it?
[QUOTE=Killuah;48327441]It's still pretty conclusive
[url]http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/29/publish/30830777/[/url]
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
We don't.
He's not convicted yet.[/QUOTE]
Obviously the prosecutor will say he's guilty, it's his entire job.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48327416]There was no evidence for murder. Period. [/QUOTE]
Also I think it's up to the trial to judge if the evidence is evidence for murder or not but nevertheless the cop fucked up.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48327413]i dunno man maybe if he'd taken a step back instead of reaching in he would've been a bit more safe. Even safer than reaching in the vehicle and pulling his gun while doing so I think.
The prosecution seeemms to agree.[/QUOTE]
I'd be more likely to use a less terse tone with you if you weren't being obtuse and replying to my open ended question with a vapidly brainless snark.
A police officer is charged with the general protection of the public and allowing a noncooperative subject directly disobeying his instructions to continue operating a motor vehicle presumably without a license would be extremely likely to cause the public danger and/or harm. The officer [I]did his job[/I] in attempting to remove the keys from the vehicle or stop the motor, and in the process the subject did something to provoke the officer to kill him.
I'm not sure what caused that and the only person who can answer that would be the suspect and the officer. We'll know exactly what that was when the trial gets to that point. Everything else, my theories included, are solely conjecture.
Vehicles, as you might know, have steering wheels. Steering wheels change the direction of the vehicle, and knowing that, we know the vehicle could move in a direction other than straight forward. Knowing that, we can infer that the officer was not just in danger of being passed or having his feet run over; the vehicle could have rolled left, knocked the officer over, and with the rear tires following the shortest distance to the front tires, run over the officer bodily. Oh, and by the way, crushing someone's foot is great bodily injury, that could possibly be a permanently disabling injury that could leave to officer out of work for the rest of his life.
I think you've pretty accurately demonstrated you're in no position to determine who 'fucked up' in this situation given I just had to explain that to you.
[QUOTE]Knowing that, we can infer that the officer was not just in danger of being passed or having his feet run over; the vehicle could have rolled left, knocked the officer over, and with the rear tires following the shortest distance to the front tires, run over the officer bodily[/QUOTE]
Do you call that a slippery slope?
[QUOTE=plunger435;48327476]Obviously the prosecutor will say he's guilty, it's his entire job.[/QUOTE]
It's the grand jury in the quote you replied to, not the prosecutor
[QUOTE=Killuah;48327441]It's still pretty conclusive
[url]http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/29/publish/30830777/[/url]
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
We don't.
He's not convicted yet.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I see now, it was bad reading on my part.
Also:
[QUOTE]Tensing, who was fired by UC after the indictment came out Wednesday, turned himself in and was booked into the Justice Center Wednesday afternoon. [B]In addition to the murder charge, he was indicted on a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter as an option for jurors during trial[/B].[/QUOTE]
That's what he should be charged with. 100% guilty of that one there, but not murder.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48327499]Do you call that a slippery slope?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean? A slippery slope would be saying "Ban all cars, if we allow them then before you know it everyone will get run over." I'm making a direct statement about the officer being in more danger of being run over than Killuah is under the impression of and stating.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48327474]Why should people risk losing an appendage so a malicious person can live to take it?[/QUOTE]
What? did the car just grab one leg or an arm?
If that's the case and the driver doesn't stop, then I'll shut up, but if you held onto the car and then shot the driver: You are an asshole. Because the other way to avoid injury would be: Let the car go.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48327482]Also I think it's up to the trial to judge if the evidence is evidence for murder or not but nevertheless the cop fucked up.[/QUOTE]
I think the officer acted perfectly within U.S. laws, and that is all he needed to do.
[QUOTE=Sonador;48327489]I'd be more likely to use a less terse tone with you if you weren't being obtuse and replying to my open ended question with a vapidly brainless snark.
A police officer is charged with the general protection of the public and allowing a noncooperative subject directly disobeying his instructions to continue operating a motor vehicle presumably without a license would be extremely likely to cause the public danger and/or harm. The officer [I]did his job[/I] in attempting to remove the keys from the vehicle or stop the motor, and in the process the subject did something to provoke the officer to kill him.
I'm not sure what caused that and the only person who can answer that would be the suspect and the officer. We'll know exactly what that was when the trial gets to that point. Everything else, my theories included, are solely conjecture.
Vehicles, as you might know, have steering wheels. Steering wheels change the direction of the vehicle, and knowing that, we know the vehicle could move in a direction other than straight forward. Knowing that, we can infer that the officer was not just in danger of being passed or having his feet run over; the vehicle could have rolled left, knocked the officer over, and with the rear tires following the shortest distance to the front tires, run over the officer bodily. Oh, and by the way, crushing someone's foot is great bodily injury, that could possibly be a permanently disabling injury that could leave to officer out of work for the rest of his life.
I think you've pretty accurately demonstrated you're in no position to determine who 'fucked up' in this situation given I just had to explain that to you.[/QUOTE]
You really hadn't.
Your little "wow do I have to tell you that cars can be steered" text here is pretty passive agressive and honestly not very convincing. You either really think I don't know cars which would be damn stupid or you used it as a rhetoric tool in which case it's pretty uncreative, belitteling and unproductive so yeah.
I will really not accept that jumping towards the vehicle, reaching into it and shooting the driver is safer than the alternative of just jumping a step or two back.
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48327547]I think the officer acted perfectly within U.S. laws, and that is all he needed to do.[/QUOTE]
That's not decided yet.
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48327520]Ok, I see now, it was bad reading on my part.
Also:
That's what he should be charged with. 100% guilty of that one there, but not murder.[/QUOTE]
They probably used both, the worse as well as the most accurate one(second) so the judge is more likely to pick the second.
It looks like he tried to drive off, possibly turning into the officer slightly. It looks like the officer tried to step along with the vehicle slightly, then held on while drawing his pistol and fired a shot because he lost his balance. It's possible he thought that Dubois would try and turn over him or reverse over him after he fell over. He probably didn't have time to think very rationally in the couple of seconds it took for him to process that the car was moving and he was about to go over. I can see why he might have considered himself to be in danger, especially in the heat of the moment. Calling it murder is pretty ridiculous.
I'm not saying I agree with shooting someone simply for trying to drive off, but I have a different attitude to policing. This happened in America and should be judged by their equally valid standards.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48327564]You really hadn't.
Your little "wow do I have to tell you that cars can be steered" text here is pretty passive agressive and honestly not very convincing. You either really think I don't know cars which would be damn stupid or you used it as a rhetoric tool in which case it's pretty uncreative, belitteling and unproductive so yeah.[/QUOTE]
So is your prattling about it. If you don't like my tone, you're more than welcome to ignore me. I shouldn't have to explain to you that a vehicle can change directions in order to disprove your opinion that the officer was not in danger, that is common sense.
I honestly don't know if I would have acted the same way, either, however, stating that the officer was not in danger is a logical fallacy.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;48327596]It looks like he tried to drive off, possibly turning into the officer slightly. It looks like the officer tried to step along with the vehicle slightly, then held on while drawing his pistol and fired a shot because he lost his balance. It's possible he thought that Dubois would try and turn over him or reverse over him after he fell over. He probably didn't have time to think very rationally in the couple of seconds it took for him to process that the car was moving and he was about to go over. I can see why he might have considered himself to be in danger, especially in the heat of the moment. Calling it murder is pretty ridiculous.
I'm not saying I agree with shooting someone simply for trying to drive off, but I have a different attitude to policing. This happened in America and should be judged by their equally valid standards.[/QUOTE]
I agree that it's not murder but he reacted totaly wrong.
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sonador;48327614]So is your prattling about it. If you don't like my tone, you're more than welcome to ignore me. I shouldn't have to explain to you that a vehicle can change directions in order to disprove your opinion that the officer was not in danger, that is common sense.
I honestly don't know if I would have acted the same way, either, however, stating that the officer was not in danger is a logical fallacy.[/QUOTE]
ok yeah agree but reaching into the car is really not the right solution to the danger of being dragged along/under.
he fucked up
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48326855]So because a criminal is going to flee cops pull out weapons? That's kinda scary to think about.[/QUOTE]
yeah? so a criminal flees then you just let him go? You do realize criminals don't want to be caught right?
If a criminal, or suspected criminal is going to try and run when they're in that situation, a gun is likely to be drawn as a threat to stop trying to flee. It's a fairly standard thing honestly.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48327622]I agree that it's not murder but he reacted totaly wrong.[/QUOTE]
By European standards I would say he acted wrongly. As a Brit I would say you don't need to shoot someone for driving off, because in all likelihood they'll go down for it later on - but Americans have a different attitude, and in America I wouldn't expect the officer to let him drive off.
I mean really, by American standards where he is not going to let the vehicle drive away, he could have done two things - stepped back and dumped his mag into the vehicle like you see in police videos constantly, or reached into the car and try to turn off the ignition. The guy obviously went for the option of not shooting the guy just for turning on the ignition, but then got scared when the guy tried to drive off while he was reaching into the vehicle and being dragged along with it, in the process of falling over.
He didn't want to shoot him, he sincerely just wanted him to stop being a fuckwit and not try to drive away from him, then he got scared. I'd say that is a lot more noble than stepping back and mag dumping someone.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48327536]What? did the car just grab one leg or an arm?
If that's the case and the driver doesn't stop, then I'll shut up, but if you held onto the car and then shot the driver: You are an asshole. Because the other way to avoid injury would be: Let the car go.[/QUOTE]
According to the officer later on in the video, his hand was caught. His only mistake was reaching in when he turned the car on, but that was not illegal, and it did not absolve the driver of the responsibility to stop. Later on in the video he complained that his arm was in pain, so it is viable that his wrist or forearm got stuck between the window frame and another part of the vehicle when he withdrew his firearm.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48327669]If a criminal, or suspected criminal is going to try and run when they're in that situation, a gun is likely to be drawn as a threat[/QUOTE]
You're a little off, most times when a gun is drawn, it's because of a perceived threat or the likely impending emergence of said threat. Police officers are required to use their weapons [I]defensively,[/I] be it in the defense of their own life or limb or someone else's. They haven't been able to arbitrarily use their guns as a threat or shoot people trying to flee since the 1940's.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;48327683]By European standards I would say he acted wrongly. As a Brit I would say you don't need to shoot someone for driving off, because in all likelihood they'll go down for it later on - but Americans have a different attitude, and in America I wouldn't expect the officer to let him drive off.
I mean really, by American standards where he is not going to let the vehicle drive away, he could have done two things - stepped back and dumped his mag into the vehicle like you see in police videos constantly, or reached into the car and try to turn off the ignition. The guy obviously went for the option of not shooting the guy just for turning on the ignition, but then for scared when the guy tried to drive off while he was reaching into the vehicle and being dragged along with it, falling over.
He didn't want to shoot him, he sincerely just wanted him to stop being a fuckwit and not try to drive away from him, then he got scared. I'd say that is a lot more noble than stepping back and mag dumping someone.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty levelheaded argument for someone across the pond, and my own theory of events pretty much matches up. I'm curious, do you read up on police theory and things or watch a lot of crime/police procedure TV from the US?
Nah I still think policing is retarded in the colonies but you need to respect, empathise and understand different beliefs.
Standard procedure in this kind of scenario would be to shoot out the tires as soon as they show that they're going to flee, right? It seems he willingly put himself into a dangerous situation in this case making it necessary to use deadly force.
[QUOTE=nox;48327786]Standard procedure in this kind of scenario would be to shoot out the tires as soon as they show that they're going to flee, right? It seems he put himself into a dangerous situation in this one so I don't feel the killing was justified or neccesary.[/QUOTE]
This is inherently dangerous to the public and is prohibited by most modern policies now after cops shooting tires have caused things ranging from exploding tires shattering cops' ankles to suspects/bystanders dying after the blowout causes the suspect to lose control of the car. Some places still do it, by in my experience the majority of them are sheriffs and troopers out in the boonies.
e: 1,000th
EDUCATION MOTHERFUCKER
[QUOTE=nox;48327786]Standard procedure in this kind of scenario would be to shoot out the tires as soon as they show that they're going to flee, right? It seems he put himself into a dangerous situation in this one so I don't feel the killing was justified or neccesary.[/QUOTE]
Shooting tires doesn't do shit, this isn't GTA, standard procedure would be to stop the vehicle by replacing some of the drivers chest with air.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
