Full bodycam footage of Dubose shooting released - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;48328535]If they can hurt someone else, which Samuel very well could have, yes, it was right in this case. If they could hurt me, yes, which the officer felt in this case. Is it okay to kill someone for running away with a pound of heroin? I would say yes, because that person can cause a lot of harm to people that may do heroin. Is it okay to kill someone for running away for something any less than that? Likely not. I would agree with you on this in most cases, but this is not one of them. It is normally not necessary to kill in order to subdue. This man would have pulled that officer along, he would have to run back to his car, and start the chase, and a highspeed chase has a way higher chance of causing damage to the public than a guy getting shot in the head.[/QUOTE] he could hurt someone else with his car just as much as you could hurt someone driving. while driving without a license in theory makes you more likely to do so, it does not justify murder. killing someone for drug possession? well I'll just stop here because we clearly fundamentally disagree. [editline]29th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=dragon1972;48328555]It is morally okay to defend yourself from assault using deadly force. "Resisting arrest" is really broad, because its possible to non-violently resist arrest. If the officer was not already grabbing onto the vehicle and attempting to extract the suspect from the car as he started accelerating the officer would have no cause to use deadly force; however, the suspect began accelerating with the officer grabbing onto the car. This potentially endangered the officer as his legs or feet could be run over, or the car could suddenly veer toward him due to the suspect attempting to fight off the officer. The suspect is physically resisting the officers attempts at opening the door and unbuckling the seat belt while he starts the engine, so yes there are myriad ways this situation places the officer in danger.[/QUOTE] assault using what? I'm sorry my friend but this is kind of funny to me. His feet could be run over haha.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328543]he did not even motion for a weapon, and while the car COULD be a weapon, in that position it would have had to magically strafe to the left. [/quote] I never said he motioned for a weapon. [quote] while he may be hiding drugs or what have you, you don't get shot for having drugs so that's a moot point in my eyes.[/quote] Thats great because its not even a point I made. [quote] as far as high speed chases are concerned, I believe police shouldn't chase vehicles.[/QUOTE] And then the suspect promptly runs over a family of five.

I give up. I completely give up. Thank you to everyone who's maintained a reasonable point of view, even if you don't think the cop was in the right. People like you are few and far between. I work in public safety. Situations like these are ones that I might have to face on a daily basis. People like Killuah who are impunitively ignorant and take explanation as personal offense and Verdicardi that think tumblr memes are appropriate to bring into a serious discussion about a questionable law enforcement use of force make me worry deeply about my safety should I ever have to face a lethal threat. Someone died. Act like you have a god damn brain in your head and show some respect. I understand if you don't think he was in the right. I also have my qualms about how it was handled. That doesn't give me the grounds to say [I]yeah this was totally unjustified[/I] or [I]he was completely in the wrong.[/I] He's not. I've gone over why and explained each of my arguments, but just like in every cop thread, there are people that are literally unable to not post plain hatred or bigotry towards cops. I get it, I'm probably overreacting to the postings of children on an internet forum about a physics sandbox videogame, but it's not just here, it's in any public forum anywhere with all walks of life. Blind cop hate is so fucking unjustified, baseless, and completely bereft of logical thought it stuns me every time I see it. Like cops or not, show some damn respect and listen to the people that have experience. Maybe you'll learn something.

[QUOTE=dragon1972;48328496]The danger that you observe is irrelevant, all that matters is that the officer personally felt he was in danger. A vehicle has capability to do serious harm, the suspect was not complying, and he attempted to drive away while the officer was attempting to control the suspect. The officer felt he was in danger, and it's not your call to say that he wasn't.[/QUOTE] Oh great Now I feel in danger SO shoot to kill. Completely justified... What I learned today from this thread: Don't move your arms. You could get shot. Arms can be used to Ippon seoi nage or Uchi mata someone and break a pair of ribs and vertebrae. Don't blink. You could get shot. Eyes are used to aim guns and direct attacks towards people. Don't gesticulate and speak. You could get shot. Words and motions can be used to distract and attack someone.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328562]he could hurt someone else with his car just as much as you could hurt someone driving. while driving without a license in theory makes you more likely to do so, it does not justify murder. killing someone for drug possession? well I'll just stop here because we clearly fundamentally disagree. [editline]29th July 2015[/editline] assault using what? I'm sorry my friend but this is kind of funny to me. His feet could be run over haha.[/QUOTE] I'm answering your hypothetical. When I said "assault" I meant in general. Assaulting an officer is grounds for use of deadly force. We can also sit here and ponder "what ifs" until the world stops turning, but the officer doesn't have time in that situation to consider every possible way he could be injured. Take into account how fast the events in the video played out. The officer had very little time to judge whether he was in actual danger as the suspect resisted the officer's attempts at extraction, and accelerated the car with him hanging on.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;48328569]I never said he motioned for a weapon. Thats great because its not even a point I made. And then the suspect promptly runs over a family of five.[/QUOTE] if you say so.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328562]he could hurt someone else with his car just as much as you could hurt someone driving. while driving without a license in theory makes you more likely to do so, it does not justify murder. killing someone for drug possession? well I'll just stop here because we clearly fundamentally disagree.[/quote] Because clearly someone fleeing from the police is going to drive like a rational person. [quote] assault using what? I'm sorry my friend but this is kind of funny to me. His feet could be run over haha.[/QUOTE] "Running over his feet" is only one of the myriad of possibilities in this scenario. What if the driver backed over him? [editline]29th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328580]if you say so.[/QUOTE] Thats some brilliant rebuttal. [editline]29th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48328571]Oh great Now I feel in danger SO shoot to kill. Completely justified...[/QUOTE] Also a great rebuttal

that's ad hominem if I've ever seen it!

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48328571]Oh great Now I feel in danger SO shoot to kill. Completely justified...[/QUOTE] You're taking my statement out of context. I was talking about situations in which there is capability and probable cause for use of deadly force, such as this one.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328543]with that same logic, the driver could just be "scared." it doesn't mean anything. it's no justification.[/QUOTE]Which was exactly my point. [QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328543]it will get you in trouble, but it is not something that justifies murder.[/QUOTE]Reckless driving endangers other people, by definition it's just one accident away from vehicular manslaughter. So with that having been said it is entirely justified if somebody shoots a driver to protect themselves. [QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328543]and I'm asking you is it ok for someone to kill someone else if they are resisting arrest.[/QUOTE]Only if the person resisting severely threatens the safety and life of other people, be they the police, hostages, or bystanders. [editline]additionally[/editline] Do take note the emphasis on self-protection or the protection of others in my post, Vedicardi. Picking off a driver who's swerving and speeding on an abandoned rural road is not the same as shooting the driver of a car who's dragging your body along in the middle of the street.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48328571]Oh great Now I feel in danger SO shoot to kill. Completely justified...[/QUOTE] Case in point. Instead of venting completely pointless sarcastic cop hate, actually think. If I walk up to someone on a stop and they pull out an unloaded airsoft gun or replica gun and points it at me, am I in danger? Absolutely not. Should I fear for my life? Absolutely. In this case I am not in danger, feel that I am in mortal danger, and if I shoot the man to save my own life, I'm completely justified. I'm not going to wait for him to shoot and show it's a real gun before I remove that threat. I'm not going to wait until Sam DuBose drives over me and crushes my pelvis, making me unable to walk for life before I remove that threat.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328590]that's ad hominem if I've ever seen it![/QUOTE] That's some serious "I have nothing to refute what you said so I'm going to attempt witty commentary instead" if I've ever seen it!

[QUOTE=Kyle902;48328603]That's some serious "I have nothing to refute what you said so I'm going to attempt witty commentary instead" if I've ever seen it![/QUOTE] Fight fire with fire my friend

We should just ignore Vedicardi, he has a history of "stirring dumb arguments on purpose". We're just feeding him at this point.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328605]Fight fire with fire my friend[/QUOTE] At this point you can actually see the semicoherent argument devolve into meaningless rebuttals that have no bearing on the conversation.

well I already said I'm out of the conversation since you guys clearly believe if an officer "thinks" he is in danger he can do whatever he likes, while I disagree. That's all.

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328616]well I already said I'm out of the conversation since you guys clearly believe if an officer "thinks" he is in danger he can do whatever he likes, while I disagree. That's all.[/QUOTE] If you're out of the conversation then why are you still posting.

[QUOTE=dragon1972;48328591]You're taking my statement out of context. I was talking about situations in which there is capability and probable cause for use of deadly force, such as this one.[/QUOTE] The guy was escaping and he held into the seat belt. Your argument would totally valid if: -The officer had fell and saw the car stop. -The car turned around and went towards the officer. -The guy pulled something out of the window and aimed towards the officer. This situation, is exactly the same as one officer shooting a guy who is running away with a gun, but holstered. Yes, he might have a gun, but is he in such a position to hurt the cop? Has he given a clear signal he wants to hurt the cop? And if your argument is "Well he could have been hurt so he was totally justified". Again, he was grabbing the seat belt and could have easily stepped off. [QUOTE]Case in point. Instead of venting completely pointless sarcastic cop hate, actually think. If I walk up to someone on a stop and they pull out an unloaded airsoft gun or replica gun and points it at me, am I in danger? Absolutely not. Should I fear for my life? Absolutely. In this case I am not in danger, feel that I am in mortal danger, and if I shoot the man to save my own life, I'm completely justified. I'm not going to wait for him to shoot and show it's a real gun before I remove that threat. I'm not going to wait until Sam DuBose drives over me and crushes my pelvis, making e unable to walk for life before I remove that threat.[/QUOTE] Yes, don't worry. I do think. If I need someone to stop a car, don't worry, I will not grab his fucking seatbelt. And it isn't cop hate. Ironic you ask me to think when you aren't able to see it was a sarcastic answer to what the guy posted.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;48328619]If you're out of the conversation then why are you still posting.[/QUOTE] why are you responding to my posts? haha. I'm just commenting on the nature of the discourse [editline]29th July 2015[/editline] you're not obligated to respond to me [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Trolling again. You blew your birthday unban, doofus!" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

the cop should have waited until he was almost dead and then gone super saiyan

[QUOTE=abcpea;48328634]the cop should have waited until he was almost dead and then gone super saiyan[/QUOTE] now that I can agree with

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48328620]The guy was escaping and he held into the seat belt. Your argument would totally valid if: -The officer had fell and saw the car stop. -The car turned around and went towards the officer. -The guy pulled something out of the window and aimed towards the officer. This situation, is exactly the same as one officer shooting a guy who is running away with a gun, but holstered. Yes, he might have a gun, but is he in such a position to hurt the cop? Has he given a clear signal he wants to hurt the cop? And if your argument is "Well he could have been hurt so he was totally justified". Again, he was grabbing the seat belt and could have easily stepped off. Yes, don't worry. I do think. If I need someone to stop a car, don't worry, I will not grab his fucking seatbelt. And it isn't cop hate. Ironic you ask me to think when you aren't able to see it was a sarcastic answer to what the guy posted.[/QUOTE] It's pretty standard to attempt to extract an uncooperative suspect from the vehicle. The officer could not have possibly predicted that he would start the car and attempt to drive away. He was grabbing the seatbelt before the car was turned on, the suspect turned the car on after he was grabbed.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48328620]The guy was escaping and he held into the seat belt. Your argument totally valid if: -The officer had fell and saw the car stop. -The car turned around and went towards the officer. -The guy pulled something out of the window and aimed towards the officer. This situation, is exactly the same as one officer shooting a guy who is running away with a gun, but holstered. Yes, he might have a gun, but is he in such a position to hurt the cop? Has he given a clear signal he wants to hurt the cop? And if your argument is "Well he could have been hurt so he was totally justified". Again, he was grabbing the seat belt and could have easily stepped off.[/QUOTE] Lets take a step back from the minutia of detail and look at the greater whole of this situation shall we. For a moment lets say the officer let the, clearly hiding something and clearly non-compliant, driver drive off. Assuming the driver doesn't promptly back over the officer he's clearly not going to stop any time soon. Anyways the officer starts pursuing the driver of the vehicle in a chase scenario. This alone makes him a danger to the public. The officer made a split second decision based on the few verifiable facts he had on hand. These facts being that: 1. The driver is non-compliant 2. The driver clearly intends to flee in a motor vehicle 3. The driver is potentially hiding a weapon in the car. These three facts alone are enough for the officer to seriously consider the possible threat the driver is to both him and the general public. The officer did not intend to "murder" the suspect. The suspect forced the officers hand in this scenario. [editline]29th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328626]why are you responding to my posts? haha. I'm just commenting on the nature of the discourse [editline]29th July 2015[/editline] you're not obligated to respond to me[/QUOTE] Just as you're not obligated to continue partaking in the conversation you continually say you are no longer a part of.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;48328645] Just as you're not obligated to continue partaking in the conversation you continually say you are no longer a part of.[/QUOTE] I'm discussing the discussion itself haha

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48328620]-yet another ridiculous post-[/QUOTE][url]http://articles.latimes.com/2000/feb/23/news/mn-1731[/url] [url]http://wtvr.com/2013/05/19/accident-report-man-ejected-from-vehicle-run-over/[/url] [url]http://www.thejournal.ie/south-africa-hijacking-boy-killed-1581531-Jul2014/[/url] Apparently I was mistaken in my belief that this isn't hard to figure out, so here I am demonstrating that people can easily get dragged by cars and it's not good for their health. Do you need more examples?

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;48328658]I'm discussing the discussion itself haha[/QUOTE] Thats a great way of saying that you're still in the conversation while trying to insinuate that you no longer want to post about it.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;48328663]Thats a great way of saying that you're still in the conversation while trying to insinuate that you no longer want to post about it.[/QUOTE] Well I disagree sir.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;48328645]Just as you're not obligated to continue partaking in the conversation you continually say you are no longer a part of.[/QUOTE] Honestly, just stop replying to him and report him. He'll keep posting so long as he has an audience. Also, another soultion [url=http://facepunch.com/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=62127]in convenient link form[/url]

[QUOTE=Sonador;48328669]Honestly, just stop replying to him and report him. He'll keep posting so long as he has an audience.[/QUOTE] But then who can I be snarky towards?

[QUOTE=Sonador;48328669]Honestly, just stop replying to him and report him. He'll keep posting so long as he has an audience.[/QUOTE] Report me for what now? Huh?