[QUOTE=shad0w440;48333444]Have you ever seen a high speed chase where someone running from law enforcement stops at a stop light?, All the ones I see they always attempt to drive around obstacles if they even slow down at all.
[B][B]Not to mention 65 years ago the idea of an officer NOT drawing their weapon on an unarmed detained civilian that chose to run was more or less unheard of.
[/B][/B]
If people simply cooperated there would be no need for lethal force to factor into the interaction at all. The only difference nowadays is people feel that arguing with police or resisting detainment is somehow going to work out for them, if you think you did nothing wrong we have a place for you to talk about that, a courthouse. Not to mention bodycams can support a civilians argument just as much as it can an officers in a peaceful arrest without any incidents.
[B][U]If you HAVE to absolutely blame someone for how police handle situations, blame the trigger happy criminals through the years that warranted and justified the need for such drastic sounding measures to be taken to ensure the safety of the officer[/U][/B].[/QUOTE]
Its not like there once was a time when we had fair due process - you said it yourself. So no, the 'drastic measures' did not emerge as some draconian response to increase police safety, it has been standard operating procedure for the better part of a century. The US needs police reform, plain and simple. This type of behavior can no longer be business as usual.
maybe he tried to run because he was afraid of this officer shooting him ( i dont know why he would ever be afraid of this cop pulling a gun on him am i right )
[QUOTE=willer;48333452]Didn't read the part where I said he should have made it more clear that he had his gun out- or the part where I said he shouldn't have had his gun out in the first place.
People who run away from police ARE a threat to everyone around them. I don't understand how people can't get that. People die all the time even when they follow all the rules just from stupid mistakes- is it ok for an untrained civilian under a lot of pressure to be allowed to drive like a maniac in a neighborhood? The cop is in the wrong for doing his best to keep that from happening?
They are trained to have their guns ready because this is America, where almost anybody can have a gun. This isn't like in Europe where there's a very good chance that nobody will have a gun- shootings happen all the time and cops have to deal with that. If that doesn't seem like a job worth having to you then congratulations: you have some sense of self-preservation. How many people would raise their hands when asked [B][U]"Do you want to put your life in danger every day by dealing with people at their worst, in a country where guns are cheap and common, for not that great of pay?"[/QUOTE]
[/U][/B]
So increase their pay! Saying we don't pay them a lot should not be a justification for letting them murder unarmed civilians. What even is your arguement here??
And no, it is notokay for an "untrained civilian" (whatever that means) to "drive like a maniac". That does not mean that the recourse to that is lethal force. So YES, the cop is in the wrong for KILLING SOMEONE.
And I did read your post, you are trying to find a common middle ground where you both disagree with what the officer does but aren't arguing for change in law or condemation. That is where we disagree. If you think what the officer did was moral or acceptable then we disagree, if you deplore his behavior and wish for police reform that doesnt let an armed officer of the law use lethal force against an unarmed civilian , EVEN IF They ARE RUNNING AWAY, then we are in agreement.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48333790]Its not like there once was a time when we had fair due process - you said it yourself. So no, the 'drastic measures' did not emerge as some draconian response to increase police safety, it has been standard operating procedure for the better part of a century. The US needs police reform, plain and simple. This type of behavior can no longer be business as usual.[/QUOTE]
Do you also think the US needs to also teach people to be compliant with police officers?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48333863]Do you also think the US needs to also teach people to be compliant with police officers?[/QUOTE]
... Sure? But if they aren't compliant I don't think the punishment should be death.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48333936]... Sure? But if they aren't compliant I don't think the punishment should be death.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that's why he was indicted.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48333818][/U][/B]
So increase their pay! Saying we don't pay them a lot should not be a justification for letting them murder unarmed civilians. What even is your arguement here??
And no, it is notokay for an "untrained civilian" (whatever that means) to "drive like a maniac". That does not mean that the recourse to that is lethal force. So YES, the cop is in the wrong for KILLING SOMEONE.
And I did read your post, you are trying to find a common middle ground where you both disagree with what the officer does but aren't arguing for change in law or condemation. That is where we disagree. If you think what the officer did was moral or acceptable then we disagree, if you deplore his behavior and wish for police reform that doesnt let an armed officer of the law use lethal force against an unarmed civilian , EVEN IF They ARE RUNNING AWAY, then we are in agreement.[/QUOTE]
Every post that I've submitted in this thread I've talked about changing the laws and practices. I agree that we should reform out police force! I just don't like all these absolutes that people just toss around, where the unholy officer did everything wrong and murdered an innocent man, or where some underhanded little hooligan pushed his luck too far and learned the hard way that you don't try to challenge authority. I don't like situations where both parties did something wrong and everyone huddles into their two camps to ignore their own faults while nitpicking all the faults of the other side.
Obviously it's not ok to run away from the police- the police are here for everyone's safety and well-being, and if you do something that could harm or kill random innocent bystanders you'll have big problems with them.
Obviously it's not ok to kill a man just for running away- he's just trying to get away and although he might accidentally hurt somebody he's not going out of his way to cause mass chaos.
Cops are human beings too and they have to deal with these conflicting values in real time. Expecting better of people when they're put into these situations is like expecting every single accountant to not make a single miscalculation- calculations are what they do. Police officers have to handle dangerous situations- this officer made a move, his subject made a move, and suddenly he's caught hanging onto a runaway vehicle while the driver has a gun pointed at his head. Now there are tons of people shouting that he's a murderer and he planned this and he deserves to rot in jail because of what he did.
I'm leaning on the side of the cop because I can understand everything that he did. He didn't want a dangerous chase so he reached for the keys. He didn't want to be caught without his gun like the officers in all those videos they show trainees, so he kept his hand on his gun. In the end the biggest mistake that was made was that DuBose decided to run away- he started his car even though he knew he was in a traffic stop, he kept the door closed even though he had to wrestle it away from the cop to do so, he put the car in drive even though the cop was reaching in and turning the car off himself, and now there are people who are saying he didn't deserve to be killed, even though EVERYONE knows that in an intense situation like this anything could happen.
[QUOTE=gastyne;48331512]The cop shouldn't have stopped him in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand how policing works.
[QUOTE=willer;48334022]
I'm leaning on the side of the cop because I can understand everything that he did. He didn't want a dangerous chase so he reached for the keys. He didn't want to be caught without his gun like the officers in all those videos they show trainees, so he kept his hand on his gun. In the end the biggest mistake that was made was that DuBose decided to run away- he started his car even though he knew he was in a traffic stop, he kept the door closed even though he had to wrestle it away from the cop to do so, he put the car in drive even though the cop was reaching in and turning the car off himself, and now there are people who are saying he didn't deserve to be killed, even though EVERYONE knows that in an intense situation like this anything could happen.[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this ONLY happens because of the way that they train officers and the expectations of when lethal force is appropriate. He had his gun drawn because he feared for his life ... why? Debuose was incredibly passive and respectful until he started to drive away. And he shot him in the head... why? What was the reason? At one point did he think his life was in danger so he had the need to fire his weapon? This is the problem. You are saying, "Oh it was a stressful stuation, I can see why he fired his weapon." I have NO IDEA why we would train people to think that, in that kind of situation, an officer should use his or her weapon. The biggest mistake that was made was when Debose decided to run away? Bull. Shit. The biggest mistake that was made was when the officer a.) Drew his gun, b.) Raised it to Debose's head, and c.) Shot him, point blank.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48333961]I'm pretty sure that's why he was indicted.[/QUOTE]
There are still laws in place that allow officers to shoot people that flee, those laws need to be removed. I am glad he was indicted. I do not think he will end up being charged which is why the laws need to be changed, and officers need to be retrained.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48334099] The biggest mistake that was made was when Debose decided to run away? Bull. Shit. The biggest mistake that was made was when the officer a.) Drew his gun, b.) Raised it to Debose's head, and c.) Shot him, point blank.
[/QUOTE]
How about, instead of the officer being in the wrong for making sure he was ready for anything when pulling someone over, the person who ignores multiple orders and tries to drive away with a cop hanging from his car be the person who is at fault? For how much people shout out that cops are dangerous and for how visible their gun is, why do people just assume that they can get away with bullshit ideas? Why is it ok to drag a police officer around while he's hanging on for dear life, but not ok for the officer to react, poorly or not, to being in that situation?
It would be different if he just tried to run away on foot, because then he wouldn't have put the cop in such a situation, but he didn't. He wrestled with the cop and tried to speed away while the guy was still half in the vehicle.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48334099]Stuff like this ONLY happens because of the way that they train officers and the expectations of when lethal force is appropriate. He had his gun drawn because he feared for his life ... why? Debuose was incredibly passive and respectful until he started to drive away. And he shot him in the head... why? What was the reason? At one point did he think his life was in danger so he had the need to fire his weapon? This is the problem. You are saying, "Oh it was a stressful stuation, I can see why he fired his weapon." I have NO IDEA why we would train people to think that, in that kind of situation, an officer should use his or her weapon. The biggest mistake that was made was when Debose decided to run away? Bull. Shit. The biggest mistake that was made was when the officer a.) Drew his gun, b.) Raised it to Debose's head, and c.) Shot him, point blank.
There are still laws in place that allow officers to shoot people that flee, those laws need to be removed. I am glad he was indicted. I do not think he will end up being charged which is why the laws need to be changed, and officers need to be retrained.[/QUOTE]
He was being dragged by the vehicle, putting him in a life-threatening situation. Killing Dubose ended the situation. He got dragged more than a few feet. Ten meters is not a few feet. Dubose would not have died if he did not try to drive away while an officer was stuck in his vehicle. He was trained to fire his weapon because he could have easily gotten crushed by the rear left tire of the vehicle otherwise. The officer even states that he thought he was going to get hit and that his arm was in a position where it was in extreme pain, so there was obviously something keeping it from freely flying out of the vehicle. When the situation ended, he constantly complains about his arm and implies that the circulation got cut off by something. He is also exhibiting signs of adrenaline secretion, so he was probably afraid. He was afraid for his life and had a reason to be afraid for his life, so he was allowed to use lethal force. That's how it works in America, and that's how I'd like it to remain in America. Just because the shot was point-blank doesn't matter. Remember that video with the insane Christians? The officer put his gun to the back of the head of the man who was wrestling with his co-worker and pulled the trigger. Nobody complained and no charges were filed because the Christian was putting the other officer's life in danger.
[QUOTE=willer;48334162]How about, instead of the officer being in the wrong for making sure he was ready for anything when pulling someone over, the person who ignores multiple orders and tries to drive away with a cop hanging from his car be the person who is at fault? For how much people shout out that cops are dangerous and for how visible their gun is, why do people just assume that they can get away with bullshit ideas? Why is it ok to drag a police officer around while he's hanging on for dear life, but not ok for the officer to react, poorly or not, to being in that situation?
It would be different if he just tried to run away on foot, because then he wouldn't have put the cop in such a situation, but he didn't. He wrestled with the cop and tried to speed away while the guy was still half in the vehicle.[/QUOTE]
"Wrestled with the cop" - oh did he? When was that? Look at your language dude, come on. He resisted attempts to have an officer open his door, unbuckle his seat belt, and take his keys out. Thats wrestling with an officer? Ok.
"Hanging on for dear life" - are we watching the same video?? Its not like he had to choose between getting run over and shooting Debose in the head. He could have backed the fuck up when the car started to speed by. And if he WAS holding on for dear life, how the hell would shooting Debose in the head resolve that situation?? If you watch the video, the car ACCELERATES after he shoots him, you know... because the body spasms when a bullet goes through your brain. This was an officer who was UPSET that Debose was trying to get away, had a gun ready in his hand (as he was trained to do) and decided to use it.
Raising your hands above your head I'm sure you might call a 'threatening gesture' - obviously im being fascicious here, but look at the way your rhetoric crafts the scene from an unethical part on behalf of the officer to the only option available.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48334230]He was being dragged by the vehicle, putting him in a life-threatening situation. Killing Dubose ended the situation. He got dragged more than a few feet. Ten meters is not a few feet. Dubose would not have died if he did not try to drive away while an officer was stuck in his vehicle. He was trained to fire his weapon because he could have easily gotten crushed by the rear left tire of the vehicle otherwise. The officer even states that he thought he was going to get hit and that his arm was in a position where it was in extreme pain, so there was obviously something keeping it from freely flying out of the vehicle. When the situation ended, he constantly complains about his arm and implies that the circulation got cut off by something. He is also exhibiting signs of adrenaline secretion, so he was probably afraid. He was afraid for his life and had a reason to be afraid for his life, so he was allowed to use lethal force. That's how it works in America, and that's how I'd like it to remain in America. Just because the shot was point-blank doesn't matter. Remember that video with the insane Christians? The officer put his gun to the back of the head of the man who was wrestling with his co-worker and pulled the trigger. Nobody complained and no charges were filed because the Christian was putting the other officer's life in danger.[/QUOTE]
1.) His training is wrong. Shooting him would do nothing to increase his safety. In fact, one less hand for balance would probably increase the likelyhood he slides under the car.
2.) Adrenaline. He shot someone. I'm sure he did fear for his life ... for no fucking reason. From the moment the stop begins you can tell that the officer is already contemplating the absolute worst case scenario. Letting officers fire when they fear for their lives is the acceptable standard? How about athreshold for when their lives (or others) are ACTUALLY in danger?
That line, "I thought he was going to run me over." Was all it took for him to decide lethal force was necessary ... nevermind that the front of the car wasn't even pointed at his direction.
The standard for when police are allowed to use lethal force is too low, and is resulting in death penalties for what should be only a few months in the county jail. Its a blood thirsty approach to the world where we assume the potential safety of an officer (determined exclusively by their perception) outweighs someone's lease on life.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48334404]"Wrestled with the cop" - oh did he? When was that? Look at your language dude, come on. He resisted attempts to have an officer open his door, unbuckle his seat belt, and take his keys out. Thats wrestling with an officer? Ok.
"Hanging on for dear life" - are we watching the same video?? Its not like he had to choose between getting run over and shooting Debose in the head. He could have backed the fuck up when the car started to speed by. And if he WAS holding on for dear life, how the hell would shooting Debose in the head resolve that situation?? If you watch the video, the car ACCELERATES after he shoots him, you know... because the body spasms when a bullet goes through your brain. This was an officer who was UPSET that Debose was trying to get away, had a gun ready in his hand (as he was trained to do) and decided to use it.
Raising your hands above your head I'm sure you might call a 'threatening gesture' - obviously im being fascicious here, but look at the way your rhetoric crafts the scene from an unethical part on behalf of the officer to the only option available.
1.) His training is wrong. Shooting him would do nothing to increase his safety. In fact, one less hand for balance would probably increase the likelyhood he slides under the car.
2.) Adrenaline. He shot someone. I'm sure he did fear for his life ... for no fucking reason. From the moment the stop begins you can tell that the officer is already contemplating the absolute worst case scenario. Letting officers fire when they fear for their lives is the acceptable standard? How about athreshold for when their lives (or others) are ACTUALLY in danger?
That line, "I thought he was going to run me over." Was all it took for him to decide lethal force was necessary ... nevermind that the front of the car wasn't even pointed at his direction.
The standard for when police are allowed to use lethal force is too low, and is resulting in death penalties for what should be only a few months in the county jail. Its a blood thirsty approach to the world where we assume the potential safety of an officer (determined exclusively by their perception) outweighs someone's lease on life.[/QUOTE]
You're forgetting that he thought that he was actually in danger, and he was. It doesn't matter at all that the car was pointed in his direction. It could have still hit him if he fell underneath it. The only thing he felt that he could have done was to incapacitate the driver, so that's what he did. There was no reason to expect him to think perfectly in that situation, and he should not be punished for the situation's outcome at all. Regardless, his training wasn't necessarily wrong and he didn't necessarily make the incorrect choice. Continuing to allow Dubose to control the vehicle would essentially allow Dubose control over his person, which every single officer, self-defense specialist, military instructor, and security guard in the country would tell you to avoid at all costs, even if it means shooting someone point-blank. He had a reason to fear for his life, and you can't say he didn't without being disingenuous about what you saw in the video. He got dragged a distance of at least just over ten meters in less than two seconds. There's no way in hell he could have willfully kept up with the vehicle on foot if it was going that fast.
The safety of an officer does outweigh the life of a suspect who is clearly disregarding their safety. Officers are trained to put their lives first, not second, under any circumstances, and for good reason. If they're dead, they can't enforce the law and they can't save lives.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48334464]You're forgetting that he thought that he was actually in danger, and he was. It doesn't matter at all that the car was pointed in his direction. It could have still hit him if he fell underneath it. The only thing he felt that he could have done was to incapacitate the driver, so that's what he did. There was no reason to expect him to think perfectly in that situation, and he should not be punished for the situation's outcome at all. He had a reason to fear for his life, and you can't say he didn't without being disingenuous about what you saw in the video.
The safety of an officer does outweigh the life of a suspect who is clearly disregarding their safety. Officers are trained to put their lives first, not second, under any circumstances, and for good reason. If they're dead, they can't enforce the law and they can't save lives.[/QUOTE]
The only thing he felt he could have done was incapacitate the driver? How about back the fuck up and get away from the car? Shooting the driver could have also caused the now dead driver to accelerate into a human being, increasing the likelyhood the officer harms others.
I agree it is a complex situation, but we shouldn't be training officers to give into that primal voice in the head that says, "KILL KILL KILL!". When situations are complex, and when lives are not IMMEDIETLY AT RISK, they should back the fuck up and think rationally, not grab their gun and start shooting.
Maximizing the safety of an officer is a great idea, but that does not mean an officers FIRST RESOURCE should be to destroy whatever it is that frightens them. Aparently the penalty in your world for running away from an officer should be death, I mean - holyshit, what if they stashed a gun around the corner? I'm afraid for my life! I saw him reaching for something I had to shoot!
[QUOTE=Flameon;48334500]The only thing he felt he could have done was incapacitate the driver? How about back the fuck up and get away from the car? Shooting the driver could have also caused the now dead driver to accelerate into a human being, increasing the likelyhood the officer harms others.
I agree it is a complex situation, but we shouldn't be training officers to give into that primal voice in the head that says, "KILL KILL KILL!". When situations are complex, and when lives are not IMMEDIETLY AT RISK, they should back the fuck up and think rationally, not grab their gun and start shooting.
Maximizing the safety of an officer is a great idea, but that does not mean an officers FIRST RESOURCE should be to destroy whatever it is that frightens them. Aparently the penalty in your world for running away from an officer should be death, I mean - holyshit, what if they stashed a gun around the corner? I'm afraid for my life! I saw him reaching for something I had to shoot![/QUOTE]
His life was at immediate risk and he did not have control over his arm. The vehicle, when he shot his weapon, was travelling at least 22 MPH. There is no physical way he could have willfully stayed with the vehicle at all unless he was an Olympic athlete or professional track runner, and even then, accelerating to that speed in under a second would have still been impossible. Once he was being dragged, his life was in jeopardy. He took the last resort he had and used it. It does not matter if he was the one who stuck his hand in the window or not, the driver was the one who caused the immediate situation that led to his death.
He did not use his lethal force as his first resource; he used it as a last resort.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48334404]"Wrestled with the cop" - oh did he? When was that? Look at your language dude, come on. He resisted attempts to have an officer open his door, unbuckle his seat belt, and take his keys out. Thats wrestling with an officer? Ok.
"Hanging on for dear life" - are we watching the same video?? Its not like he had to choose between getting run over and shooting Debose in the head. He could have backed the fuck up when the car started to speed by. And if he WAS holding on for dear life, how the hell would shooting Debose in the head resolve that situation?? If you watch the video, the car ACCELERATES after he shoots him, you know... because the body spasms when a bullet goes through your brain. This was an officer who was UPSET that Debose was trying to get away, had a gun ready in his hand (as he was trained to do) and decided to use it.
Raising your hands above your head I'm sure you might call a 'threatening gesture' - obviously im being fascicious here, but look at the way your rhetoric crafts the scene from an unethical part on behalf of the officer to the only option available.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, wrestled with the cop. As in, physically acted against the cop. As in, grabbed the door out of the officers hands and closed it while the cop tried to keep it open. As in, resisted what the officer was attempting to do, which escalated the situation. You can act like the cop was in the wrong all you want, but this never would have happened had DuBose not acted like an idiot and closed the door, turned on the car, revved the engine, put it into gear and tried to drive off, all the while with the cop right there next to him telling him to stop and trying to keep him from getting away.
We've talked about the dangers of a high speed chase, and people have talked about how not pursuing a criminal isn't a feasible option. If you try to get away from a police officer they will chase you and stop you from running, and if you raise the stakes they will use more force to stop you. This guy went from a routine traffic stop to trying to stop a criminal from driving away, straight up into hanging onto a car as the guy tries to drive off. Put your forearm through the steering wheel of your car while your friend drives it and tell him to accelerate, and then tell me that you aren't worried about getting run over- if you let your feet drag along the ground then there's the chance that they'll get caught under the tire and you'll be dragged under the car. You act like people have the right to run away from the police without fear of something bad happening, but these are two actual people in this situation, not some poor innocent guy and #428 of the Local Crime Stomping Industry. The cop is afraid for his life and he knows that DuBose isn't going to just stop the car because he asked nicely, and he's afraid for his life. A bad decision could be argued to have been made but that doesn't mean that he's innocent and the cop is a scumbag asshole who wanted to kill this guy.
I'm also, up until now, trying not to sound like a pisser but get off of your high horse and stop putting all these digs into your posts. Acting like a prick during an argument just makes you look like an asshole.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48334544]His life was at immediate risk and he did not have control over his arm. The vehicle, when he shot his weapon, was travelling at least 22 MPH. There is no physical way he could have willfully stayed with the vehicle at all unless he was an Olympic athlete or professional track runner, and even then, accelerating to that speed in under a second would have still been impossible. Once he was being dragged, his life was in jeopardy. He took the last resort he had and used it. It does not matter if he was the one who stuck his hand in the window or not, the driver was the one who caused the immediate situation that led to his death.
He did not use his lethal force as his first resource; he used it as a last resort.[/QUOTE]
22 MPH bro you must have some amazing spedometer eyes!
[img]http://i.gyazo.com/1bd96a7d8ec67056a118be7cbaa74c93.png[/img]
This was the distance he traveled in two seconds. If you think that is beyond a short jog I dont know what you are thinking.
He clearly could have simply PUSHED AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE AND LET GO! Like.. HE DID, IMMEDIETLY AFTER HE FIRED A SHOT! Jesus christ. Whats your version of the events? He wants to get away but unfortunately Debose has a death grip on his arm and after a moral calculation he decides that because his life is in danger, he is forced to shoot Debose in the head, causing Debose to loosen his death grip and allowing the officer to roll away safe at the last moment?
No, what happened was Debose started to drive away. Two commands and about two seconds later and he was dead.
AND, ONCE AGAIN: lets say you are right! Lets say he is stuck (he wasn't) shooting Debose is gonna do?.. what? Maybe cause the vehicle to actually run him over? Responding with lethal intent to a "THREAT" (scare quotes intentional) like this is absolutely absurd. That you and others defend this just proves how far along we are and how much work we need to do reforming policing in this country.
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=willer;48334553]
We've talked about the dangers of a high speed chase, and people have talked about how not pursuing a criminal isn't a feasible option. If you try to get away from a police officer they will chase you and stop you from running, and if you raise the stakes they will use more force to stop you. This guy went from a routine traffic stop to trying to stop a criminal from driving away, straight up into hanging onto a car as the guy tries to drive off. Put your forearm through the steering wheel of your car while your friend drives it and tell him to accelerate, and then tell me that you aren't worried about getting run over- if you let your feet drag along the ground then there's the chance that they'll get caught under the tire and you'll be dragged under the car. You act like people have the right to run away from the police without fear of something bad happening, but these are two actual people in this situation, not some poor innocent guy and #428 of the Local Crime Stomping Industry. The cop is afraid for his life and he knows that DuBose isn't going to just stop the car because he asked nicely, and he's afraid for his life. [B][U]A bad decision could be argued to have been made but that doesn't mean that he's innocent and the cop is a scumbag asshole who wanted to kill this guy.
[/U][/B]
I'm also, up until now, trying not to sound like a pisser but get off of your high horse and stop putting all these digs into your posts. Acting like a prick during an argument just makes you look like an asshole.[/QUOTE]
I will apologize if it seems like I am a prick, but I find what you and this other dude are doing to be morally reprehensible. Crafting an excuse for this, and future state murders. There is just a clear moral blockage going on and I don't even know how to address it. I feel like I witnessed a totally unjustifiable use of force and yall are just smiling thinking everything is fine and dandy or you know where the officer was coming from.
And I am AWARE there are two people in this situation! I'm not demonizing the officer, I'm not calling him a monster. But he needs to own up for what he did - he killed a dude, in cold blood, with little to no justification. He murdered someone because the person didn't obey his commands.
If I grab my friends steering wheel and I fear for my life, I'm going to let go of the stearing wheel and back up, not punch him in the face. The fact that we train our officers to use lethal force in situations like these is exactly the problem.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48334610]22 MPH bro you must have some amazing spedometer eyes!
[img]http://i.gyazo.com/1bd96a7d8ec67056a118be7cbaa74c93.png[/img]
This was the distance he traveled in two seconds. If you think that is beyond a short jog I dont know what you are thinking.
He clearly could have simply PUSHED AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE AND LET GO! Like.. HE DID, IMMEDIETLY AFTER HE FIRED A SHOT! Jesus christ. Whats your version of the events? He wants to get away but unfortunately Debose has a death grip on his arm and after a moral calculation he decides that because his life is in danger, he is forced to shoot Debose in the head, causing Debose to loosen his death grip and allowing the officer to roll away safe at the last moment?
No, what happened was Debose started to drive away. Two commands and about two seconds later and he was dead.
AND, ONCE AGAIN: lets say you are right! Lets say he is stuck (he wasn't) shooting Debose is gonna do?.. what? Maybe cause the vehicle to actually run him over? Responding with lethal intent to a "THREAT" (scare quotes intentional) like this is absolutely absurd. That you and others defend this just proves how far along we are and how much work we need to do reforming policing in this country.[/QUOTE]
Even though this was posted before, I'm going to put it here again.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/OfxLo4F.png[/t]
Look at the first and second-to-last panels. That is at least three car lengths, which, at a low average, is thirty six feet. Do the math from there.
His arm was not being held by DuBose, no, but it was possibly (most likely, considering it was damaged during the incident) caught between rungs of the steering wheel. I don't claim that the officer made a moral calculation, he didn't, but morality does not apply to this situation. It doesn't matter if it was morally wrong to kill DuBose.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48334681]
His arm was not being held by DuBose, no, but it was possibly (most likely, considering it was damaged during the incident) caught between rungs of the steering wheel.[B][U] I don't claim that the officer made a moral calculation, he didn't, but morality does not apply to this situation. It doesn't matter if it was morally wrong to kill DuBose.[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
The timestamping is great
1.) Car beginst to drive at 1:55
2.) Shot hits at 1:56 (car then accelerates faster because driver is shot)
3.) He turns around, after having held onto the car by 1:59.
So, in 4 seconds, the car goes quite a distance... and in one second of motion was all it took for the officer to decide that DuBose was a threat? Let go of the car, and back the fuck up. Holyshit. But no, instead we want to create excuses for a cold-blooded murder.
U.S.S.R: That last thing you said is insane. Morality doesn't apply in this situation? What?!?
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48334544]His life was at immediate risk and he did not have control over his arm. The vehicle, when he shot his weapon, was travelling at least 22 MPH. There is no physical way he could have willfully stayed with the vehicle at all unless he was an Olympic athlete or professional track runner, and even then, accelerating to that speed in under a second would have still been impossible. Once he was being dragged, his life was in jeopardy. He took the last resort he had and used it. It does not matter if he was the one who stuck his hand in the window or not, the driver was the one who caused the immediate situation that led to his death.
He did not use his lethal force as his first resource; he used it as a last resort.[/QUOTE]
Are you avoiding the painfully obvious fact that the driver put the vehicle IN drive and wasn't stepping on the pedal until he was shot dead and the cadaveric spasm did the rest?
A corpse was dragging dumbass Tensing, not Dubose, his corpse.
Hand caught in the steering wheel my ass. [URL="http://i.gyazo.com/0bb213ce6964688bfeb82ae0c7da9f95.png"]this photo (it is pretty graphic, know before you click) is why[/URL]
a.) This officer should go to jail
b.) Why laws about when police can use lethal force must be entirely revamped.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48334724]The timestamping is great
1.) Car beginst to drive at 1:55
2.) Shot hits at 1:56 (car then accelerates faster because driver is shot)
3.) He turns around, after having held onto the car by 1:59.
So, in 4 seconds, the car goes quite a distance... and in one second of motion was all it took for the officer to decide that DuBose was a threat? Let go of the car, and back the fuck up. Holyshit. [B]But no, instead we want to create excuses for a cold-blooded murder.
[/B]
U.S.S.R: That last thing you said is insane. Morality doesn't apply in this situation? What?!?[/QUOTE]
This wasn't murder. You cannot prove malice aforethought. It was involuntary manslaughter at the most.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48334724]The timestamping is great
1.) Car beginst to drive at 1:55
2.) Shot hits at 1:56 (car then accelerates faster because driver is shot)
3.) He turns around, after having held onto the car by 1:59.
So, in 4 seconds, the car goes quite a distance... and in one second of motion was all it took for the officer to decide that DuBose was a threat? Let go of the car, and back the fuck up. Holyshit. But no, instead we want to create excuses for a cold-blooded murder.
U.S.S.R: That last thing you said is insane. Morality doesn't apply in this situation? What?!?[/QUOTE]
The very basis of the justice system in the United States is built to separate morality from the law. It does not matter if what he did was right or wrong in the all-seeing eye of some metaphysical system of ethics. He feared for his life and he did what he thought was necessary to end it. That makes him innocent according to the courts. What he did wasn't pre-meditated, it wasn't purposeful, and the intent behind it was saving himself. It could not be murder by the legal definition of murder in America (especially not cold-blooded), and it can only be manslaughter by the legal definition of manslaughter in America under dubious circumstances.
Police must make millisecond decisions on whether or not to use lethal force in pretty much any situation where they actually have to use lethal force. As far as we know, he could not let go of the car.
Situational foresight does not exist in events like these under any circumstances and no matter how much training an officer has. The fear response completely disables the ability for a person to perceive morality, and the officer was clearly afraid.
[editline]30th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=0x0000000C;48334729]Are you avoiding the painfully obvious fact that the driver put the vehicle IN drive and wasn't stepping on the pedal until he was shot dead and the cadaveric spasm did the rest?
A corpse was dragging dumbass Tensing, not Dubose, his corpse.[/QUOTE]
No, he was alive when he initially accelerated. He was already moving before and when the officer shot, and the video clearly shows it.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48334781]This wasn't murder. You cannot prove malice aforethought. It was involuntary manslaughter at the most.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure point blank weapon fired into the face represents an intentional, as opposed to unintentional killing. But you are right, it is probably not murder - but more likely voluntary manslaughter.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;48334784]The very basis of the justice system in the United States is built to separate morality from the law. It does not matter if what he did was right or wrong in the all-seeing eye of some metaphysical system of ethics. He feared for his life and he did what he thought was necessary to end it. That makes him innocent according to the courts. What he did wasn't pre-meditated, it wasn't purposeful, and the intent behind it was saving himself. It could not be murder by the legal definition of murder in America (especially not cold-blooded), and it can only be manslaughter by the legal definition of manslaughter in America under dubious circumstances.
Police must make millisecond decisions on whether or not to use lethal force in pretty much any situation where they actually have to use lethal force. As far as we know, he could not let go of the car.
Situational foresight does not exist in events like these under any circumstances and no matter how much training an officer has. The fear response completely disables the ability for a person to perceive morality, and the officer was clearly afraid.[/quote]
1.) I am making a case for why we need to REFORM the law, specificly why we need to overhall police training and procedure when they can use lethal force - we have to leverage a moral judgement on law because otherwise there is no reason for us to support a law's existence or argue for its removal. If you are willing to grant the officer acted within the law but find what he did immoral, then you can argue he should be innocent but that laws in future cases need to be changed. But you cannot avoid the moral question of law forever.
2.) Those 'milisecond decisions' about whether or not to use lethal force need to be overhauled. There are too many cases of officers using lethal force when they shouldn't, and this case is no different.
3.) If the officer was afraid for his life in this situation then he shouldn't be a cop at all. His life was not in danger.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48334956]Pretty sure point blank weapon fired into the face represents an intentional, as opposed to unintentional killing. But you are right, it is probably not murder - but more likely voluntary manslaughter.[/QUOTE]
That's what I meant. Don't know why I put the "in" in front of voluntary. Brain fart.
[QUOTE=0x0000000C;48334729]Are you avoiding the painfully obvious fact that the driver put the vehicle IN drive and wasn't stepping on the pedal until he was shot dead and the cadaveric spasm did the rest?
A corpse was dragging dumbass Tensing, not Dubose, his corpse.[/QUOTE]
So the car just turned itself on and put it in drive? Or was that a corpse?
[QUOTE=Apache249;48335300]So the car just turned itself on and put it in drive? Or was that a corpse?[/QUOTE]
No a person did that. And according to you, doing that warrants the death penalty without trial?
[QUOTE=Flameon;48335461]No a person did that. And according to you, doing that warrants the death penalty without trial?[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter dude. Thankfully he was stopped before he could do much, but if the guy is fleeing the police (which he was judging from the sneaky startup he tried) he's automatically considered in possession of a deadly weapon - the 2 1/2 ton block of steel and fuel-fed injection he's whipping around with the intent of [I]evading police[/I]. We've all played enough Grand Theft Auto to know how fucking crazy a chase with the boys in blue can get, what were they supposed to do - let the dipshit gun it from them and try to get as far away in the shortest amount of time possible through densely populated city blocks? That sounds safe.
[QUOTE=G71tc4;48333810]maybe he tried to run because he was afraid of this officer shooting him ( i dont know why he would ever be afraid of this cop pulling a gun on him am i right )[/QUOTE]
looks like fear was rational
[editline]31st July 2015[/editline]
Also that cop is an idiot
[QUOTE=Flameon;48335461]No a person did that. And according to you, doing that warrants the death penalty without trial?[/QUOTE]
Maybe if real life was as black and white as in your mind, but it isn't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
