or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 188

post #2806 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by texas_jack View Post

Well the american gun thing changes everything. I suspect we never would have gone down this fascist path if so many perps didn't have guns. Oh well.

Every single one of these incidents involved an unarmed person.

Anyway, as far as the cop being dragged, it's possible that he panicked and accidentally discharged his weapon during the brief struggle. Now he's trying to claim it was justified rather than admitting to an accidental discharge. Even with widespread police misconduct it's hard to imagine that someone could have thought a shot to the head was appropriate in that situation.
post #2807 of 6095
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/07/alabama-police-officer-breaks-down-on-stand-admits-to-repeatedly-lying-to-cover-up-for-fellow-cop-beating-handcuffed-man/

"Stop resisting" is alive and well.
post #2808 of 6095
@Ataturk

Are you AGAIN defending the a cop's actions despite the body cam footage and fabricated statements by Tensing's colleague? Christ. What's unclear about the video this time?

At no point was this dude dragged. Legal right to let go? How about common sense that no amount of physical strength can hold back a moving vehicle, so why bother?

His own colleague lied in the report and said Tensing had gravel on his uniform and that he told Tensing to get medical attention. Why lie unless it's to cover up the obviously huge error of drawing your weapon in a situation that didn't require it to be drawn.

Let's keep in mind this shooting was over a missing front plate and a missing driver's license.

@Piobaire & @otc

Exactly.
post #2809 of 6095
Maybe you shouldn't let NPR watch the video for you, as you can plainly see that the cop falls on the ground after disconnecting with the car.
post #2810 of 6095

^ Ataboy.

 

lefty

post #2811 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Maybe you shouldn't let NPR watch the video for you, as you can plainly see that the cop falls on the ground after disconnecting with the car.

Justifying deadly force in that situation is extreme. To end someone's life based on what unfolded in that video is outrageous, to say the least. The only way I would even consider giving him the benefit of the doubt would be an accidental discharge. It's possible he had his finger on the trigger and didn't intentionally mean to kill the guy, but during the struggle and panic he had a negligent discharge. Not saying that's what happened, just tossing it out there.
post #2812 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Justifying deadly force in that situation is extreme. To end someone's life based on what unfolded in that video is outrageous, to say the least. The only way I would even consider giving him the benefit of the doubt would be an accidental discharge. It's possible he had his finger on the trigger and didn't intentionally mean to kill the guy, but during the struggle and panic he had a negligent discharge. Not saying that's what happened, just tossing it out there.

The victim also may have been disrespectful to the cop.
post #2813 of 6095
I guess
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Justifying deadly force in that situation is extreme. To end someone's life based on what unfolded in that video is outrageous, to say the least.

That's just a conclusory statement, an announcement of a position. Why don't you try forming an argument based on the applicable standard, which is that lethal force may be used if reasonably perceived to be necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury.

Your argument would be something like

"No reasonable person would believe he could be killed or seriously injured by being dragged by a speeding car because . . ."
post #2814 of 6095
He pretty clearly wasn't dragged, falling over because he's a putz is not equivalent to being dragged, and the car didn't start moving until after the cop fired the shot. So it's tough to retroactively justify a shooting based on something that hadn't happened yet.
post #2815 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

He pretty clearly wasn't dragged, falling over because he's a putz is not equivalent to being dragged, and the car didn't start moving until after the cop fired the shot. So it's tough to retroactively justify a shooting based on something that hadn't happened yet.

From the prosecutor:
“He wasn’t dealing with somebody who was wanted for murder. He was dealing with somebody who didn’t have a front license plate. If he’s starting to roll away just, seriously, let him go. I mean you don’t have to shoot him in the head.”

Makes sense to me. The car had moved maybe a couple inches before the shot. It's hard to see how Tensing would have been reasonably threatened by that. Given the circle-jerk standards of a reasonable threat for a cop, who knows, but a normal person would just jump back out of the way. There wasn't any reason to try to detain DuBose if it meant even a possible risk of escalation to lethal force.
post #2816 of 6095
The video that was first posted here had a good breakdown of everything wrong the cop did to break protocol on a traffic stop, presented by a former cop who trains new cops in how to handle traffic stops. It's worth rewatching.
post #2817 of 6095
I don't see how either of you can say the car was or wasn't moving given the motion of the camera. If you've done a frame-by-frame analysis (or seen one) by all means share it. Clearly, the guy had put the car into drive and had his foot on the accelerator, as you hear the engine and the car drives down the road a ways before hitting a light pole.

The issue then would be imminence, I guess, if the cop's arm is stuck (or even if he's holding on and refuses to let go, which I think he has a right to do), how long does he have to wait before it becomes reasonable to believe he's facing imminent death or great bodily injury? Should the cop have to wait until the car is moving more than five miles per hour? Ten? Perhaps he has to give the guy five seconds to stop the vehicle?

Is the analysis different if it's a car instead of any other deadly weapon? If he'd pulled a gun does the cop have to wait until it's pointed at him, until the guy fires a shot at him, until he's actually shot?
post #2818 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I don't see how either of you can say the car was or wasn't moving given the motion of the camera. If you've done a frame-by-frame analysis (or seen one) by all means share it. Clearly, the guy had put the car into drive and had his foot on the accelerator, as you hear the engine and the car drives down the road a ways before hitting a light pole.

The issue then would be imminence, I guess, if the cop's arm is stuck (or even if he's holding on and refuses to let go, which I think he has a right to do), how long does he have to wait before it becomes reasonable to believe he's facing imminent death or great bodily injury? Should the cop have to wait until the car is moving more than five miles per hour? Ten? Perhaps he has to give the guy five seconds to stop the vehicle?

Is the analysis different if it's a car instead of any other deadly weapon? If he'd pulled a gun does the cop have to wait until it's pointed at him, until the guy fires a shot at him, until he's actually shot?

Maybe cops should have an obligation to find reasonable ways not to shoot people in the fucking face rather than trying to find reasons to do so.
post #2819 of 6095
This Tensing guy wasn't even a real police officer, he was a University of Cincinnati security guard (actually this maybe why the prosecutor is throwing him under the bus).

I understand why private university security might be deputized to deal with criminals if they are in high crime neighborhoods, but should they really be out on the street enforcing minor traffic violations like a missing tag? Seems more like just a license to harass citizens.
post #2820 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by AldenPyle View Post

This Tensing guy wasn't even a real police officer, he was a University of Cincinnati security guard (actually this maybe why the prosecutor is throwing him under the bus).

I understand why private university security might be deputized to deal with criminals if they are in high crime neighborhoods, but should they really be out on the street enforcing minor traffic violations like a missing tag? Seems more like just a license to harass citizens.

Was he a security officer? A lot of universities have actual police departments.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?