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 190

post #2836 of 6095
So a cop's "right" to do this and such and no responsibility for the outcome? I thought with great power came great responsibility? I've got a right to walk down the street with an AR-15 but I don't think anyone is going to feel sorry for me when five cruisers surround me as exercising that right has predictable consequences.
post #2837 of 6095
I saw it, though I'm not convinced that the blurry line is necessarily the same vehicle seen earlier. I'm not sure the author claims he's sure, either.

I did post the link, after all.
post #2838 of 6095


It must be blurry because the vehicle is moving at such a great velocity while dragging the cop, amirite?!

I'd have "enhanced" the image further if I had access to sweet FBI, CIA, and/or CSI technology...
post #2839 of 6095
Going back and looking at the beginning of the video, there doesn't seem to be anything else it could be as the next lot over appears to be vacant. So I guess I will concede that it's the vehicle. But the pictures are not taken from the same height, the same angle, there is no proof that the vehicle is oriented the same way so using it as a reference point is not reliable, etc., so I'm not sure you can say with any confidence that the car wasn't moving or how far it had moved, at least beyond "not that far."

If the average speed had been 10 mph over a second the vehicle would have only moved 15 feet.

Maybe if you could do one of those 3d renderings like they have on the Youtube Chinese News shows, we could get to the bottom of this.
post #2840 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Going back and looking at the beginning of the video, there doesn't seem to be anything else it could be as the next lot over appears to be vacant. So I guess I will concede that it's the vehicle. But the pictures are not taken from the same height, the same angle, there is no proof that the vehicle is oriented the same way so using it as a reference point is not reliable, etc., so I'm not sure you can say with any confidence that the car wasn't moving or how far it had moved, at least beyond "not that far." If the average speed had been 10 mph over a second the vehicle would have only moved 15 feet.

Maybe if you could do one of those 3d renderings like they have on the Youtube Chinese News shows.

And likewise none of your assertions can be said with confidence...yet you're justifying a lethal shooting with them.
post #2841 of 6095
Bond set at $1,000,000 Seems high to me.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/us/ohio-sam-dubose-tensing/
post #2842 of 6095
Determining forward movement with a view to the rear is much easier than doing it from a view to the side for reasons that should be obvious. The fact that the vehicle had moved forward between the two pictures I posted is undeniable. You can't say anything with the same certainty based on the others, at least not without much more effort.

Otherwise I'm not sure what you're referring to so I'm not sure how to respond.
post #2843 of 6095
The only thing that those two images you posted prove is that the car moved at some point between them. You do recall that DuBose was also shot in the head between those two frames. Therefore the point of reference your using is less accurate than that which can be used from the side view at the moment of the shooting.

The driver was attempting to flee. The cop tried to reach into a car, which could move at any moment, therefore placing himself in harms way. Flinging myself into traffic would not give me the right to shoot an oncoming driver, would it?
post #2844 of 6095
If DuBose had just floored it, there's not a chance Tensing would have had time to draw and shoot him. With Tensing's arm in the car, there's no way it moved more than a few feet (and rather slowly at that) before DuBose shot him, or else the whole scenario physically doesn't work out (Tensing wasn't sprinting along side a moving car). He obviously had a choice between shooting and getting his arm out of the car, and he chose to shoot.

I do believe Tensing's story that he thought he was going to be run over, but A) he put himself in that position of risk unnecessarily B) he could have rectified the threat simply by retreating a step instead of shooting C) the fact that the fact accelerated rapidly after DuBose was shot and Tensing suffered no injury indicates he likely wasn't in any kind of compromised position beyond having reached into the car.

It was, at best, extremely poor judgement by Tensing.
post #2845 of 6095
Again, it's no different than any other deadly weapon. If the guy had gotten away, made it to a roadblock, and driven over a cop trying to stop him, would you say the cop brought that on himself too? The car did not move on its own. The guy started it, put it into gear, and almost certainly hit the gas, knowing full well that he was threatening the cop: either let me go or I will drag you along with me. Your argument is specious.

As far as the timing of the stills, I am not in a position at the moment to count the frames between the gunshot and the second frame, but IIIRC it is not significant enough to account for the distance. That, the account of one of the witnesses that the officer was dragged before he fired, and the fact that you can hear the car rev before the shot all point toward the vehicle moving at the time of the shot.
post #2846 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Again, it's no different than any other deadly weapon. If the guy had gotten away, made it to a roadblock, and driven over a cop trying to stop him, would you say the cop brought that on himself too?


It's entirely different. Those two situations are not in any way similar.

Quote:
The car did not move on its own. The guy started it, put it into gear, and almost certainly hit the gas, knowing full well that he was threatening the cop: either let me go or I will drag you along with me.


"Dragging" the cop along almost certainly wasn't in his mind. He pretty clearly just wanted to get away from an abusive cop.

Quote:
That, the account of one of the witnesses other police officers that the officer was dragged before he fired, and the fact that you can hear the car rev before the shot all point toward the vehicle moving at the time of the shot.


FTFY
post #2847 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Again, it's no different than any other deadly weapon. If the guy had gotten away, made it to a roadblock, and driven over a cop trying to stop him, would you say the cop brought that on himself too? The car did not move on its own. The guy started it, put it into gear, and almost certainly hit the gas, knowing full well that he was threatening the cop: either let me go or I will drag you along with me. Your argument is specious.

As far as the timing of the stills, I am not in a position at the moment to count the frames between the gunshot and the second frame, but IIIRC it is not significant enough to account for the distance. That, the account of one of the witnesses that the officer was dragged before he fired, and the fact that you can hear the car rev before the shot all point toward the vehicle moving at the time of the shot.

This is why many jurisdictions instruct their officers to NOT engage in high speed chases. The danger to the general public is greatly amplified in these situations. Let the guy go, find out where he lives and arrest him there. It's also completely irrelevant. Nice try though.

Your argument that a cop VOLUNTARILY being dragged a couple of feet, if you so believe the car was moving prior to shot fired, constitutes deadly force on an unarmed person is plain wrong.

The witness being another University Officer makes him a 100% credible source, as they are properly taught how to be the best witnesses for their fellow cops, right?
post #2848 of 6095
You did not address the point, which is that cops are allowed to "voluntarily" subject themselves to the threats of deadly weapons. Sometimes they choose not to, that's true. I'm sure that if the cop had had more than a split second to consider the situation, he would have done it differently and backed down. But he didn't have to, and, frankly, seeing him charged with murder here is egregious.
post #2849 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

"Dragging" the cop along almost certainly wasn't in his mind. He pretty clearly just wanted to get away from an abusive cop.

Focusing on the guy's actual intent as opposed to the natural consequences of his actions is a red herring, and I think you know it. Besides, what are these supposed abuses the guy was fleeing?
post #2850 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

y, seeing him charged with murder here is egregious.

You mean because there's no hate crime enhancement?
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?