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 192

post #2866 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Here's a frame by frame, which looks really bad for the cop's narrative.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/07/here-is-the-slow-motion-frame-by-frame-version-of-the-samuel-debose-video/

Tensing sees DuBose reach for the ignition, sticks his left arm in the car while simultaneously pulling his gun into position. DuBose slightly moves towards the arm, sees the gun and recoils instantly. Tensing grabs DuBoses's shirt, and within one frame, shoots him. Tensing falls, and then the car is heard to accelerate. You can also see the same scenery through the window (a pickup truck) before and after the shooting, indicating the car could not have moved more than a foot.

This analysis is complete bunk. First of all, you can plainly hear the engine reving before the shot, though it does not reach high RPMs until after.

Second, you cannot triangulate forward motion with an object on the side unless you have numerous points of reference, which you don't. All he has to do is turn the car slightly to the right and the truck in the window stays in the same position even as the car moves forward significantly. And that's just a for example; there are a hundredother ways that the position of the truck in the second frame can be consistent with the car moving forward.
Quote:
If you're getting pulled along by a car, it would take an incredible amount of body control to keep your body in constant position relative to the car. It would be amazing simply to remain standing, much less draw and accurately fire a weapon.

I can run ten miles per hour. Can't you? It's not some kind of marvel of athleticism, especially if he's holding onto the car (or it's holding on to him) and can leverage himself against it.

It gets a lot harder in a second or two, however, which is justification for shooting the guy.
post #2867 of 6095
At some point a reasonable person has to think it might be them and not the rest of the world.
post #2868 of 6095
All reasonable people would have to agree, you might say?

Oh, I didn't see you claim the rest of the world is or should be reasonable, just me. I like that. But I don't care what conclusion someone reaches; I want persuasive arguments, grounded in established legal principles rather than a subjective or layman's sense of how things should be, and I don't see them. So I think I can still be reasonable and not jump on the bandwagon with "the rest of the world" -- i.e., a half dozen posters here, infowars.com and photographyisnotacrime.com, CNN and the social justice warriors on twitter.
post #2869 of 6095
Some people here are actual lawyers doing actual lawyer things and not agreeing with you. You can't dismiss us all as not up to your legal expertise.
post #2870 of 6095
"But I don't care what conclusion someone reaches; I want persuasive arguments, grounded in established legal principles rather than a subjective or layman's sense of how things should be, and I don't see them."

Was that not clear? I don't care how someone votes, no matter who they are. I want to be persuaded.
post #2871 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

"But I don't care what conclusion someone reaches; I want persuasive arguments, grounded in established legal principles rather than a subjective or layman's sense of how things should be, and I don't see them."

Was that not clear? I don't care how someone votes, no matter who they are. I want to be persuaded.

But the thing is, after countless instances, we all know you'll find no argument that doesn't exonerate the cop persuasive.
post #2872 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Some people here are actual lawyers doing actual lawyer things and not agreeing with you. You can't dismiss us all as not up to your legal expertise.

There's also an implicit assumption in there that the legal questions are the only ones worth asking.

Is anyone really supposed to be satisfied seeing an ongoing parade of people (and dogs) being needlessly shot, even if those shootings are "legally justified"? It's actually more infuriating to see so many people (including our resident apologist) so casually accept civilians getting killed because they're within the expansive bounds of accepted police procedure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

But the thing is, after countless instances, we all know you'll find no argument that doesn't exonerate the cop persuasive.

It's basically a mirror of the American justice system, which as we know, does not find police guilty of wrongdoing. Perhaps it's a useful exercise, showing us exactly why cops are rarely charged and never convicted for killings. This is really how things work in our legal system.
post #2873 of 6095
I like to think the legal questions are the only ones worth asking when the question is "should this cop be punished for murder?"

I have long since conceded that it would have been better if the cop had never reached into the car, in fact I don't recall ever arguing to the contrary. I've made the same admission in discussing many of these incidents, and would make it more often if asked (I don't have time to write long, conciliatory essays trying to make myself appear more credible through such public displays of evenhandness).

Regardless, the fact is that this was a life or death situation involving a decision that had to be made in a split second, that arose nearly entirely from the fault of the driver. The cop quite literally had to shoot from the hip. Under circumstances like this, when the cop is charged with a crime, the relevant question is not whether he made the best decisions, determined after we've watched the video in slow motion over and over and discussed the case for days, but whether what he did can be proven to be criminal, beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is high, and the law is necessarily deferential to the split-second, life-or-death decisions of a police officer. And that's the way it should be, the only workable way it could be.

If you want to talk about the way the world ought to be, or the best way it could have gone down, that's fine, but it's not the standard by which the cop should be judged.
post #2874 of 6095
Holding your target to get a clean headshot while running/being dragged by a rapidly accelerating car is some Navy SEAL type stuff. This guy must have gone through some intense University Police training and been blessed with superior athletic, coordination, and motor skills. THAT is some plausible shit right there. rolleyes.gif

Simplest explanation works best here. Car not moving or doing the idle creep, DuBose is being held and not moving, University cop isn't running or being dragged and is therefore able to make a clean shot to the head. Done.

I find it sad that a cop NOT shooting a suspect is considered "good news"...

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2015/04/20/cop-body-cam-doesnt-shoot-ohio?sr=fb042015bodycamohio10anativevidlink

Then again, the suspect is white...
post #2875 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


Regardless, the fact is that this was a life or death situation involving a decision that had to be made in a split second, that arose nearly entirely from the fault of the driver.


No, the cop is significantly to blame for violating multiple protocols for a traffic stop.

Quote:
The cop quite literally had to shoot from the hip.


He did not shoot from the hip, he aimed and fired.

Quote:
Under circumstances like this, when the cop is charged with a crime, the relevant question is not whether he made the best decisions, determined after we've watched the video in slow motion over and over and discussed the case for days, but whether what he did can be proven to be criminal, beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is high, and the law is necessarily deferential to the split-second, life-or-death decisions of a police officer. And that's the way it should be, the only workable way it could be.


The only reason we're focusing so much on the video is because the cop clearly lied several times about what happened, so his statement is worthless. The only evidence worth a damn in this case is the video.

The law is not, and should not be, deferential to police officer's version of events. Jurors are specifically instructed to treat the testimony of a police officer like any other witness and not afford him/her special consideration by virtue of being a cop. It's an unfortunate side effect of the last 30 years of supercop TV shows and pro-government media that police are informally treated as special as they are. Hopefully these videos, which show them to be the hateful lying bullies that they really are will change societal opinion.
post #2876 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

No, the cop is significantly to blame for violating multiple protocols for a traffic stop.

So what? You can "blame" someone all you like -- what are the consequences other than the reprimand you mentioned earlier.
Quote:
He did not shoot from the hip, he aimed and fired.

I said earlier I shouldn't criticize people for nonstandard use of idioms. I always understood "shooting from the hip" to mean drawing and pointing rather than strictly holding the gun at your hip while firing. Literally was clearly the wrong word to use there. But if I can set that particular semantic quibble aside, and raise a different one: he pretty clearly pointed the gun rather than aimed it.
Quote:
The only reason we're focusing so much on the video is because the cop clearly lied several times about what happened, so his statement is worthless. The only evidence worth a damn in this case is the video.

For clarity, would you say what these lies are supposed to be?
Quote:
The law is not, and should not be, deferential to police officer's version of events. Jurors are specifically instructed to treat the testimony of a police officer like any other witness and not afford him/her special consideration by virtue of being a cop. It's an unfortunate side effect of the last 30 years of supercop TV shows and pro-government media that police are informally treated as special as they are. Hopefully these videos, which show them to be the hateful lying bullies that they really are will change societal opinion.

I never said there was some special rule about the veracity of police officers' accounts. But the law is deferential to police officers in many ways -- like, for example, the duty to retreat issue I mentioned earlier.
post #2877 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

So what? You can "blame" someone all you like -- what are the consequences other than the reprimand you mentioned earlier.

You said fault, I said blame. I meant the same thing. The cop is significantly at fault for his reckless behaviour at this traffic stop.

As for the consequences, well, uh, get charged for murder like this jackass. You can be sure that if Tensing had followed all protocols and procedures he wouldn't be charged with murder. That's what we hear all the time when cops walk free - "Proper procedures followed, nothing to see here." When you violate a half dozen basic rules of traffic stops resulting in the death of a man who posed no danger to anyone you have to kind of take some responsibility for that.

Quote:
I said earlier I shouldn't criticize people for nonstandard use of idioms. I always understood "shooting from the hip" to mean drawing and pointing rather than strictly holding the gun at your hip while firing. Literally was clearly the wrong word to use there. But if I can set that particular semantic quibble aside, and raise a different one: he pretty clearly pointed the gun rather than aimed it.


Well, then don't use them if you are going to continue to criticize others for it. You like throwing these little things in there thinking that we won't notice or that we'll accept them as true because it's close to what actually happened. But it's not what happened, and you should know better.

Quote:
For clarity, would you say what these lies are supposed to be?


That he was dragged, that he was almost run over by Dubose, that he was seriously injured by falling on his stupid fat ass...

Quote:
I never said there was some special rule about the veracity of police officers' accounts. But the law is deferential to police officers in many ways -- like, for example, the duty to retreat issue I mentioned earlier.


Accepting the veracity of police officers over regular citizens is certainly being deferential to police, isn't it?

Duty to retreat is irrelevant here as Dubose was posing no threat to Tensing.
post #2878 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

You said fault, I said blame. I meant the same thing. The cop is significantly at fault for his reckless behaviour at this traffic stop.

As for the consequences, well, uh, get charged for murder like this jackass. You can be sure that if Tensing had followed all protocols and procedures he wouldn't be charged with murder. That's what we hear all the time when cops walk free - "Proper procedures followed, nothing to see here." When you violate a half dozen basic rules of traffic stops resulting in the death of a man who posed no danger to anyone you have to kind of take some responsibility for that.

So nothing?
Quote:
Well, then don't use them if you are going to continue to criticize others for it. You like throwing these little things in there thinking that we won't notice or that we'll accept them as true because it's close to what actually happened. But it's not what happened, and you should know better.

[...]

That he was dragged, that he was almost run over by Dubose, that he was seriously injured by falling on his stupid fat ass...

He was dragged and was in a significant danger of being run over had he fallen under the vehicle. I don't recall him saying anything about being seriously injured. Perhaps you should read your comment above....
Quote:
Accepting the veracity of police officers over regular citizens is certainly being deferential to police, isn't it?

I did not say they were accorded absolute deference. But they do not have to retreat, they have the power of arrest and thus are largely shielded from the charge that they are aggressors in the conflict leading to the shooting (which defeats a claim of self-defense, for you laymen out there). And of course there's the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof which as you and everyone else laments, is hard or even impossible to overcome when police kill someone because there's nothing or little to nothing (as in this case) to contradict their accounts.
Quote:
Duty to retreat is irrelevant here as Dubose was posing no threat to Tensing.

It's really a sign of the times that you can say that with a straight face. And a minute ago you said the cop's behavior was reckless. What is recklessness if not ignoring danger?
post #2879 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

He was dragged and was in a significant danger of being run over had he fallen under the vehicle. I don't recall him saying anything about being seriously injured. Perhaps you should read your comment above....
Where's the evidence that he was dragged? The video certainly doesn't support it, even if you want to pretend that it doesn't outright exclude the possibility.
post #2880 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteslashasian View Post

Holding your target to get a clean headshot while running/being dragged by a rapidly accelerating car is some Navy SEAL type stuff. This guy must have gone through some intense University Police training and been blessed with superior athletic, coordination, and motor skills. THAT is some plausible shit right there. rolleyes.gif

Simplest explanation works best here. Car not moving or doing the idle creep, DuBose is being held and not moving, University cop isn't running or being dragged and is therefore able to make a clean shot to the head. Done.

I find it sad that a cop NOT shooting a suspect is considered "good news"...

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2015/04/20/cop-body-cam-doesnt-shoot-ohio?sr=fb042015bodycamohio10anativevidlink

Then again, the suspect is white...

Trade him for a cop that has been on the force 10 years, trade the other guy for a black man who charges at the cop with a hand in his pocket and knocks him down, and you'd be hearing a few popping sounds.
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?