Another Stop By Police Results in Death
"Officer Ray Tensing fatally shot Samuel Dubose, 43, on Sunday after a struggle at a traffic stop over a missing license tag, Cincinnati police said. Dubose was driving away when Tensing shot him in the head, police said."
Was the stop racially motivated? Did they both act appropriately during the stop? What is the answer to stopping these senseless killings? The victim was a father of thirteen as was reported. Who will support all those kids?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/us/cincin … index.htmlI hate to be so cynical, but I predict that at least one or more people will say, or imply, at least one of the following things in this thread:
"It was his fault he got shot in the head, he wasn't cooperating".
"It was his fault he got shot in the head, he tried to escape".
"It was his fault he got shot in the head, he had a criminal record".
"It was his fault he got shot in the head, he was on drugs".
"He generally wasn't a good father/ son/ brother/ husband/ boyfriend".
"The officer was acting in self-defense".
"The officer had no choice".
"The officer was doing his job".
"The officer is being treated unfairly".
"The officer is the real victim".
"The officer doesn't deserve to be prosecuted".
"The officer is generally a good father/ son/ brother/ husband/ boyfriend".
etc. etc. It's also so predictable and tragic.It's just as predictable that some of the answers will be:
"It was a race thing for the cop".
"The cop needs to be put in jail".
"Another bad cop. Seems like that's all we have".
Don't you agree?These things seem to come down to a battle of wills. One wants the other to do something that the other does not want to do. While the stop may have been a profiling exercise and a missing license plate is not a capital offense what makes it get so out of hand?
Couldn't tell you. Did he slap the cop? Pull a gun on him? Did the cop get dumped the night before? Find out he had an STD but his wife doesn't? One of them probably started it downhill, but which one we will probably never know.
I do agree. So it's good thing officer Tensing and Samuel DuBose are both alive and able to defend themselves against these predictable allegations. Oh wait . . .
Can I then assume that it didn't matter WHAT DuBose did, Tensing is not to fire a weapon? Or even brandish it as it might go off?
I'm merely pointing out that even if Tensing is vilified, called "racist", loses his job, he will still have his life and the opportunity to rebuild it (assuming the death penalty is not invoked if he is found guilty). DuBose will undoubtedly be cast as a drugged-up, good-for-nothing, "gangsta", thug, but will not have the opportunity to answers his critics, nor rebuild his life. There is no comparison between the two situations. While I pity Tensing because of the effect this will have on his life, it is a complete tragedy for DuBose, who lost his life, and whose killing has been described by the County prosecutor as "senseless" and "asinine".
And so, without knowing what happened or why, the answer is automatically that the cop is a murderer. I get that - it's what I said would be the answer, after all.
Taking your position into account, how do you think the policeman should have proceeded knowing that it was just a minor stop for a missing plate? Also when asked to produce a drivers license the victim handed the policeman a bottle of alcohol and then tried to drive off. Please don't tell what he shouldn't have done but what he should have.
How about letting him drive off and apprehending him at a later time?
Letting him drive off and using your own car to stop him?
As soon as you stop the motorist take the car keys away from the driver until you have dealt with whatever?All very good suggestions but was he intoxicated? If him driving off in an attempt to allude arrest, how many peoples lives, drivers and pedestrians, could he have put at risk?
No suggestion at all that he was intoxicated.
And the evidence he was not? Or does that not matter - we should all conclude that anyone handing a bottle of booze rather than the expected license is perfectly sober?
No, but the last I heard being drunk wasn't a capital offence.
I ask again, why didn't the officer take possession of the car keys as soon as he'd stopped the vehicle?"we should all conclude that anyone handing a bottle of booze rather than the expected license is perfectly sober?" - Yes. How does the one thing demonstrate the other?? The bottle was unopened and there is no law to going to the store to buy a bottle of booze. None of this is a justification for lethal force.
That's twice Rhamson has asked how many lives you would be willing to risk. Is there a reason the question is ignored?
Surely one is too many? oh of course it is the life of a black man!
" but was he intoxicated?" We'll never know that now. It's a hypothetical. What if he was a serial killer? We can't justify the killing on "what if's". We need to deal with what we know. What we know is that he was pulled over for a license plate and now he's dead.
From the video he did not appear to be intoxicated, nor under the influence of drugs.
He wasn't stopped for the kind of erratic driving that you would associate with drink or drugs-he just didn't have a front licence plate.
Which would you consider to be the more risky, a car driven by a not or mildly intoxicated driver or a car coming along the street with a dead driver?Sure we will know if he was intoxicated. There will assuredly be an autopsy as with any murder. But if you watch the video he is slow to answer and has the questions repeated including why he was stopped several times. But even if he was intoxicated he should not have been murdered for that, a simple DUI.
Running from the police is never a good idea. It throws suspicion on you and puts many more things into play than if you just cooperate. I watch the reality shows and when the suspect is caught in the process of running he invariably answers the question of why he fled with, "I didn't want to go to jail"
Let's do this together.
You are a police officer. What is the appropriate response if someone you've stopped for not having a front license plate, drives away from you?
A. Let them go.
B. Go back to your vehicle and initiate a pursuit.
C. Shoot them in the head.
Hint: the answer is not C.And the question does not have sufficient information to answer properly, either.
Is the car full of illegal guns?
Is there drugs involved?
Has the driving been dangerous to other drivers?
Is the driver known to the police, or wanted?
Was the driver drunk?
Is it a residential street - is pursuit a danger to others?
But none of that matters, does it? A youth is dead and should not be; he should have been allowed to do whatever he wished until he could be apprehended without danger. At least that seems the viewpoint of the hang the cop crowed (unless one of their own loved ones was killed by the youth, anyway).When do you cease to be a youth?
Surely a long time before you reach the age of 43!
Or is this a hang over from referring to all black men as "boy"?So your answer to the question "what is the appropriate response if someone you've stopped for not having a front license plate, drives away from you?" is: shoot them in the head first, then ask questions about what they may or may not have been doing/ carrying.
I can tell you, that is not the correct answer."A youth is dead and should not be;" - He wasn't a "youth". I believe the man was 42 years old with a large family. He is dead, and the shooting is totally unjustified.
So it is okay to allow a driver who hands you an open bottle of alcohol to start a pursuit through the streets of the neighborhood? How many other peoples lives are you willing to sacrifice?
In the report I read, which I suspect is the same one that you read, the bottle was wrapped..
I saw the video where he hands the police officer an unwrapped closed bottle of Gin. In many states the Gin would have to be in a bag to be considered un-opened. The news report says it was un-opened. In the time frame where this happened the policeman would have to determine if this guy was under the influence while he was questioning him about his license. As he was doing this with a belligerent suspect he has to take all this into consideration when the guy throws it into gear and takes off. Had the victim just been honest and compliant to the simple requests this all could have been averted. Now we second guess the policeman who is out there trying to do his job for his own safety as well as the victim.
It is not wise to let someone who is acting such as this guy who MAY have been drinking take off inducing a high speed pursuit. Should the guy be dead as a result?
The video: http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/police-v … d-32762162"Had the victim just been honest and compliant to the simple requests this all could have been averted. "
"Now we second guess the policeman who is out there trying to do his job for his own safety as well as the victim."
Both comments I predicted on my list at the beginning of this thread:
"It was his fault he got shot in the head, he wasn't cooperating".
"The officer was doing his job".
It's all so predictable it's nauseating.You and I should team up: we could make an absolute killing on the stock market.
Your prediction was accurate. Just as accurate as mine was that the cop would be blamed for what happened without regard as to the details or "why's". Both of us are at 100% - shall we hit the market tomorrow?
(By the way, is it your contention that if he had quietly handed over his license and not driven away he would still have been shot?)What is your contention? You didn't really answer the question posed. You just said "the question does not have sufficient information to answer". Unfortunately, as the officer on scene you don't have the luxury of not responding. You've got to respond based on the information you have. So I ask again:
You are a police officer. What is the appropriate response if someone you've stopped for not having a front license plate, drives away from you?
A. Let them go.
B. Go back to your vehicle and initiate a pursuit.
C. Shoot them in the head.
Another hint: the lack of information makes C less appropriate, not more.Answer the other questions first, and perhaps I could answer. Until then the answer MUST remain that I have insufficient data to make a call. While I realize that you don't agree, that you think no one should ever be harmed by a cop under any circumstances, I disagree.
Is the car full of illegal guns? You don't know.
Is there drugs involved? You don't know.
Has the driving been dangerous to other drivers? No, you stopped the person because they do not have a front license plate. That is the reason you gave when you spoke to them, and that is the reason you later write in your incident report.
Is the driver known to the police, or wanted? You don't know.
Was the driver drunk? You don't know.
Is it a residential street - is pursuit a danger to others? All pursuits pose a potential risk to others. You cannot ascertain the exact risk as you do not know where the pursuit will go, or how long it will last.
I ask again. What is the appropriate response to this situation, if the person you've stopped for not having a front license plate, drives away from you?
A. Let them go.
B. Go back to your vehicle and initiate a pursuit.
C. Shoot them in the head.
Third time lucky: the answer is definitely not C.OK - you have no idea of what happened in your hypothetical case and no idea of what suspicions the cop might have had. You have no idea if in a busy residential neighborhood, a downtown city street or a deserted farm road. You don't have any intuition as to whether he was dangerous (you never observed him or listened to him). You have zero to offer except "Never, every harm anyone under any circumstances". Maybe he should have shot out a tire.
Sorry, still can't answer, although I know you can. It's just that your answer is a repetition of "Cops should never hurt anyone regardless of circumstances" - a response that I categorically reject.No idea what happened? We know Tensing stopped DuBose for not having a front license plate. We know he told DuBose that was the reason for the stop. We know DuBose said the car belonged to his girlfriend. We know DuBose gave Tensing a bottle marked "Gin" and said "it's a bottle of air freshener, it's not liquor or anything". We know Tensing smelled the bottle and said "ok". We know Tensing asked for a license and DuBose said "I have a license. Run my name". We know Tensing asked if DuBose had his license on him and DuBose said "I don't think I have it on me". We know Tensing told DuBose to take his seat-belt off and tried to open the car door. We know DuBose stopped Tensing opening the door and started the engine. We know Tensing shouted "Stop!", reached for the keys of the vehicle, then pulled his gun and shot DuBose once in the head. We know the vehicle careered away and mounted the curb before coming to a stop.
We know that Tensing said to officers at the scene and on his radio "I thought he was going to run me over". We know he said "he was just dragging me" and an officer at the scene said "yeah I saw that". We know that another officer who arrived after the incident, Eric Weibel, wrote in his incident report that Tensing said “he was being dragged by the vehicle and had to fire his weapon,” and “was almost run over.” We know that Weibel stated in his report that "I could see that the back of [Tensing's] pants and shirt looked as if it had been dragged over a rough surface". The incident report can be viewed here: http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ucomm/ … report.pdf
We know what that Tensing was not "dragged" or "almost run over" (a frame by frame view of the footage shows that the vehicle in the background on the right of DuBose' vehicle, is still in the same position when Tensing fires his weapon indicating that no significant movement had taken place). We know that Tensing fell over backwards after discharging his weapon.
We know exactly where the incident happened (Rice Street, Cincinnati, OH).
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.123181, … 312!8i6656
We know that DuBose was initially stopped directly in front of a driveway with a car in the drive, and we know that DuBose' vehicle came to a stop at Rice and Valencia, after DuBose was killed.
We know the areas is a relatively low density residential area, and we know that there were two residential buildings on the stretch of road where DuBose was shot, and more residential buildings where the car came to a halt. https://www.google.com/maps/place/2293+ … 4e59da1939
We know DuBose' car travelled approximately 320.16 ft while out of control as a result of DuBose being shot in the head.
Based on all that information, please explain how it's accurate to suggest that we have "no idea" what happened? Clearly we have a very good idea of what happened.
And no, "intuition" is not reasonable cause for killing someone. It's not even reasonable cause for arresting someone.
So you can answer the question, you just don't like the most reasonable answer. So let me help you out: if you stop someone for not having a front license plate, and they drive away, then in the absence of any further information, the appropriate response is to either return to your vehicle and initiate a pursuit, or let them go. The least appropriate response (and the most "senseless") is to shoot them in the head.Most interesting, but of course it always is as more information becomes available. None of this was presented in anything I saw in this forum, and I'm never much interested in hearing what the relatives/friends of the deceased have to say, or even the media.
The only question left seems to be who is lying - the cop that says he was being dragged (after reaching for keys!) and the one that says he has marks on his clothing consistent with that, or whoever is claiming a frame by frame examination shows otherwise? (Hard to understand being drug from a right arm (no one would use the left arm to reach keys) in the window on the back of the shirt). From the extreme movements of the camera when the car began to move, that was my question as well (plus how the cop managed to hit a head in a moving car in just one shot and why there was only one shot). You say he fell over backwards after the single shot - why? Off balance from jumping out of the way or being drug? I find it doubtful that firing a pistol caused the fall. How far away was the gun when fired? Where was the injury - back or side? Was car glass broken? Perhaps we'll find out in a trial - until then we still do not know what happened in spite of your immediate readiness to say both cops are lying (just who did make the claim about the video analysis?).
The only other quarrel I have with your post is that you continue to ask if it was reasonable to shoot a person for not having a license plate (or words to that effect). You and I both know, as does everyone else, that that was not the reason. It is a red herring, intended to distract from the real issue and give a false sense of security in declaring the cop was wrong. It is one reason I've been so difficult as there can't be a person in the country that thinks it had any causal effect on that gun being drawn. Not even Don W could think that, so why keep repeating it? To emotionally manipulate the reader to draw an unwarranted conclusion? If so, why not just claim it was because the guy was black - it has a much higher possibility of being true.At no point have I said that DuBose was shot because he did not have a license plate. And the phrase "words to that effect" does not make it acceptable to misrepresent my comments. The question I have asked several times is:
"You are a police officer. What is the appropriate response if someone you've stopped for not having a front license plate, drives away from you . . ."
The implication is that your response is to the person driving away. The license plate is mentioned only to give relevant context for the stop (if the person was stopped for brandishing a weapon, then the appropriate response would be different).
As for who is lying. The County prosecutor's office analysed the footage. So which do you think is more likely: that the County prosecutor's office, with no apparent motive for doing so, is deliberately trying to frame a police officer; Or that Tensing, fearing he made a bad call, simply tried to cover his a** by saying he got dragged? Not only is the latter more likely to be the case, it is also supported by the video evidence.
I agree that evidence in cases like this should be considered impartially, but what you are doing is not that. What you are doing is actively denying the massive amount of evidence that shows that Tensing's use of force was unjustified. The video shows Tensing shoot a man in the head when that man tried to drive away from him. It does not show, or even remotely suggest, that he was "dragged" or "nearly run over". The video gives lie to both those statements, to the extent that after seeing it, even the County prosecutor said "It's an absolute tragedy that [Tensing] would behave in this manner".
The blatant denial of evidence, and the apparent justifications for abuse of authority that happen after incidents like this, causes anger and resentment in the communities most affected by those abuses. Even though Tensing has been charged and faces trial, we've seen in the past that this is no guarantee that justice will actually be done. Do you think there is any likelihood that if DuBose was the one facing a murder trial with this level of evidence stacked against him, that there would be any doubt as to the outcome? Therein lies one of the problems.You're presenting evidence piecemeal (and I accept that it is true), while expecting that I have already considered it. Unreasonable isn't the word.
Now if the prosecutors office has analyzed the video and found it to indicate there was no valid reason to shoot, I accept that. Very strong evidence that contradicts a cop's statement that he saw scuff marks on the back of the shooters shirt (and I DID question how that could happen from being drug after reaching for keys).
But Don, this thread started with no facts at all except a cop shot someone and was therefore guilty of murder. I said then that until facts came out I would refuse to accept that verdict and that it should never have been made. I did not claim innocence; I said I didn't know and neither did you or anyone else.
Finally, you are already convinced (without a trial) that "justice" will not be done because "justice" requires a sentence of murder and it might not happen. While I have very little faith in our court system, it is still far better than a hanging mob and I will accept the verdict - are you capable of doing that or do you demand mob rule? My entire point in this whole thread was that accusations and verdicts were (as always) being rendered without complete information - should additional information given to a jury of his peers invalidate your opinion do you accept it or maintain that the cop is guilty? Do we ignore our laws and procedures in favor of an emotional response without evidence or do we do the best we can to find truth. Do we immediately hang anyone we don't like or do we allow a (deeply flawed) system to do the work? Will you convict next time without evidence, citing this case where the final verdict shows you were right, or will you sit back and wait, refusing to publicly make accusations without evidence?Based on evidence currently available, I see no reason why Tensing should not be convicted. So yes I believe justice would be well served by a conviction here. The only possible way Tensing could be found not guilty, in in my opinion, is if some evidence is revealed at a later date that demonstrates his use of deadly force was justified. Then of course the jury must take that into consideration. I am not aware of any such evidence at this time. If I were, then I would not hold the view I do. If no such evidence materializes, and Tensing is found not-guilty, then I believe justice will not have been done. Don't you? And that would be further evidence (as if any is needed) that the justice system is fundamentally broken in relation to the prosecution of police officers who abuse their authority.
Excellent! Then the only question remaining (for I agree with everything you've said here) is the primary one, IMO. Will you, the next time something such as this happens, immediately condemn the cop as you did here, knowing that you do not have sufficient evidence to do so? And do it publicly, hurting the cop as much as possible in the process? Will you again jump on the mob bandwagon before a reasonable amount of evidence is in and available?
Or will you be one of the calm ones, saying something to the effect of "It certainly looks bad, but I'm sure there is more to the story. Let's wait until we get all the facts"? Will you try to defuse the mob or inflame it?My initial opinion about this incident was formed on the basis of the information subsequently posted. That information was a matter of public record before I posted my first comment, and is what my initial opinion was based on. You complained that we have "no idea" of what happened. So I posted that information to demonstrate that we actually have very good idea of what happened. That information may have been new to you. It was certainly not new to me. So I reject outright your accusation that I sought to "immediately condemn" without sufficient information. My whole point is that we do have sufficient information to form a reasonable opinion. In contrast, you were obviously posting comments without first appraising yourself of the available information. So the real question to ask is will you refrain from doing that in future?
I also reject your accusation of jumping on the "mob bandwagon". Again, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that there is sufficient evidence for a conviction, based on the information available, and apparently you agree. That isn't a "mob bandwagon". It's an observation.
And I reject your accusation of "inflaming" a mob. First of all, describing the people on HubPages as a "mob" is a bit extreme, don't you think? Passionate about their opinions? Yes. A mob? No. Secondly offering an opinion, then laying out all the information that supports that opinion, is not "inflaming". It's offering an opinion and explaining why you hold that opinion. Likewise, challenging others to explain their opinion is not "inflaming", it's challenging others to explain their opinions.
The number of negative misconceptions you have expressed in one comment is staggering. First you comment without knowledge of the available facts. Then when you are given the available facts, you assume that just because you were not aware of that information, no one else was, and then accuse the person who provided you with that information of jumping to conclusions. It's absolutely mind-blowing. I suggest you re-read the exchange, because you seem to have lost track of it somewhere. It's very easy to do. But perhaps making accusations on the basis of misconceptions is not the best approach.
Hi Don W,
Frustrating, isn't it? You're discussing this case with a person who always, as far as I have ever seen in these forums, believes the victim is at least partly to blame for their own death or rape. Cops can be judge, jury, and executioner and that's a-okay, because the victim did not behave to perfection. A group of men can rape a girl, and she is to blame because she had too much to drink and shouldn't have been at that place anyway.
Been down that road with the usual suspects, though I have noticed that a couple of them have started to get quiet on the police brutality issue. It seems that everyone has a different threshold for murder-by-cop before they start to see a problem.It's astonishing. I genuinely believe that if a police officer confessed to shooting someone for no good reason, then someone, somewhere would find the officer to be without blame and instead blame the victim in some way. Yet those same people are the first to complain about the "tyranny" of government.
I think that's quite true. Just as true that if shooting was the only way to prevent the deceased from killing others it would still be murder by cop. Works both ways.
"By the way, is it your contention that if he had quietly handed over his license and not driven away he would still have been shot?)"
It's my contention that the cop had no authority to pull him over in the first place. He's a campus cop. Not a Cincy cop or a State cop. The man didn't have his license on him. That's a mistake, but not a justification for being shot in the head. What I saw on the video was that the man is shot prior to the car moving. As it moved down the street, a dead man was at the wheel. The cop was NOT being dragged as he states. He's lying to cover his ass. We saw the same thing in South Carolina with the shooting a man in the back 8 times and then planting evidence.
Your assumption of answering my question of what should the cop do given the circumstances of a uncooperative offender of shoot him in the head is way out of line and shows a prejudicial tone towards the conversation. You automatically assume by the results that the measures are condoned. Answering the question is beyond you at this point with the inflammatory and ridiculous conclusions you jump to in this situation.
Should the officer allow a suspect to drive away from the stop knowing that he "may" be drunk, can produce no valid drivers license and presumably insurance and flee the scene? Can you answer the question or will we start the litany of accusations and assumptions again?"Should the officer allow a suspect to drive away from the stop knowing that he "may" be drunk," - Knowing that he "may" be drunk and knowing that he IS drunk are two different things. One is fact, and the other speculation. You don't shoot a man on speculation. The cop has never indicated that he smelled alcohol on the man. There was no signs of intoxication. You can't assume that a bottle of Gin in the car proves intoxication. There is no law against driving to the store and buying a bottle of gin, and there is no reason to assume that the man has been drinking it when the bottle hadn't been opened.
Absolutely an astute and just observation on one of the actions that were happening at the same time. What about the uncooperative behavior of the suspect? Why is it that when asked about his license he ignored the question so many times? Then he asked again what he was pulled over for. Was it nervousness or was he impaired? If he wasn't impaired what was he hiding? When the policeman asked him to get out of the car and opened the door the suspect grabbed the door and closed it. Then he sped away.
Should the suspect have been shot? I don't think so from my 20/20 hindsight perspective seat. Is it only the policeman's fault given the circumstances?"What about the uncooperative behavior of the suspect?" - Two things come to mind. 1. What was this campus cop doing pulling this man over for a license plate issue? The incident didn't even happen on the campus grounds. 2. I didn't see the man being uncooperative. I think we tend to lose site of the fact that we do have rights in this country. We have rights. The cop doesn't have a "right" to ticket you. He has the authority to ticket you. But you do have rights, and we're now being told that we should ignore our rights and just do as we're told by a wannabe cop. Mr. Dubose asked the cop what he was being pulled over for, and the cop said his license plate. He told the cop he didn't have his drivers license on him, which seemed foolish on his part. You always carry ID with you. Most people carry their license in their wallet. I'm assuming he had his wallet with him. But he was also under the impression that you only need a plate on the back, which is the case in many states. Nevertheless...the license plate issue isn't even the concern of a campus cop. That's for the city or the state cops to deal with. And finally, in regards to #2....NONE of this was a justification to pull your gun and shoot the man in the head. Even if the man decided, you don't have the authority to pull me over, and I'm out of here and going home. Are you going to shoot me? Tensing is not justified in shooting Dubose.
"Two things come to mind. 1. What was this campus cop doing pulling this man over for a license plate issue? The incident didn't even happen on the campus grounds."
That was my question as well. Is there reciprocity between the local PD and the Campus police?
"2. I didn't see the man being uncooperative."
When the cop opened the door the suspect grabbed the door and closed it. That is being un cooperative. The suspect seemed incoherent as the questions by the cop were repeated several times and the cop told him at least three times why he was being stopped.
"Nevertheless...the license plate issue isn't even the concern of a campus cop. That's for the city or the state cops to deal with."
In this day and age of Terrorism anything suspicious can be claimed. Fast, proper ID is also handy to have to eliminate any threats. Parking and vehicle registration is a common thing for all law enforcement to work with.
"And finally, in regards to #2....NONE of this was a justification to pull your gun and shoot the man in the head. Even if the man decided, you don't have the authority to pull me over, and I'm out of here and going home. Are you going to shoot me?" Tensing is not justified in shooting Dubose.
I don't know if it can be historically justified knowing what we know now but when someone runs people do get shot. We have seen it time and time again. When I see a gun in any situation I pay very close attention to it and who is handling it. I have been to parties where some people insist on bringing their guns too and I have very quickly left because booze and guns don't mix. Ignoring the police and running from them has proven to have disastrous results.
The reason Tensing gave for shooting DuBose, as stated by him directly several times at the scene (as captured on video), and later to other officers in statements, was that he was being "dragged" by DuBose and that he was "nearly run over". So the issue at hand is that someone was shot in the head by a police officer, but available evidence contradicts the officer's stated reasons for shooting and indicates that he had no good reason for doing so. Therefore please explain how drunkenness is in any way relevant to this incident.
"Therefore please explain how drunkenness is in any way relevant to this incident?"
I gave my reasons if you had bothered to read through this. The repeated commands by the policeman to show his license were ignored. Typical of someone that might be impaired. Repeating why he was being pulled over well into the conversation after it was explained several times. Another indicator that something was wrong.
You are so quick to excuse the suspects behavior by stating that he should not have been shot as a result. If this happened in a vacuum with nothing else going on you might be correct in assuming that. The suspect reacted in this situation towards his own undoing. He was not innocent of any wrong doing.
For arguments sake if the suspect had done as he was instructed would he have a good chance that he would still be alive? Two things that I was taught early on in my life that ring so true in this situation. Never fight with, or run from the police. Nothing good ever comes from it.You misunderstand me. I don't want you to explain why someone may have considered DuBose impaired by alcohol. I want you to explain how possible drunkenness is relevant at all to the final outcome. As far as I am aware, there is nothing to suggest Tensing's reason for shooting DuBose was related to him thinking DuBose was drunk. At all. Tensing stated at the scene, and elsewhere, that he was "dragged" and nearly "run over". It is reasonable to conclude that he repeated those statements because he wanted it on record as the reason he fired his weapon. If you have information that suggests otherwise, then please share it. If not, then talking about alcohol is useless speculation and a complete red herring. It's the equivalent of someone suggesting that Tensing was on Steroids that made him aggressive. Or that he had an argument with his partner that morning. Or that he was hung-over. Theoretically all those things are possible, but unless there is some reason to think they are true, they are nothing but speculation. Why are you engaging in such pointless speculation instead of sticking with the facts as we currently know them?
You insist on using the same argument about compliance (as predicted). Well I've said it before and I'll say it again. People are not robots. There are millions of reasons a person might be non-compliant. Some valid. Some not. In some instances lethal force will be absolutely justified. In some cases it will definitely not be justified. Like it or not, it is part of a police officer's job to be able to make that call, and deal with each situation appropriately, and certainly not abuse the authority they have been entrusted with. Thankfully, most police officers get it right. Some don't. When they don't they must be held accountable. Tensing used unjustifiable lethal force in my view, and he will hopefully be held accountable for doing so. In the same way that you or I would be. That's right and proper.
I'm not sure what purpose your speculative reasoning is intended to serve, but it appears to be speculation for the sake of speculation. If you don't mind, I prefer not to make things up. I'd rather just stick with what the current information tells me. Currently that information indicates that Tensing got it tragically wrong that day.I will make it all very simple for you. No speculation or conjecture in it.
Never fight with or run from the police. It is against the law and could be dangerous to your health. If you wish to argue your rights tell it to the judge. That is where the arguments are allowed to happen.
Even simpler yet. Had the suspect listened and followed instructions he would still be alive.Now we know what you are really getting at, let's examine that line of reasoning.
First of all, is it dangerous to antagonize someone who has a loaded weapon and the authority to use it under certain circumstances? Yes. When I said "people are not robots", that applies to police officers too. It would be great if all police officers did their job perfectly, with every member of the public, at all times. But that's not a realistic expectation. An officer could be inexperienced and nervous, or in the process of having a nervous breakdown, or just an a**hole. There are many factors that influence an officer's response to a situation. There are policies and procedures in place to guard against those factors being a risk, and for the most part they work, but they cannot always. So even though these types of incidents are relatively few, it's probably unwise to bet your life that a police officer will always be professional.
But as I said before, suspects are not robots either. The person who just got stopped for not having a license plate could be nervous, or in the process of having a nervous breakdown, or just an a**hole too. So the reality is that these types of tragic incidents occur when the people involved in the interaction - cop(s) and suspect(s) - both make bad decisions that coincide. It is this sequencing of bad decisions that results in these tragic and controversial outcomes. For example, in this specific case, DuBose made a bad decision in driving away from a traffic stop. But that bad decision alone was not enough to bring about the outcome that occurred. Tensing's response was also - as far as available information indicates - a bad decision. And it was the convergence of these two decisions that resulted in the fatal and controversial outcome. In other words, this incident required two bad decisions to be made, one by the suspect and one by the officer. If either one had not made their own bad decision, then the outcome may have been very different.
So by saying "Had the suspect listened and followed instructions he would still be alive!" you are only telling half the story. And that is what makes it appear that you are blaming the victim. That may not be your intention (I hope it isn't) but that is the message you are conveying. My "predictions" on the first page were referring to exactly that kind of selective story-telling. Likewise though, focusing only on the police officer's actions, gives the impression that the suspect's decisions played no part in the incident. That would not be an honest characterization either, which is the point I think wilderness was trying to make. The reality is that most of the recent controversial incidents that I can think of involving law enforcement, were the result of a police officer making a bad decision in response to a suspect's bad decision.
And therein lies the key to reducing these types of incidents, in my opinion. What are the factors causing suspects to make bad decisions in response to interactions with law enforcement? What are the factors causing police officers to make bad decisions in response to the bad decisions sometimes made by the public? If these questions can be answered, and that deadly sequencing of bad decisions disrupted, then that would be a step in the right direction.
In the meantime, people do need to be held accountable for their actions. DuBose, as with many of the suspects in these incidents, has paid the ultimate price. Whatever part he played in that sequence of bad decisions, has cost him his life. You can't be held more accountable than that. It is only right and proper that Tensing also be held accountable for whatever part he played in the sequence of bad decisions that led to the fatal outcome. And it's right that the extent of his accountability and punitive measures against him (if any) be decided in a court of law. So as far as I can see, things are proceeding as they should. But wouldn't it be great if we could stop those bad decisions from being made, before they are made, and reduce the need for discussions like this in the first place."And that is what makes it appear that you are blaming the victim. That may not be your intention (I hope it isn't) but that is the message you are conveying."
But Don, that is exactly what you have done. It may not be your intention to say the entire blame for a death always lies on a cop, but that is the message you are conveying. That DuBose holds zero culpability and Tensing all of it in this specific case and that just isn't true. You, yourself say that it took a convergence of bad behavior yet still appear to put all the blame on the cop.
How does that work, or am I misreading your posts?Did you not read the part where I said:
"Likewise though, focusing only on the police officer's actions, gives the impression that the suspect's decisions played no part in the incident. That would not be an honest characterization either, which is the point I think wilderness was trying to make. The reality is that most of the recent controversial incidents that I can think of involving law enforcement, were the result of a police officer making a bad decision in response to a suspect's bad decision. "
So which part of "That would not be an honest characterization either" do you not understand? The whole post is about the fact that I believe many of these incidents (including this one) are the result of a sequence of bad decisions made by police AND suspects. I'm not sure how to make that any clearer.I see a lot of oversimplification and black and white thinking. Had the cop let him just drive off and Dubose mowed down 2 children, a block away as he was fleeing the scene, I am sure the parents would have wished Tensing had used deadly force. Luckily no pedestrian or a bystander was ran over by Dubose or shot by Tensing. Had Dubose ran over 2 kids and killed them as he fled , and Tensing had let him go, well it would not be news. Parents would be asking Tensing why he didnt do anything....
However, stating that if people would not only cooperate, as it is simply put, (as if he had crossed his arms and asked for a sergeant or superior officer to come to the scene) but much further not start up your car and drive off as the cop is ordering you out of the car, opening your door and commanding you stop, ****does not**** make anyones default stance of: " No matter what, I support trigger happy cops that use deadly force at the drop of the hat."
Regardless, the best advice is to follow a cops orders 110% and incidents like this would be reduced by 99%, just ballpark in my opinion. It will more than likely keep everyone and any kids that are taught as they are growing up..... alive.....until trigger happy cops and good cops are differentiated by courts of law and juries and the people that hire the bad ones are held accountable too. And further, if you can't keep your car legal, can't carry a license, can't obey a cops orders, can't keep from driving off during a stop, then please do the rest of us a favor and take a cab. I do not want to be shot or run over, regardless of anyone's intent.
"In the meantime, people do need to be held accountable for their actions. DuBose, as with many of the suspects in these incidents, has paid the ultimate price. Whatever part he played in that sequence of bad decisions, has cost him his life. You can't be held more accountable than that. It is only right and proper that Tensing also be held accountable for whatever part he played in the sequence of bad decisions that led to the fatal outcome. And it's right that the extent of his accountability and punitive measures against him (if any) be decided in a court of law. So as far as I can see, things are proceeding as they should. But wouldn't it be great if we could stop those bad decisions from being made, before they are made, and reduce the need for discussions like this in the first place."
I could not have said it better myself.
Apparently your answer to "What is the appropriate response if someone you've stopped for not having a front license plate, drives away from you?" is: shoot them in the head just in case they are drunk, and just in case that drunkenness injures someone else.
I can tell you, that is also the incorrect answer.
And by the way your comment is a variation of "It was his fault he got shot in the head, he was on drugs". I guess I was right to be cynical.
Saw, I think, the city prosecutor in a news conference last night. I watched the video from the officer's camera. It does appear to me that the officer is guilty of murder. I suppose we'll learn more facts as the case proceeds. I am happy that this officer had an on body camera. I think, if we insist they all be issued one and it be operating at all times while they are on duty, we can eventually nip this violence in the butt and see more accountability from the police force when an officer is in the wrong. Conversely, good officers will be protected from false allegations.
I'm afraid I do believe many police officers are brutes and bullies. Body cameras should allow us to weed them out and hold them accountable for acting outside of the boundaries of our laws.I saw the video as well. I don't understand why or when the gun was pulled out of his holster. Could he have used a taser instead? Did he even have one? Is it your contention that the policeman should have let the victim drive off?
The guy was lacking a license. Not a crime punishable by death. So, yes given the two options i do believe he should have been allowed to drive away.
I'm like you. I didn't quite understand how that happened so quickly. I know the cop claims he was being dragged (no evidence appears available to support that) so it is even more incredible to imagine. Assuming he was right handed, quite the feat with only one hand holding on to a moving car.
I think we will see a lot of this as body cams spread throughout our police forces. The ones doing the damage are accustomed to giving nonsensical explanations and being automatically exonerated of any wrong doing.
Edit. In the officer's defense (if there is any) high stress situations can cause people to remember details completely opposite of what really happened. A campus cop could easily be so outside of his comfort zone and out of water to incorrectly remember events without even realizing he is lying."Is it your contention that the policeman should have let the victim drive off?" - I would say yes. The cop was outside of his jurisdiction to begin with. What authority does he have off the campus? He's not a Cincy cop. He's not a State Cop. He's campus security. Absolutely he should let the guy go. What's the alternative? shoot him?? Over a license plate that isn't even his issue? Sure seems that way.
I don't know where you live, but there is a university near me and the security forces there have a shocking amount of authority granted to them concerning infractions on public streets and sidewalks. You can even be ticketed for being on a public street while smoking tobacco because it's against school rules, and the courts will support the charge right up to pulling your drivers license.
Before you claim that the cop didn't have the authority to stop for no license plate you might want to check local laws.
"Conversely, good officers will be protected from false allegations."
Sadly, that is untrue. The mob and the media will always attack the cop regardless of what a video shows. After all, "Cops protect cops; the video was doctored!".Then invest in a real system that does not allow film to be doctored.
Is it digital? I can be doctored. And I don't think any system known is small enough to allow a cop to carry, say, 10 hours of film plus camera equipment on their person.
But it wouldn't matter anyway; the idiots that automatically put a "murderer" tag on every cop that uses a gun won't care any more than they care now. Their mind is made up without need for facts.Obviously any system can be doctored but only at a much higher level than the cop on the street.
Are you suggesting that your police are so corrupt that they would routinely doctor footage of their officers in action?
To suggest that because a few people don't care for the truth no effort should be made to show the truth is a true counsel of despair.No, I'm not suggesting that. It should have been very clear that I'm suggesting that the mob mentality rules in these cases and facts don't matter. They aren't present, and it won't matter if they are: the cop is always a murderer according to the mob.
Remember the Zimmerman case in the US? Where media (a little higher than a cop and with a few more resources) doctored a 911 tape to convince people it was racially motivated? It not only can be done, it is done. Just not by the cops.So by making the cops film available . . .
You will produce hundreds/thousands of claims it has been doctored. No other result (to the mob, not the courts).
Here, though, all you have to do is watch the media to find that it does. Or look at the forums on HP - you'll see the same thing, that evidence and facts are not of any importance. Already you can see it in this very forum from the very first - no one knows anything at all, but the cop was wrong and murdered.
But does it matter what people think? We have trial by court for such things.
We have the same distorting media that you have but it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if the cop's body cam shows him doing wrong, he's doing wrong whatever the media say. Likewise if he's doing the right thing, no amount of media attention can change the fact.
Giving cops cameras would not cure the problem but the alleviation would be considerable.Did it matter that people thought blacks were subhuman? Does it matter to a restaurant if people think they sell tainted food?
It matters a great deal what people think, and having a court settle the matter factually doesn't change that. Requiring cops to video their every action all day long (going to watch them take a leak or can they shut it off?) would most definitely help in court, but never in public opinion for public opinion doesn't care what the facts are. Nor is the public capable of making a valid call about what should or should not have been done. They say things like the cop should have let the guy go and had a high speed chase through town. Or just let him go in the hopes he was sober and wouldn't kill anyone. Or climb through the window somehow and grab the keys (we know the results of such a stupid action). Or...anything but protect the population - it's more important to never take any action that might harm a criminal.Of course what you say goes both ways. There are sections of society that would never believe a cops guilt however damning the evidence.
Again, why did he not ask for the drivers keys as soon as he'd stopped him?
Where is your evidence that DuBose was engaged in criminal activity?
In the UK cops with cameras activate them when needed. That's no good you might say but it is habit to turn them on at any time dealing with the public and any officer who did not do so would lose the benefit of the doubt in any subsequent enquiry."Where is your evidence that DuBose was engaged in criminal activity?"
In the USA every traffic stop is potentially life threatening. There is so much that has to take place and the reaction to the police is what guides the actions. "Based on consolidated information from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are about 300 millions guns in the United States". [1] Based on this statistic there probability that a pulled over car could have a gun in it is pretty good. Reaching in to take some ones keys might be pretty risky. That is why he wanted him out of the car.
Let me ask you a question. If a policeman is white and you are black and he using racially damning language, pulls you over for no reason you can determine and demands you get out of the car, what would you do?
[1] http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/03/how-many- … ed-states/Who mentioned reaching over and taking the keys?
In answer to your final question, in that situation I would probably drive off. If I was unable to drive off I would stay in my car and do all I could to attract attention."Again, why did he not ask for the drivers keys as soon as he'd stopped him? "
Presumably if keys were asked for instead of a license the same response would have been given: proffering a bottle of booze. Then what? Step back, salute and send him on his way or grab for the keys?
A little confused - if the guy doesn't immediately get out, lie down and offer wrists for cuffs you would retreat to your cop car and begin honking the horn? In just my lifetime we've gone from never locking our doors at home to multiple locks and a security system - that's the result of ignoring infractions and teaching cops to never, ever harm anyone."Presumably if keys were asked for instead of a license the same response would have been given: proffering a bottle of booze."
He would have looked rather silly saying that he didn't have his car keys on him, he'd left them at home. He'd have looked even sillier if he'd said that as many times as he said he'd left his licence at home.
I was talking about the black guys reaction to the cop, not the cop's reaction to the guy he was racially abusing. You are confused! (oops, that'll get me a thirty day suspension!)
If he was unwilling to produce a drivers license, get out of the car or cooperate in any way how else would the cop get the keys?
Instead of assuming you were in harms way would it not make more sense to cooperate and see where it was going before you brought attention to the scene?
The victim was intent on escaping the scene as easily and quickly as he could. Be damned with the law or anybody telling him what he could and could not do.Isn't that the law of nature - that stupidity carries a price and sometimes it includes death? Call it evolution in action as we put the cop (call that evolution in action as well as it's hard to make babies while in jail) away to protect the rest of us.
Then you need to study up on your biology a little. "Eat or be eaten" has been around for quite a while, as has "kill or be killed". While neither applies literally to humanity today, the concept is still quite valid.
(And no, you can't declare that I have said the cop would have eaten the driver, or even that every cop either kills every perp or gets killed by them.)I think that you need to study your biology a bit.
Name me a species that kills another of its species for not immediately doing what the top dog says!Odd - I don't recall mentioning being killed by the same species (although some do - a male lion will kill male cubs, for instance, and chimps are punished and sometimes killed for not following orders). That death could just as well come from falling off a cliff, freezing, drowning, etc.
Are you suggesting that DuBose was not of the same species as the cop?
I'd think with today's technology there should be another way for cops to do their job, keep everyone safe, including themselves, and somehow, someway do it without having to carry and use a sidearm.
Until then I can't help but believe that about 99% of these incidents could be avoided if everyone complied 110% with whatever the cop asks.What about body cameras?
They would make it very easy to identify people and apprehend them at a later date.As predicted:
"It was his fault he got shot in the head, he wasn't cooperating".I was speaking in general, so your strawman version is illogical and irrelevant. Be that as it may, it is a free country, feel free to ignore my advice and if you ever choose to ignore a cop, if you are ever stopped, and rev your engine and take off, I just hope no ones children are on the street when you do. Good luck.
There was another case of a young lady and she was leaving a party in what looked like a rural area. The cop, in my opinion, jumped on her car after she failed to pull over, (she was slowly trying to just drive around him after pulling out of a driveway.) The cop was waving his arms or a flashlight. She was probably drunk or confused. The cop claimed she was going to drive over him etc etc etc.
I believe he shot her to death through the window. I'm not sure whatever became of the cop, if anything. Both were white if that matters.
I wonder if the father of the young lady curses the cops name every day. I probably would. But before he falls asleep at night I also wonder if he mutters himself to sleep saying: "I always told her to just do whatever a cop says, without question, immediately."
I worry that someone could be mentally ill and not obeying commands fast enough, like the homeless guy out in the desert. I worry about someone that has low blood sugar and how they react.
I could live on an island or be a mountain man. But I choose to live in a society that has armed police officers. I choose to drive a 3000 lb auto @ 60 miles and hour, with roughly 100 million other people that drive. I realize that cops are not pizza delivery guys and often deal with life and death situations each day and are armed. That is the reality of the situation. I try to avoid them. If i do encounter one I say: Yes sir. No sir. Here is my license. Here is my insurance. Am I free to go? I am not concerned with monday morning qb's questioning whether someone should have used lethal force or not, by then it is too late. I think it is best to straighten up, bring a game, do whatever they ask and live. Hopefully in the future they can do their jobs with tasars and sawed off bean bag shotguns or something. But until then....Well I'm not speaking in general, I'm referring to the specific incident this thread is about. So I repeat the same question to you that I have been asking throughout:
You are a police officer. What is the appropriate response if someone you've stopped for not having a front license plate, drives away from you?
A. Let them go.
B. Go back to your vehicle and initiate a pursuit.
C. Shoot them in the head.
Note: this is not a trick question.A & B are unacceptable as well.
Let me ask you a question. You are stopped by a policeman for not displaying a front tag on your car. What should you do?
A. Cooperate with the police officer and provide the information he requires.
B. Argue with the police officer and tell him you just want to go home.
C. Put the car in gear and speed away because you think he is being a petty bother.
This is not a trick question.So you think death is a suitable punishment for getting fed up with a cop wasting your time?
Yeah, that's right. NOT!
It is predictable when you ignore the instructions. You are presenting an argument from the back to the front. Here it is as your timeline suggests. The events as happened in the opposite order because with this argument the first two are the only ones being reasoned with.
1. Chase the guy down the street after he has been shot.
2. Shoot the guy in the head.
3. Pull out your gun.
4. The guy puts the car in gear to leave.
5. The guy pulls the door shut after the cop opens the door he has been told to get out of the car.
6. The guy says he has no license on him and has to be asked repeatedly where it is before he answers.
7. The guy repeatedly says he just wants to go home.
8. The guy asks the cop repeatedly why he was pulled over.
9. The guy when asked where his license is hands the cop a bottle of gin.
10. The guy when told he needs the license tag to be on the front of the car says it is okay because it is in the car with him.
11. The cop approaches the car and greets him and tells him why he was pulled over.
As with most who rail against the cop for shooting the guy the series of event's wish to overlook how it escalated. No the cop should not have shot the guy in the head. But the guy has a responsibility to act responsibly as well. Don't worry they are going to fry the cop and his misjudgment will haunt him the rest of his life.
Everybody wants to argue their rights on the street fresh from the wrongdoing. You have a few rights and the cops are only too willing to tell you them once they arrest you. This guy should have used his first one to the tee. He had the right to remain silent.So a suitable penalty for somebody acting irresponsibly is death!
Kids act irresponsibly every day. Educationally sub normal people act irresponsibly everyday.
Even perfectly rational adults some times act irresponsibly!
Some days I get bored and watch mindless TV. Often I see American cop reality programmes. Many show much more irresponsible drivers than DuBose was, some are even openly aggressive and try to get away.
Rarely does the cop get out his gun and shoot.
I did not say anything was warranted. It is what happened as a result. I have asked what is it that the policeman should have done? The resounding answer seems to be let him go. Is that to be the new policy? If caught later in a less lethal situation how would a cohesive prosecution take place? Are the police to determine at the crime scene if the suspect might be killed if they allowed it to go beyond obedience to commands and let him go as a result? What if the suspect stole a candy bar or money? What if the store keeper made it up and accused the suspect of theft? Should he let the suspect go if he wants to drive off?
The police are asked to uphold the law. They are given the authority to detain and question an offender as to the particulars of the situation. If the suspect does not wish to answer the questions he should ask for an attorney. NOT RUN AWAY! Running away is an admission of something is wrong and the police are sworn to find out what that is to protect the rest of us.The situation was only lethal because the cop drew his gun!
If you are happy to live in a police state where the police are judge, jury and executioner then o be it! I hope you are happy with that.
Agreed. There is a very small number of people that find no fault with cops regardless of what happens.
Why not ask for keys? How would I know? I wasn't there and haven't the faintest idea of what happened. That's kind of the point, you know - I...don't...know, and won't try to second guess without knowing. Will you?
None. What is yours that he was not? But that doesn't matter, does it? The presumption (and thus truth) is that he was not, that he was just a nice, church going kid that the cop blew away for no reason.
I actually do support cameras; they should not be necessary but in the climate today of the hanging mob they are. Just another piece of crap to hang onto a cop; a little more and they won't be able to chase anybody down at their best waddle. Perhaps that's the end goal; saddle cops with so much junk they can't do anything at all and criminals do as they wish.You do seem rather fixated on putting this 43 year old man down as a child! He was not a kid!
The cameras tend to be a lot less bulky than their radios. Is a cop who is disabled by a few ounces of extra gear actually fit to be a cop?
As to second guessing, I viewed the video clip posted by rhamson and I don't believe that I'm second guessing anything.
"the cop is always a murderer according to the mob."
And the victim is always a "thug" according to Fox News."Where media (a little higher than a cop and with a few more resources) doctored a 911 tape to convince people it was racially motivated? It not only can be done, it is done. Just not by the cops."
I wouldn't go there. George Zimmerman got away with murder. Trayvon Martin was cast as a Thug by Fox News who interviewed Zimmerman in a softball interview by Hannity. If anybody had a right to "stand his ground" it was Trayvon Martin.Why not go there? Irregardless of who and what Zimmerman or Martin was or did, the tape WAS doctored - just what I said and just what the subject was.
And nice that you will publicly claim Zimmerman was a murderer, particularly after a jury of his peers that got first hand experience with all the evidence decided he was not. It's a major problem today when people make snap decisions without having the faintest idea what happened, which I have said over and over in this thread should you care to read back over it all. Or, if you review the Zimmerman case you might even figure out that Martin WAS a thug and didn't "stand his ground"; he attacked with no more "provocation" than that he thought he was being followed.
"the idiots that automatically put a "murderer" tag on every cop that uses a gun won't care any more than they care now. "
- Interesting answer. Those "idiots are seeing cops committing murder and they call them murderers. Because that's what the cop in South Carolina is. That's what the cops in Staten Island are. The cops that killed Freddie Gray are murderers. And That's what Tensing is. But to suggest that they call every cop a murderer is false. That's like saying that because some blacks riot or loot after one of these incidents, that ALL blacks riot and loot. Do they? Are all cops murderers? The answer to both is no. But what I see is total cynicism taking over, and your statement, "the idiots that automatically put a "murderer" tag on every cop that uses a gun won't care any more than they care now." illustrates that. Racism isn’t simply using the “n” word. It’s the complete benefit of the doubt toward one group, and the total skepticism toward another.
" After all, "Cops protect cops; the video was doctored!"." - They do don't they? We saw video of a cop in South Carolina manipulate the evidence after shooting a man 8 times in the back. The Video of Sandra Bland's arrest was altered. The cops at the scene of the Dubose shooting backed up Tensings account of the event when the video proves they were lying. Tensing was not dragged by Dubose car. Tensing didn't shoot Dubose after the car was moving. Dubose was already dead, and Tensing's video shows him running after the car.
Race might have played a part in this, but not in part of the police officer.
I think this is a problem of people who have no respect for law enforcement period. Not the other way around. If this was systematic killing of people for no apparent reason, then maybe, but in every case, the person shot was fighting or running.Btw, why doesn't anyone think there is an epidemic of police being shot? Is what do they think the cause of this is?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/02/us/memphi … ffic-stop/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/10/us/missis … shot-dead/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015 … /26882511/"Race might have played a part in this, but not in part of the police officer."
I don't know if that is entirely true. I see traffic stops all the time and maybe it is just where I am but more stops seem to be on black drivers than white. Is it a coincidence? Maybe but there are fewer black people in my local area than white people. Is it that the black drivers are worse drivers? Once again I don't know.
I do agree that if you run from a cop, he will have probable cause to chase you no matter what race you are. Should he shoot you is what is the question."I see traffic stops all the time and maybe it is just where I am but more stops seem to be on black drivers than white. Is it a coincidence?"
Are you writing down the numbers? If not, maybe if you have a pre-conceived notion and you only notice black people being pulled over. Maybe you just notice it when it is a black driver pulled over. You have a belief, which is confirmed only when you see a minority pulled over and you reaffirm your belief by thinking to yourself: "Another black man pulled over." and maybe you don't notice when a white driver is pulled over. I don't know what you are thinking and statistics cannot prove it until you tell me. The same goes for the cop.
Or maybe you are in a predominately black neighborhood. There are many different scenarios. I don't know.
What I do know is that statistics cannot prove what a person is thinking. When I took my first statistics class, the teacher told us; "Any desired result can come from the use of statistics. If someone wants to get a certain answer, they can skew the numbers anyway they want to get what they want."No I have not written down the numbers. I already stated that it was my neighborhood where I made the observation. Several others in my neighborhood have the same observation. Do you want their names? C'mon man! I must be skewing the numbers to try an convince you otherwise? What numbers did I give you.
Do we even know if the policeman caught the suspect on campus and followed him off campus and was the stop out of his jurisdiction? That would go a long way towards determining if the officer profiled him and used the lack of a license plate on the front of the car as just an excuse. I have personally been ticketed for the same offence and I am white. It was by a State Trooper who I know had jurisdiction. I broke the law and paid the price. I did not run from it.Hadn't thought about it, but so have I. Bought a car with nowhere to put a front license so laid it on the dashboard. Got stopped, too, but not ticketed. The cop did make it clear I had to get that license on the front somehow, so I did. Didn't argue with him, didn't do anything but tell him "Thank you", go home and mount the plate. And he didn't even shoot me!
rhamson,
My point about asking you if you wrote down the number of times was not that I wanted proof from you, but that sometimes our pre-conceived notions can make us notice some things and not another. We also tend to notice negative things more, such as red lights. For instance, sometimes people complain about being stopped by 4 red lights on the way to a destination. They can remember the red lights, but if asked, they probably couldn't remember all of the green lights they made it through.
As for both of you guys being stopped; I have been stopped many times even though I did nothing wrong. I used to work nights and at that time cops always fish for DUI's. They would usually make something up like "I pulled you over because you touched the yellow line." I also never got shot or even had a gun pulled on me. Was that because I was respectful or because I was white. I guess we will never know, but I would go with the former.
Well, here they go again! These crazy policemen shot another black man. I mean, all he did was shoot a gun at them. What racists! (Sarcasm btw)
http://news.yahoo.com/police-shoot-gunm … 05433.html
more cops abusing authority and power as usual this something has to happen soon too many are getting away with it
The cop was a campus cop. Dubose was not driving on campus property. Under what authority did Tensing even have to pull him over? He pulls him over for not having a front plate on his car? That's not even Tensing's business. That's the business of the State Police or Cincy police. So over this crap, he decides to shoot the man in the head? If you saw the video then you saw Tensing shoot before the car moved, and Tensing was NOT dragged by the car. There was a dead man behind the wheel of that car which came to a stop at the end of the block. Tensing is a lying POS, and the other cops filed a false report. I don't know why they are not indicted.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/zac … b28f0528cf
This happened not far from me, 45 minutes away, in a town with almost no traffic at 8pm on a Sunday. Literally if you go to this town on a Sunday night or morning you will likely see only 2 cars per hour on this road. He had no gun. He did not run. Autopsy shows he was not moving (his car was not fleeing) when he was shot in the back and side by police. The police of course lied and said he was trying to run them over so they shot him. Yet the autopsy proves not only was his car at a standstill, but the police officer was not in front of the car. The boy was inside his car and they were trying to bust him over marijuana.
I am tired of people saying "if he wouldn't have been selling drugs" or "If she would have just got out her car". It is not the police job to murder people, it is not their job to sentence someone to death, this is not how a person is to be held accountable for their wrong doings. Police brutality is going way too far, and it is time the bad cops be held accountable for murdering people. It is EVERY criminals CONSTITUTIONAL right to a trial, not to be shot down by an over zealous cop. I have known some very good cops. These are not them!We had a local tragedy where two policemen were killed for responding to a domestic disturbance. When a city cop and county cop arrived at the call a State Trooper arrived as back up. The city cop and county cop knew the suspect from previous encounters. Having a familiarity with the suspect and knew he lived alone they asked the suspect to come out of the residence so they could talk. The suspect told them to go away and that he had a shotgun. Against all common logic they disregarded the danger because they thought they had a good relationship with the suspect. They then approached the door and rapped on it asking the suspect to come out again. The suspect blasted the door and killed the two policemen. The State Trooper who was behind a large tree was unharmed.
The bottom line is that you cannot predict what will happen in any given situation nor a relationship of mutual trust can be established in any given situation.
It sounds as if in the situation you described there was a great deal of inconsistencies as to what the motives of the cops were. But cops are under a great deal of pressure anytime a situation occurs where their lives are in danger. To adjust to it by ignoring the conditions is foolhardy.I completely agree with you. However when case after case shows evidence that cops are lying and covering up their murders it is no longer about conditions. If a cop truly feels he or she is in a life threatening situation and has proof to back up their claims there is no reason to make up lies. If a cop can not handle the pressures of their job, they shouldn't be doing it. Being a police officer is not easy, it is not for the easily bothered, and it sure isn't for the trigger happy. Like any job, if they can't handle it they should not be doing it!
Related Discussions
- 108
Another Police Officer Shows Extreme Unprofessionalism
by Don W 8 years ago
Another example of unreasonable (and therefore unlawful) force being used by a police officer who was evidently away on the day they covered "de escalation" at the academy.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R46-XTqXkzE
- 276
Another 1 Bites the Dust: What are your thoughts on Police Brutality?
by deecoleworld 8 years ago
What are your thoughts on Police Brutality? Especially about the recent death of Walter Scott
- 41
Another shooting involving police. It's never ending!
by Fred Arnold 9 years ago
Here's the article:http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 … ds-up.htmlAnd here's the video:http://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-man-s … 49422.htmlOf course the Media has to go into the history of the cops/victims pasts instead of just looking at the facts of the situation. Misdirection...
- 42
Why are so many people shot and killed by police officers?
by Mike Russo 7 years ago
It's because of the "Use of Force Model" that has been adopted by law enforcement from the military Many cops across the country have been trained in this use of force model. It works like this. A cop approaches a suspect and gives the suspect some type of order. If the...
- 82
Life Lesson One to America's Youth !
by ahorseback 7 years ago
Police encounter - If you simply obey the orders of a police officer you will not be shot !What is so evil about obeying the simple , systematic standard directions of an officer in situations of a police , civilian encounter ? You cannot get away...
- 24
Why can't the police obey traffic laws?
by Brian 13 years ago
Is anyone else tired of the police doing whatever they want while they are operating a vehicle, while they pull people over for the most tiny break of a law?I was once pulled over by a cop, and I could not figure out what I did wrong. Well, it turns out that the tiny light over my license plate was...