If a police officer is trying to ascertain if you have a licence or not and asks you to take your seat belt off do you turn the ignition and attempt to drive off?
If I do does that give the police officer the right to shoot me in the head?
I'd put body cameras on all cops. I just don't think there are all these racist cops with itchy trigger fingers wanting to kill black people like the media portray. That guy that was shot had obviously been involved with the police a lot. He should have known the procedure and not to give any excuses for the cop to take deadly action like that.
One guy dead, one guy probably going to jail, black people think they are being targeted, white cops think they are vilified. Everybody loses. Common sense from the driver and common sense and better training from the officer and the whole thing is avoided.
So you are victim blaming. You believe it's right for a cop to shoot someone in the head for turning on his engine, appearing to be trying to drive off and you are justifying cold blooded murder? OMG! He wasn't in any danger of being dragged anywhere, he was lying and the video shows it all. Have you watched it, I can only assume you haven't.
Well it's not. It was asinine behaviour as his police chief said and he's charged with murder as he damn well should be. Is that so hard to fathom?
So you are victim blaming. You believe it's right for a cop to shoot someone in the head for turning on his engine, appearing to be trying to drive off and you are justifying cold blooded murder? OMG! He wasn't in any danger of being dragged anywhere, he was lying and the video shows it all. Have you watched it, I can only assume you haven't.
Well it's not. It was asinine behaviour as his police chief said and he's charged with murder as he damn well should be. Is that so hard to fathom?
Again you aren't able to comprehend what I said and make up your own lies. The man shouldn't have attempted to drive off and the officer shouldn't have shot. The initial argument from some was that he was shot because he was black, there is no evidence of that.
Again you aren't able to comprehend what I said and make up your own lies. The man shouldn't have attempted to drive off and the officer shouldn't have shot. The initial argument from some was that he was shot because he was black, there is no evidence of that.
I fully comprehend what you're doing, trying to justify murder as your words clearly say.
How Convenient that you had that Daily Mail story at hand. In the absence of reports of a nationwide trend of black cops deliberately murdering unarmed white people and falsifying evidence to cover up their homicide, I'll have to say I can't tell, There might be a racist component to the cops actions , there might not.
Anyway the two incidents are very different, the black cop was an actual cop not a jumped up security guard. The person he shot was advancing on him with what he thought was a weapon (according to your source) not sitting in his car cooperating with the cop.
Your comparison is forced and does not stand up to scrutiny.
Could you please show where in that article it states that the officer thought Gil Collar had a weapon?
The prosecutor says that he shot the victim in the head and then fell backwards, then the car moved.. If the victim was driving an automatic than the mere taking of your foot of the brake will cause the car to move forward if you're in drive.
If this guy had been stopped multiple times before without incident, why was this time different? Will be interesting to see if he and the cop had any 'previous'
The defence said:
Tensing's attorney believes the officer feared for his life.
"The guy jams the keys in the ignition," Stew Mathews told CNN.
"Turns the car on, jams it (into) drive and mashes the accelerator. He wasn't slowly pulling away. (Tensing) feared for his life. He thought he was going to be sucked under the car that was pulling away from him. He thought he was going to get sucked under and killed."
The whole policing situation looks difficult over there just now. It'll be an interesting case to keep abreast of.
The whole policing situation looks difficult over there just now. It'll be an interesting case to keep abreast of.
Hmm interesting but I can't ever recall a time I thought I was going to be sucked under a car and killed and I have stood beside many cars that have driven off. I mean I can understand fearing being sucked under a lorry on the motorway when you are driving side by side. However if he still maintains that he was being dragged along which is clearly not true than I suppose the defence would try and use that ridiculous story.
Don't you have anything to say about the actual case the the thread is about then?
Actually I have, I'm just looking a few things up beforehand, and this particular case has been mentioned in this thread. I'm researching stuff as I wouldn't want to do anything silly, like link to a totally unrelated video and claim it was evidence of murder. Because that would be embarrassing.
Hmm interesting but I can't ever recall a time I thought I was going to be sucked under a car and killed and I have stood beside many cars that have driven off. I mean I can understand fearing being sucked under a lorry on the motorway when you are driving side by side. However if he still maintains that he was being dragged along which is clearly not true than I suppose the defence would try and use that ridiculous story.
I've read up a bit on this case. His defence (whether you believe it or not) will be that he was dragged.
Now if you take the silver car situated 30 yards or so in front of the stop as a base point, if you take where Tensing 'landed' after falling before he started running, he is much closer to the silver car. This would indicate that there is a possibility he was dragged.
This seems to be the argument from what I've read up on.
Actually I have, I'm just looking a few things up beforehand, and this particular case has been mentioned in this thread. I'm researching stuff as I wouldn't want to do anything silly, like link to a totally unrelated video and claim it was evidence of murder. Because that would be embarrassing.
No you'll just continue to make claims that its all the victims fault instead. As the police would never do a thing like that would they, but yet here you are in this thread trying to find fault with the police mans defence, so what's the difference this time?
No you'll just continue to make claims that its all the victims fault instead. As the police would never do a thing like that would they, but yet here you are in this thread trying to find fault with the police mans defence, so what's the difference this time?
You seem to be confused. I have not claimed it is the victim's fault at all. I am simply asking the poster where, in the article he cited on the University of Alabama case, that the officer claimed that he thought that Gil Collar had a weapon. I've offered no opinion as yet on the DuBose encounter.
You seem to be confused. I have not claimed it is the victim's fault at all. I am simply asking the poster where, in the article he cited on the University of Alabama case, that the officer claimed that he thought that Gil Collar had a weapon. I've offered no opinion as yet on the DuBose encounter.
I hope that is clear enough for you.
No I am not confused you argued continuously about the cop in the Sandra Bland case not being at fault and kept claiming that the anti police were this and the anti police was that. So as you are obviously not anti police and was quite happy to continuously defend the police in the Sandra Bland case you will do the same for the case you are reading up on and gaining information on won't you?
I do get the feeling that some of them are deliberately looking for trouble.
It's time Obama seriously addressed the obvious issues in the US police generally.
Not sure about the police part but if I remember rightly Obamas tried to address Americas gun issues, saying no other first world country has the issues (shootings, number of) that America does. He's tried and it fell mostly on deaf ears.
Not sure about the police part but if I remember rightly Obamas tried to address Americas gun issues, saying no other first world country has the issues (shootings, number of) that America does. He's tried and it fell mostly on deaf ears.
The have the constitutional right to bear arms. Obama can't do much about it.
The have the constitutional right to bear arms. Obama can't do much about it.
Sighs I really dont want to get into this but actually they don't. What's written in the constitution has been misconstrued completely. It actually refers to local law enforcement protecting settlements against those who'd raid the camp/town/settlement. Not your average joe using against your other average joe. Not to mention the fact that it sure as shit didn't mean walking into your local wallmart with a semi automatic riffle.
You seem to be confused. I have not claimed it is the victim's fault at all. I am simply asking the poster where, in the article he cited on the University of Alabama case, that the officer claimed that he thought that Gil Collar had a weapon. I've offered no opinion as yet on the DuBose encounter.
I hope that is clear enough for you.
So why are you posting in this thread?
Oh wait a sec, you're trolling. Of course😋
You were called out and embarrassed on the Sandra Bland thread(I've read your posts) so you thought you'd come here to cause trouble and get some attention.
Sighs I really dont want to get into this but actually they don't. What's written in the constitution has been misconstrued completely. It actually refers to local law enforcement protecting settlements against those who'd raid the camp/town/settlement. Not your average joe using against your other average joe. Not to mention the fact that it sure as shit didn't mean walking into your local wallmart with a semi automatic riffle.
That was why it was created, to protect from tyranny. During the Muscat days.
Comments
So what is the point of telling us all about his past?
If I do does that give the police officer the right to shoot me in the head?
It's important to establish the facts about who was involved.
So you are victim blaming. You believe it's right for a cop to shoot someone in the head for turning on his engine, appearing to be trying to drive off and you are justifying cold blooded murder? OMG! He wasn't in any danger of being dragged anywhere, he was lying and the video shows it all. Have you watched it, I can only assume you haven't.
Well it's not. It was asinine behaviour as his police chief said and he's charged with murder as he damn well should be. Is that so hard to fathom?
Depends if you are dragging the cop along or a threat to his life. Do you want to risk it or just take the seat belt off and comply?
Again you aren't able to comprehend what I said and make up your own lies. The man shouldn't have attempted to drive off and the officer shouldn't have shot. The initial argument from some was that he was shot because he was black, there is no evidence of that.
I fully comprehend what you're doing, trying to justify murder as your words clearly say.
Could you please show where in that article it states that the officer thought Gil Collar had a weapon?
Again you can't comprehend what I said. Keep going until you get it correct.
Well considering that the cop did not get dragged along and his life was not threatened I don't see how that bears any relevance.
So as those things did not happen and the cop still shot an innocent man dead the cop is obviously in the wrong isn't he?
Don't you have anything to say about the actual case the the thread is about then?
The defence said:
The whole policing situation looks difficult over there just now. It'll be an interesting case to keep abreast of.
Hmm interesting but I can't ever recall a time I thought I was going to be sucked under a car and killed and I have stood beside many cars that have driven off. I mean I can understand fearing being sucked under a lorry on the motorway when you are driving side by side. However if he still maintains that he was being dragged along which is clearly not true than I suppose the defence would try and use that ridiculous story.
Actually I have, I'm just looking a few things up beforehand, and this particular case has been mentioned in this thread. I'm researching stuff as I wouldn't want to do anything silly, like link to a totally unrelated video and claim it was evidence of murder. Because that would be embarrassing.
I've read up a bit on this case. His defence (whether you believe it or not) will be that he was dragged.
Now if you take the silver car situated 30 yards or so in front of the stop as a base point, if you take where Tensing 'landed' after falling before he started running, he is much closer to the silver car. This would indicate that there is a possibility he was dragged.
This seems to be the argument from what I've read up on.
No you'll just continue to make claims that its all the victims fault instead. As the police would never do a thing like that would they, but yet here you are in this thread trying to find fault with the police mans defence, so what's the difference this time?
You seem to be confused. I have not claimed it is the victim's fault at all. I am simply asking the poster where, in the article he cited on the University of Alabama case, that the officer claimed that he thought that Gil Collar had a weapon. I've offered no opinion as yet on the DuBose encounter.
I hope that is clear enough for you.
No I am not confused you argued continuously about the cop in the Sandra Bland case not being at fault and kept claiming that the anti police were this and the anti police was that. So as you are obviously not anti police and was quite happy to continuously defend the police in the Sandra Bland case you will do the same for the case you are reading up on and gaining information on won't you?
Not sure about the police part but if I remember rightly Obamas tried to address Americas gun issues, saying no other first world country has the issues (shootings, number of) that America does. He's tried and it fell mostly on deaf ears.
The have the constitutional right to bear arms. Obama can't do much about it.
Sighs I really dont want to get into this but actually they don't. What's written in the constitution has been misconstrued completely. It actually refers to local law enforcement protecting settlements against those who'd raid the camp/town/settlement. Not your average joe using against your other average joe. Not to mention the fact that it sure as shit didn't mean walking into your local wallmart with a semi automatic riffle.
So why are you posting in this thread?
Oh wait a sec, you're trolling. Of course😋
You were called out and embarrassed on the Sandra Bland thread(I've read your posts) so you thought you'd come here to cause trouble and get some attention.
That was why it was created, to protect from tyranny. During the Muscat days.
Now it's just ridiculous.
I have zero sympathy for Americans.
Only just looked back at this thread after posting a comment on page 2.
This article in The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/27/samuel-dubose-cincinnati-fatal-police-shooting contains the reference to the victim's suspended license and his long criminal history.