As has been said previously and ignored,
his previous history is no reason to shoot him in the head. In this instance the victim was unarmed and not aggressive which destroys the default excuse given by the police to exact a summary execution like this. This is evident in the video. His long criminal history did not include any violent offences, the officer was not in any danger before he murdered Mr DuBose. Driving whilst suspended is no reason for a death sentence not even inRed Neckville, Amerikkka .
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.
Nope. I asked several posters on that thread to answer specific questions regarding the Bland case, none of whom could do so. I proved without doubt that one particularly vociferous poster was lying, and he consequently refused to engage with me further.
I'll post on the DuBose situation when I am good and ready. Your post on the Alabama University case caught my attention, as did your posts on the Bland thread, full of accusations of racism.
So stop deflecting and answer the question. Where, in that article, is it stated that Trevis Austin believed Gil Collar had a weapon?
In fact, answer Frankie Fixer's question as well - what evidence do you have that MrDuBose was shot because of his race?
All of which were non-violent crimes which you even included in your quote though chose not to embolden that part.
How does anyone justify a single shot bullet to the head killing an unarmed man instantly who posed zero threat, simply because the front registration plate was missing and his driving licence suspended?
Nope. I asked several posters on that thread to answer specific questions regarding the Bland case, none of whom could do so. I proved without doubt that one particularly vociferous poster was lying, and he consequently refused to engage with me further.
I'll post on the DuBose situation when I am good and ready. Your post on the Alabama University case caught my attention, as did your posts on the Bland thread, full of accusations of racism.
So stop deflecting and answer the question. Where, in that article, is it stated that Trevis Austin believed Gil Collar had a weapon?
In fact, answer Frankie Fixer's question as well - what evidence do you have that MrDuBose was shot because of his race?
Look forward to your response.
For the record, no I was not lying, and your post in reply to another poster calling me a liar was deleted by the mods. I refused to engage with you because you persistently personalised the debate, and indulged in name calling.
All of which were non-violent crimes which you even included in your quote though chose not to embolden that part.
How does anyone justify a single shot bullet to the head killing an unarmed man instantly who posed zero threat, simply because the front registration plate was missing and his driving licence suspended?
See I don't get this....
That's not why he was shot. The officer shot him because he believed at the time he was in danger.
Now whether that was a reasonable belief or not is down to interpretation and for the jury to decide.
But to suggest the officer just decided to shoot him because of the front registration plate is absolute nonsense. it's also nonsense to suggest he did it because he was black.
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.
They do. It is fundamental, enshrined in the Constitution and will never be taken from them.
For the record, no I was not lying, and your post in reply to another poster calling me a liar was deleted by the mods. I refused to engage with you because you persistently personalised the debate, and indulged in name calling.
Statement of fact. I'll leave you to it.
Without wanting to get involved but that was not what happened. That's all I will say on the matter but to get proved wrong in a debate and then to act in the manner you did was uncalled for.
Oh dear. We seem to be arguing at cross-purposes. At the moment there is no concrete evidence to suggest that this killing was race related, though it would seem on aggregate that African Americans, when pulled over by white police officers, have a rational, justifiable fear of imminent death. One thing is fairly certain in this case though; the officer is guilty of murder.
What I don't understand is why the likes of FrankieFixer, in an apparent attempt to separate the allegation of racial motivation from the facts of this case, has chosen to try and exonerate the officer from any crime. Well, I say I don't understand, but in all honesty I think Frankie is just trolling. He seems to be attempting to defend the indefensible on the grounds that he's combating racism among forum members. I think he should get some sort of prize for that.
Where and what was the 'danger'? At what point was the officer under any threat from DuBose?
Have you viewed the whole clip from beginning to end where he turns his body cam off?
His belief was that he was going to be dragged under the vehicle. There is evidence to suggest he was dragged as when you view the video he 'lands' some distance further away from where he started.
Make of that what you will, I'm not going to debate with anyone re this as its emotionally charged.
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.
Slow the speed on the video, it's very clear what he did, when he did it and where they were, which is exactly what the COP said. He wasn't dragged. He claimed he was dragged by the car, so he then had to shoot. . He shot him first, the car hadn't moved, the car behind is in exactly the same place. Just after he shot him he then put his free left hand onto the car window frame. It looks more like the fool was trying to hold onto the car, because he'd shot him in the head, it was in drive and clearly dangerous.
Oh dear. We seem to be arguing at cross-purposes. At the moment there is no concrete evidence to suggest that this killing was race related, though it would seem on aggregate that African Americans, when pulled over by white police officers, have a rational, justifiable fear of imminent death. One thing is fairly certain in this case though; the officer is guilty of murder.
What I don't understand is why the likes of FrankieFixer, in an apparent attempt to separate the allegation of racial motivation from the facts of this case, has chosen to try and exonerate the officer from any crime. Well, I say I don't understand, but in all honesty I think Frankie is just trolling. He seems to be attempting to defend the indefensible on the grounds that he's combating racism among forum members. I think he should get some sort of prize for that.
You are talking nonsense. I already said the officer shouldn't have shot and will probably go to jail:
What a perfectly vicious little circle; A black person pulled over by white cop for a relatively minor driving offensefears for his life, so tries to escape from the situation before things take a turn for the worse. To prevent the felon from escaping the officer shoots him in the head!
In fear for his life so tries to escape? How do you know this? Can you read the mind of dead men? What evidence is there to show he was in fear of his life and not fear of being arrested?
Slow the speed on the video, it's very clear what he did, when he did it and where they were, which is exactly what the COP said. He wasn't dragged. He claimed he was dragged by the car, so he then had to shoot. . He shot him first, the car hadn't moved, the car behind is in exactly the same place. Just after he shot him he then put his free left hand onto the car window frame. It looks more like the fool was trying to hold onto the car, because he'd shot him in the head, it was in drive and clearly dangerous.
That's also my interpretation I'm just trying to balance it from both sides.
Regardless i very much doubt it will be murder... Manslaughter possibly.
You are talking nonsense. I already said the officer shouldn't have shot and will probably go to jail:
You on the other hand start the ball rolling with the race baiting insinuations and made up claims:
In fear for his life so tries to escape? How do you know this? Can you read the mind of dead men? What evidence is there to show he was in fear of his life and not fear of being arrested?
I started the ball rolling with race baiting insinuations?! Okay. Try trolling someone else, Frankie. I'm not hungry at the moment.
Regardless of what those who are emotionally charged or race obsessed with this in realistic terms this officer didn't just shoot this guy in the head for not having a front number plate. He panicked when the guy tried to drive off and clearly has his arm in the vehicle.
The killing might be deemed unlawful but there was no prior intent from what I can see. Even his mannerisms prior were calm.
Nope. I asked several posters on that thread to answer specific questions regarding the Bland case, none of whom could do so. I proved without doubt that one particularly vociferous poster was lying, .
..
This has nothing to do with this thread. It isn't true and it's deliberate baiting.
Nope. I asked several posters on that thread to answer specific questions regarding the Bland case, none of whom could do so. I proved without doubt that one particularly vociferous poster was lying, and he consequently refused to engage with me further.
I'll post on the DuBose situation when I am good and ready. Your post on the Alabama University case caught my attention, as did your posts on the Bland thread, full of accusations of racism.
So stop deflecting and answer the question. Where, in that article, is it stated that Trevis Austin believed Gil Collar had a weapon?
In fact, answer Frankie Fixer's question as well - what evidence do you have that MrDuBose was shot because of his race?
N
Look forward to your response.
I'm sorry I mis read who had the gun in the article you posted, my mistake, I am not too ego driven to admit my mistakes
Reasons why your attempt to derail this thread has failed:
Gil Collar was high on LSD and he had already attacked 2 people in their car and tried to bite a woman
Collar was naked and acting agressively, banging on the security buildings where OFICER Austin was stationed.
He pursued the retreating office despite repeatedly being told to leave
He was shot because his threatening behaviour lead officer Austin to act in self defence.
Your argument and comparison collapse because:
Mr DuBose wasNOT high on drugs
He was NOT being aggressive
He did NOT attack anyone
Can you prove that Mr DuBose and Sandra Bland were NOT MURDERED because they were black?
What are you trying to prove by forcing a 3 yr old incident into a totally unrelated thread?
Looks like trolling to me. Please note that I have no interest in wasting my time engaging with trolls and won't be engaging in any more of you trouble making posts. You are an irrelevance to me.
Regardless of what those who are emotionally charged or race obsessed with this in realistic terms this officer didn't just shoot this guy in the head for not having a front number plate. He panicked when the guy tried to drive off and clearly has his arm in the vehicle.
The killing might be deemed unlawful but there was no prior intent from what I can see. Even his mannerisms prior were calm.
Regardless of what those who are emotionally charged or race obsessed with this in realistic terms this officer didn't just shoot this guy in the head for not having a front number plate. He panicked when the guy tried to drive off and clearly has his arm in the vehicle.
The killing might be deemed unlawful but there was no prior intent from what I can see. Even his mannerisms prior were calm.
Does murder require intent? I can understand that when you kill somebody by accident it's considered manslaughter rather than murder, but when you place a loaded gun against somebody's head and pull the trigger it is no accident that the person dies, it's almost inevitable.
That's not why he was shot. The officer shot him because he believed at the time he was in danger.
Now whether that was a reasonable belief or not is down to interpretation and for the jury to decide.
But to suggest the officer just decided to shoot him because of the front registration plate is absolute nonsense. it's also nonsense to suggest he did it because he was black.
That's the officer's de facto defence, yes, but it doesn't mean he couldn't also be a trigger-happy racist. See, anyone can claim whatever they like for his reasons/motivation - proving it is another matter, which is why I think it might be difficult to get a murder conviction. (Unless a better-informed poster can advise on the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder?) Anyway, I don't think anyone has come remotely near to claiming that he was shot because of the missing front registration plate, so yes that is absolute nonsense.
I see no reason whatsoever for Tensing to have drawn his gun in the first place, let alone for him to aim it at Mr DuBose's head. Total recklessness. >:( Also, given that the driver's window was rolled right down and he had a gun in one hand and didn't appear to be leaning into the car, the claim that he was dragged along by it seems pretty tenuous. I wonder if there is any other CCTV in the area which might have captured proceedings more clearly?
That's the officer's de facto defence, yes, but it doesn't mean he couldn't also be a trigger-happy racist. See, anyone can claim whatever they like for his reasons/motivation - proving it is another matter, which is why I think it might be difficult to get a murder conviction. (Unless a better-informed poster can advise on the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder?) Anyway, I don't think anyone has come remotely near to claiming that he was shot because of the missing front registration plate, so yes that is absolute nonsense.
I see no reason whatsoever for Tensing to have drawn his gun in the first place, let alone to aim it at MR DuBose's head. Total recklessness. >:( Also, given that the driver's window was rolled right down and he had a gun in one hand and didn't appear to be leaning into the car, the claim that he was dragged along by it seems pretty tenuous. I wonder if there is any other CCTV in the area which might have captured proceedings more clearly?
You could also argue the fact he only shot once rather than multiple times shows there was no malice, again making it less likely to be murder.
His arm was definitely in the car, whether it should have been is another thing.
Regardless of what those who are emotionally charged or race obsessed with this in realistic terms this officer didn't just shoot this guy in the head for not having a front number plate. He panicked when the guy tried to drive off and clearly has his arm in the vehicle.
The killing might be deemed unlawful but there was no prior intent from what I can see. Even his mannerisms prior were calm.
The Victim didn't try to drive off the car didn't move until it rolled away after he had been shot in the head
Anyone who panics to the point they shoot an unarmed man dead without provocation should not be in possession of a gun in any official capacity.
its very telling that the only people defending this murder or the shooter are random posters on the Internet (with an agenda)and his defence attorney(. Who is paid to do so)
Comments
As has been said previously and ignored,
his previous history is no reason to shoot him in the head. In this instance the victim was unarmed and not aggressive which destroys the default excuse given by the police to exact a summary execution like this. This is evident in the video. His long criminal history did not include any violent offences, the officer was not in any danger before he murdered Mr DuBose. Driving whilst suspended is no reason for a death sentence not even inRed Neckville, Amerikkka .
Nope. I asked several posters on that thread to answer specific questions regarding the Bland case, none of whom could do so. I proved without doubt that one particularly vociferous poster was lying, and he consequently refused to engage with me further.
I'll post on the DuBose situation when I am good and ready. Your post on the Alabama University case caught my attention, as did your posts on the Bland thread, full of accusations of racism.
So stop deflecting and answer the question. Where, in that article, is it stated that Trevis Austin believed Gil Collar had a weapon?
In fact, answer Frankie Fixer's question as well - what evidence do you have that MrDuBose was shot because of his race?
Look forward to your response.
How does anyone justify a single shot bullet to the head killing an unarmed man instantly who posed zero threat, simply because the front registration plate was missing and his driving licence suspended?
For the record, no I was not lying, and your post in reply to another poster calling me a liar was deleted by the mods. I refused to engage with you because you persistently personalised the debate, and indulged in name calling.
Statement of fact. I'll leave you to it.
See I don't get this....
That's not why he was shot. The officer shot him because he believed at the time he was in danger.
Now whether that was a reasonable belief or not is down to interpretation and for the jury to decide.
But to suggest the officer just decided to shoot him because of the front registration plate is absolute nonsense. it's also nonsense to suggest he did it because he was black.
Have you viewed the whole clip from beginning to end where he turns his body cam off?
They do. It is fundamental, enshrined in the Constitution and will never be taken from them.
Without wanting to get involved but that was not what happened. That's all I will say on the matter but to get proved wrong in a debate and then to act in the manner you did was uncalled for.
I will say no more on it.
What I don't understand is why the likes of FrankieFixer, in an apparent attempt to separate the allegation of racial motivation from the facts of this case, has chosen to try and exonerate the officer from any crime. Well, I say I don't understand, but in all honesty I think Frankie is just trolling. He seems to be attempting to defend the indefensible on the grounds that he's combating racism among forum members. I think he should get some sort of prize for that.
His belief was that he was going to be dragged under the vehicle. There is evidence to suggest he was dragged as when you view the video he 'lands' some distance further away from where he started.
Make of that what you will, I'm not going to debate with anyone re this as its emotionally charged.
Slow the speed on the video, it's very clear what he did, when he did it and where they were, which is exactly what the COP said. He wasn't dragged. He claimed he was dragged by the car, so he then had to shoot. . He shot him first, the car hadn't moved, the car behind is in exactly the same place. Just after he shot him he then put his free left hand onto the car window frame. It looks more like the fool was trying to hold onto the car, because he'd shot him in the head, it was in drive and clearly dangerous.
You are talking nonsense. I already said the officer shouldn't have shot and will probably go to jail:
You on the other hand start the ball rolling with the race baiting insinuations and made up claims:
In fear for his life so tries to escape? How do you know this? Can you read the mind of dead men? What evidence is there to show he was in fear of his life and not fear of being arrested?
That's also my interpretation I'm just trying to balance it from both sides.
Regardless i very much doubt it will be murder... Manslaughter possibly.
Why?.
I started the ball rolling with race baiting insinuations?! Okay.
Murder requires intent.
Regardless of what those who are emotionally charged or race obsessed with this in realistic terms this officer didn't just shoot this guy in the head for not having a front number plate. He panicked when the guy tried to drive off and clearly has his arm in the vehicle.
The killing might be deemed unlawful but there was no prior intent from what I can see. Even his mannerisms prior were calm.
This has nothing to do with this thread. It isn't true and it's deliberate baiting.
I'm sorry I mis read who had the gun in the article you posted, my mistake, I am not too ego driven to admit my mistakes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/gil-collar-lsd-dead-alabama_n_1952035.html
Reasons why your attempt to derail this thread has failed:
Gil Collar was high on LSD and he had already attacked 2 people in their car and tried to bite a woman
Collar was naked and acting agressively, banging on the security buildings where OFICER Austin was stationed.
He pursued the retreating office despite repeatedly being told to leave
He was shot because his threatening behaviour lead officer Austin to act in self defence.
Your argument and comparison collapse because:
Mr DuBose wasNOT high on drugs
He was NOT being aggressive
He did NOT attack anyone
Can you prove that Mr DuBose and Sandra Bland were NOT MURDERED because they were black?
What are you trying to prove by forcing a 3 yr old incident into a totally unrelated thread?
Looks like trolling to me. Please note that I have no interest in wasting my time engaging with trolls and won't be engaging in any more of you trouble making posts. You are an irrelevance to me.
But the facts show he's been charged with murder.
Does murder require intent? I can understand that when you kill somebody by accident it's considered manslaughter rather than murder, but when you place a loaded gun against somebody's head and pull the trigger it is no accident that the person dies, it's almost inevitable.
He has been charged with murder yes but America tend to go for the highest possible charge often to appease the lynch mob.
I will be surprised if a conviction on murder is found as I personally fail to see how that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I see no reason whatsoever for Tensing to have drawn his gun in the first place, let alone for him to aim it at Mr DuBose's head. Total recklessness. >:( Also, given that the driver's window was rolled right down and he had a gun in one hand and didn't appear to be leaning into the car, the claim that he was dragged along by it seems pretty tenuous. I wonder if there is any other CCTV in the area which might have captured proceedings more clearly?
We will see. The fact you are referring to appeasing a "lynch mob" makes me wonder if you believe he was justified in shooting dead an innocent man.
It was one guy pulling his gun out and deliberately shooting another guy in the head, for no reason other than his car rolled forward.
That looks like cold blooded murder to me. I can see him going down, and I hope he gets life.
You could also argue the fact he only shot once rather than multiple times shows there was no malice, again making it less likely to be murder.
His arm was definitely in the car, whether it should have been is another thing.
I will be interested to see where this goes.
The Victim didn't try to drive off the car didn't move until it rolled away after he had been shot in the head
Anyone who panics to the point they shoot an unarmed man dead without provocation should not be in possession of a gun in any official capacity.
its very telling that the only people defending this murder or the shooter are random posters on the Internet (with an agenda)and his defence attorney(. Who is paid to do so)