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)
He started the engine.
Panicking isn't murder, unlawful killing maybe but not murder.
Again absolute race baiting nonsense. Why did he try to drive off?
Presumably, he got bored with the campus security guy from asking asinine questions having given him straight answers, rather than just issuing a producer and letting him get on with his day.
There is a lynch mob every time police shoot someone, justified or not.
Personally I have no idea whether this guy is guilty or not, can we say beyond all reasonable doubt that he didn't fear for his safety?
I personally see no malice, only recklessness, whether that amounts to murder or not I have no idea but I think he will get manslaughter at best.
We can say beyond all reasonable doubt that he lied, and that will not go in his favour. If he gets manslaughter it will be yet another example of the murder of a black person by the police, being downgraded in the USA.
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.
BIB - please don't do this, characterising one side (I.e. yours) as calm and rational and anyone with opposing views as over-emotional and racially-motivated. There's already more than one person in this thread making provocative and snide remarks about other posters' opinions, and I shall be ignoring both of them from hereonin.
All of which were non-violent crimes which you even included in your quote though chose not to embolden that part.
Mr DuBose's crimes may have been non-violent, but that doesn't mean he is not subject to the law. Theft is often non-violent, but can have a massive impact on the victim - emptying someone's bank account can be done without even meeting them, but that is no consolation when they are made destitute and homeless. Driving without a licence or insurance is non-violent, but if said driver mows down a loved one, there will be calls of 'why didn't someone stop him'. Sometimes apparently minor laws make better sense when viewed as part of the big picture.
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?
I'm not sure anybody is. There are attempts to explain the tragedy perhaps, in that Mr DuBose should not have seemingly attempted to drive away, but I've not seen a single attempt to justify his shooting. By what I can see, Officer Tensing panicked - not an acceptable response in the situation. There is no evidence (again, as far as I'm aware) that it was a racially motivated shooting, as has been claimed.
BIB - please don't do this, painting one side (I.e. yours) as calm and rational and anyone with opposing views as over-emotional and racially-motivated. There's already more than one person in this thread making provocative and snide remarks about other posters' opinions, and I shall be ignoring both of them from hereonin.
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.
There is no evidence of that whatsoever and you know it. At no point was the officer 'dragged'.
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.
Panicking about what? He wasn't in danger, he wasn't trapped in any way. The video shows it was deliberate intent. He put his left arm in the vehicle to pull the man's arm away from his head as he shot him in the head. At no point was he "tangled in the car" or in any danger of being run over as he claimed. His left hand was clearly free and he put it onto the back of the window frame after he'd shot him. Instinctive reaction I would say, when a car is in drive and dangerous, when you know you've probably killed it's driver! http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/29/prosecutor-samuel-dubose-shooting-remarks-asinine-senseless
.
He added: “I think he was making an excuse for a purposeful killing of another person.”
Deters called footage from the body camera “invaluable”. “If there hadn’t been video …” he said, before a reporter interjected and cut off the rest of his sentence.
“I think it’s a good idea for police to wear them because nine times out of 10 it clears them of wrongdoing. In this case, obviously, it let to an indictment for murder,” he said.
]“I didn’t even do nothing,” DuBose later says as the officer instructs him to take his seatbelt off. At this point DuBose appears to pull the door shut and start up the engine. Tensing appears to reach inside the car and the car begins to roll slowly. Tensing then shouts “stop” twice, pulls his firearm and shoots in through the open window.
BIB - please don't do this, characterising one side (I.e. yours) as calm and rational and anyone with opposing views as over-emotional and racially-motivated. There's already more than one person in this thread making provocative and snide remarks about other posters' opinions, and I shall be ignoring both of them from hereonin.
When people are making nonsense race claims and screaming MURDER!!! then they are not being rational.
If any one such as that was on the jury than you might as well find him guilty already.
Is it not fair to Look at things with a balanced view?
When people are making nonsense race claims and screaming MURDER!!! then they are not being rational.
If any one such as that was on the jury than you might as well find him guilty already.
Is it not fair to Look at things with a balanced view?
Who's screaming murder, don't be so damned insulting.Can we ever have a discussion without insults?
There's looking at things with a balanced view, and there's not understanding what's clearly on video footage and not recognising from that footage the lies he's told in his defence.
When people are making nonsense race claims and screaming MURDER!!! then they are not being rational.
If any one such as that was on the jury than you might as well find him guilty already.
Is it not fair to Look at things with a balanced view?
Who is "screaming MURDER!!!" ..? The officer faces a charge of murder in court, screaming notwithstanding. You say you're trying to look at things with a balanced view but you're deliberately misrepresenting things.
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?
Where did I justify it, pal!
My original comment, which you asked for further information about, which I have now provided, said quite clearly that he should not have been shot!!!
Don't accuse me of something I haven't said! Same goes for the other chump who tried to take me to task! >:(
Presumably, he got bored with the campus security guy from asking asinine questions having given him straight answers, rather than just issuing a producer and letting him get on with his day.
How can he issue that if he doesn't know if the guy has a suspended licence or what was going on? The guy just chose to drive off.
When people are making nonsense race claims and screaming MURDER!!! then they are not being rational.
If any one such as that was on the jury than you might as well find him guilty already.
Is it not fair to Look at things with a balanced view?
Are those who've charged him with murder not being rational? - because from where I'm standing they know a damn sight more than you do on the issue in their own country.
Who is "screaming MURDER!!!" ..? The officer faces a charge of murder in court, screaming notwithstanding. You say you're trying to look at things with a balanced view but you're deliberately misrepresenting things.
Perhaps they have access to info that the prosecutors don't know?
They seem to be our resident cop defending expert.
I think this is yet another case which suggests that reform of US policing is urgently needed (as I was arguing in the Sandra Bland thread). I know we're talking about high-profile incidents but they're hardly isolated are they? They seem to be coming thick and fast and I suspect there are many more questionable shootings / taserings / beatings which never make more than the local news.
I'm sure it's not the case everywhere but a lot of Police Departments seem to be hiring individuals of pretty poor calibre, giving them insufficient training (particularly in how to de-escalate tense situations) and then failing to test them for psychological or drug problems (I've read that steroid use is popular among some officers and I believe over-use produces a state known as 'roid-rage'). Not saying that's a factor in this particular case, but Tensing doesn't strike me as one of 'Cincinnati's finest' by any stretch of the imagination.
So you do agree Tensing has rightly been charged with murder and voluntary manslaughter and must now face the consequences?
Yes. I'm not sure where you got the impression otherwise. Somebody asked why he tried to drive away. I offered an explanation. You asked for clarification. I provided it. End of story.
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.
This has nothing to do with this thread. It isn't true and it's deliberate baiting.
Post #665 on the Sandra Bland thread. Please check this mods before you take action on any alerts - I will only state that someone is telling untruths if in fact they are. I run the risk of looking a bit of a prat otherwise.
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
Fair enough.
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.
Gosh. Should I point out that I never once attempted to derail the thread - I was asking for clarification on YOUR post? Am I allowed to suggest that I did not 'argue and compare' the two cases? Should I even get into proving a negative regarding DuBose and Bland's deaths?
And please don't call me a troll again. It is not trolling to suggest alternative points of view, especially when I can support them. There are too many people on this thread and others that jump in with the most ill-advised, baseless comments then accuse those who answer them of trolling, racism, bigotry and worse. Most of these individuals then flounce off, without answering legitimate questions, then flounce back with more accusations. If anybody wants a serious debate on these matters, I'm more than happy, and I can think of at least five other FM's who can fight their corner - two of whom I fundamentally disagree with. That's OK - but as far as I'm concerned, some have taken their enthusiasm for social justice well beyond the realms of civilised debate.
I already knew his connections to a motorcycle gang because I can see past the white = bad, black = good, line of argument. If he was some racist wanting to kill him or be mean then why be respectful to the guy and not just pull him out the car on trumped up charges?
Dumb argument, as it presumes there is only one way to be racist.
That's not why he was shot. The officer shot him because he believed at the time he was in danger.
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.
Comments
There is a lynch mob every time police shoot someone, justified or not.
Personally I have no idea whether this guy is guilty or not, can we say beyond all reasonable doubt that he didn't fear for his safety?
I personally see no malice, only recklessness, whether that amounts to murder or not I have no idea but I think he will get manslaughter at best.
He started the engine.
Panicking isn't murder, unlawful killing maybe but not murder.
Presumably, he got bored with the campus security guy from asking asinine questions having given him straight answers, rather than just issuing a producer and letting him get on with his day.
We can say beyond all reasonable doubt that he lied, and that will not go in his favour. If he gets manslaughter it will be yet another example of the murder of a black person by the police, being downgraded in the USA.
Link
Mr DuBose's crimes may have been non-violent, but that doesn't mean he is not subject to the law. Theft is often non-violent, but can have a massive impact on the victim - emptying someone's bank account can be done without even meeting them, but that is no consolation when they are made destitute and homeless. Driving without a licence or insurance is non-violent, but if said driver mows down a loved one, there will be calls of 'why didn't someone stop him'. Sometimes apparently minor laws make better sense when viewed as part of the big picture.
I'm not sure anybody is. There are attempts to explain the tragedy perhaps, in that Mr DuBose should not have seemingly attempted to drive away, but I've not seen a single attempt to justify his shooting. By what I can see, Officer Tensing panicked - not an acceptable response in the situation. There is no evidence (again, as far as I'm aware) that it was a racially motivated shooting, as has been claimed.
Well said that person !!!
Panicking about what? He wasn't in danger, he wasn't trapped in any way. The video shows it was deliberate intent. He put his left arm in the vehicle to pull the man's arm away from his head as he shot him in the head. At no point was he "tangled in the car" or in any danger of being run over as he claimed. His left hand was clearly free and he put it onto the back of the window frame after he'd shot him. Instinctive reaction I would say, when a car is in drive and dangerous, when you know you've probably killed it's driver!
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/29/prosecutor-samuel-dubose-shooting-remarks-asinine-senseless
.
.
When people are making nonsense race claims and screaming MURDER!!! then they are not being rational.
If any one such as that was on the jury than you might as well find him guilty already.
Is it not fair to Look at things with a balanced view?
Who's screaming murder, don't be so damned insulting.Can we ever have a discussion without insults?
There's looking at things with a balanced view, and there's not understanding what's clearly on video footage and not recognising from that footage the lies he's told in his defence.
Who is "screaming MURDER!!!" ..?
Where did I justify it, pal!
My original comment, which you asked for further information about, which I have now provided, said quite clearly that he should not have been shot!!!
Don't accuse me of something I haven't said! Same goes for the other chump who tried to take me to task! >:(
How can he issue that if he doesn't know if the guy has a suspended licence or what was going on? The guy just chose to drive off.
Are those who've charged him with murder not being rational? - because from where I'm standing they know a damn sight more than you do on the issue in their own country.
Perhaps they have access to info that the prosecutors don't know?
They seem to be our resident cop defending expert.
I'm sure it's not the case everywhere but a lot of Police Departments seem to be hiring individuals of pretty poor calibre, giving them insufficient training (particularly in how to de-escalate tense situations) and then failing to test them for psychological or drug problems (I've read that steroid use is popular among some officers and I believe over-use produces a state known as 'roid-rage'). Not saying that's a factor in this particular case, but Tensing doesn't strike me as one of 'Cincinnati's finest' by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes. I'm not sure where you got the impression otherwise. Somebody asked why he tried to drive away. I offered an explanation. You asked for clarification. I provided it. End of story.
Post #665 on the Sandra Bland thread. Please check this mods before you take action on any alerts - I will only state that someone is telling untruths if in fact they are. I run the risk of looking a bit of a prat otherwise.
Fair enough.
Gosh. Should I point out that I never once attempted to derail the thread - I was asking for clarification on YOUR post? Am I allowed to suggest that I did not 'argue and compare' the two cases? Should I even get into proving a negative regarding DuBose and Bland's deaths?
And please don't call me a troll again. It is not trolling to suggest alternative points of view, especially when I can support them. There are too many people on this thread and others that jump in with the most ill-advised, baseless comments then accuse those who answer them of trolling, racism, bigotry and worse. Most of these individuals then flounce off, without answering legitimate questions, then flounce back with more accusations. If anybody wants a serious debate on these matters, I'm more than happy, and I can think of at least five other FM's who can fight their corner - two of whom I fundamentally disagree with. That's OK - but as far as I'm concerned, some have taken their enthusiasm for social justice well beyond the realms of civilised debate.
Dumb argument, as it presumes there is only one way to be racist.
He doesn't. Just giving his own spin.