It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exclusive!! Samuel DuBose Shooting! Second Police officer's body cam angle.Caught Lying SMOKING GUN

page: 13
41
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Did I say he was? Your arm must be sore by now with all this reaching bro.

Car was moving before he got shot, video proves it. I haven't been nasty, you've just been wrong a couple times and it makes you mad.

a reply to: Shamrock6




posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Ahhh I get it. So you counted steps from two arbitrary points in the video, then presented it as evidence of how far he had moved, then called it just an exaggeration but then continued to use the false measurement anyway.

And I'm the wrong one.

Bro. Lulz.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
You've just been wrong a couple times and it makes you mad.

a reply to: Shamrock6


Heh,I think you're deflecting...
edit on 1-8-2015 by greydaze because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
*Double post..
edit on 1-8-2015 by greydaze because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
No, I counted steps from the front of the cruiser to the back of the parked car to determine where the middle point was as that's where it appeared he was getting off the ground.

Considering you agreed he moved about 20 feet I fail to see that you are even in disagreement with me and are just arguing to save face.

You said he wasn't dragged, then you were shown he was and have been combative ever since. When wrong: fight! Appears to be your motto.

a reply to: Shamrock6



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Care to show me that the officer wasn't moved by the vehicle? Care to show me the gun was fired before the car was moving? You can't, so it's hilarious you are trying to piggyback on others comments.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

a reply to: greydaze


edit on 1-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

So who's steps are you counting then? Two different people? Why? What sense does that even make? I counted the guy on the sidewalk from the front of the car to the pothole.

I do agree that he moved. I don't agree that he was dragged. Ergo, we disagree. The car went from encroaching on the driveway at the time the officer reached into the window to being almost squarely astride the driveway when the shot was fired. The officer lets go of the seatbelt as the car continues to travel forward, after shooting the victim, which he did when the car had travelled less than one car length. At no point was his arm caught on anything or hooked on anything. The car started to move, he drew and fired his weapon, and then he let go of the seatbelt all in the span of about one single car driveway.

That doesn't equate to being dragged. I haven't been shown he was dragged at all.

As for me arguing because I can't be right? Well, I suppose your style would be: When you can't make a valid point, get personal.

Cheers bro. Lulz.
edit on 1-8-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

I keep asking for you to show this law that he must be taken out of the car but you seem to just want to repeat what you said.

I call horsepucks that he has to take him out of the car. The guy said he would ID him self which would allow the officer go find out if he can drive the car.

Oh and your video shows the same, that the speeding off doesn't happen until after he shoots.

You can also see him holding on to the seat belt, he was causing his arm to still be in there if the car was moving before.


edit on stSat, 01 Aug 2015 12:52:47 -0500America/Chicago820154780 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Attempting to accuse me of getting personal, now you're digging deep.

Pointing out your errors isn't personal. Nor is pointing out the direction you are taking the debate, namely your hostility when confronted with facts that disagree with you...

So you admit the officer moved with the car? Yet you say he wasn't dragged...do you know the definition of drag? To pull along forcefully. Whether it was 1" or 20' doesn't change the fact he was dragged.

You are splitting hairs to seem like you are right all along, when your version of what happened has changed a few times in this thread.


a reply to: Shamrock6



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
The law that a police officer can pull you out of the car for no reason is clear, so stop acting like he needed a reason in the first place.

As far as laws about not having a license on you, it is illegal in every state to drive without physical proof of a license, and as this article shows can result in impounding a car. Are you saying they can impound the car while dubos was in it?

source

Here's an article that describes what the officer can do, including pulling you out of the car:

source

If you still act like you disagree after reading those two articles then you are intentionally being obtuse and simply wish something criminal had happened and so you are intentionally skewing the events in order to fit your narrative.

a reply to: Sremmos80



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Your repeated comments telling people to stop embarrassing themselves isn't getting personal? Nah, no condescension there. None at all. Friendly advice, I'm sure.

Tell me, oh wise one, how was he dragged? What dragged him? What dragged him from the time he stuck his arm in the window to the time he fell? It certainly wasn't his arm being caught. The victim certainly didn't grab him. He wasn't stuck in the window. So what dragged him? The literal split second he had a hold of the seatbelt dragged him and that's the only way he could've gotten from point A to point B? Is that what we're going with now?

I guess if you manage to work a comment in about how wrong I am every time you post, eventually you'll browbeat me into agreeing.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
ETA: Guess I was wrong.

I agree that not having a license on you is illegal and ticket worthy.

What I am asking for is whats says the officer has to pull him out and put him in hand cuffs till they figure out what is going on.
That is what I am being presented with in that response.

Neither of your sources specifically address it either, the first is just about the offense and it is a fix it ticket.

And the other talks about what you should do if you get pulled over.

edit on stSat, 01 Aug 2015 14:06:14 -0500America/Chicago820151480 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Not entirely accurate.

Being asked to step out of your vehicle during a traffic stop had been found to not be a violation of 4th Amendment rights. You can be ordered to step out for pretty much any reason, without any explanation.

What the officer can't do is order you to get out in an effort to prolong the traffic stop. You still don't have to submit to a vehicle search, which is why you should shut your door when you exit. Leaving the door open can be considered implied consent to search. Hell, lock the door behind you if you want.

ETA - Pennsylvania v Mimms. Or Mims. Whatever. That's the relevant ruling.
edit on 1-8-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




Being asked to step out of your vehicle during a traffic stop had been found to not be a violation of 4th Amendment rights. You can be ordered to step out for pretty much any reason, without any explanation.

But I saw it on youtube!!

Well I don't agree with that at all, but that isn't this thread.



What the officer can't do is order you to get out in an effort to prolong the traffic stop.


This is more what I am getting at, once the guy offers to ID him self then that would be the next step right?

And asking him to get out of the car would be that prolonging.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Not necessarily, no. And that's the crux of the issue over the last few pages.

The officer isn't REQUIRED to pull him out of the car and slap cuffs on him. But at the same time the officer isn't REQUIRED to say "okay great name, DOB, and social?" The officer MAY do either one. As in the officer is permitted to do either one of those.

As for prolonging, that would depend on the nature of the interaction once the subject exits the vehicle. Simply asking an occupant to exit the vehicle isn't in and of itself prolonging the stop.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


The officer isn't REQUIRED to pull him out of the car and slap cuffs on him. But at the same time the officer isn't REQUIRED to say "okay great name, DOB, and social?" The officer MAY do either one. As in the officer is permitted to do either one of those.


Ok that sounds like a fine happy medium to it all.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
But I really want them to stop embarrassing themselves...

Think of it this way: some of these people are very passionate about this and it is commendable, yet at the same time they are completely ignorant of the law and sometimes willfully so.

If these same people want to engage in these conversations and be taken seriously they need to vet their knowledge. If they don't then they just embarrass themselves to those they should be trying to convince, especially when they use the same invalid arguments to back each other up.

a reply to: Shamrock6



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

We will have to wait and see what the courts decide. It looks promising that his superiors feel his actions were unnecessary and criminal. I know at least one of his supervisors have been called to a stop he had made previously, for the same over aggressive behavior towards a alleged minor traffic infraction. I know that they feel they made a mistake in hiring him and allowing him to remain in his position.

At the risk of being dense, embarrassing myself, and again, repeating myself. Mr. DuBose died "not" because of a traffic violation. He did not die because he "may" have been under the influence while driving. He did not die because he was resisting arrest. He died because Tensing's ego could not bear him being"defied".

There were numerous nonlethal ways to handle the situation. The horror of the situation is that the lethal resolution was the first response and the last response Tensing chose.

Again keeping in mind that you are dealing with an individual that has been in the military, and have interactions with law enforcement employees regularly. I know the mind set. This is a very dangerous trending and everybody with at least one brain cell knows this. This situation should "never" have escalated to the degree that a man was killed for no "good" reason.

Those that continue to push for an excuse to justify this man's death, to me are suspect. When killing, because you can, is the standard, we all are vulnerable. When life has no value we are all dead, walking zombies, waiting to be the next target or caught in the cross-fires.


edit on 2-8-2015 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: Grammar correction.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Shamrock6

We will have to wait and see what the courts decide. It looks promising that his superiors feel his actions were unnecessary and criminal. I know at least one of his supervisors have been called to a stop he had made previously, for the same over aggressive behavior towards a alleged minor traffic infraction. I know that they feel they made a mistake in hiring him and allowing him to remain in his position.

At the risk of being dense, embarrassing myself, and again, repeating myself. Mr. DuBose died "not" because of a traffic violation. He did not die because he "may" have been under the influence while driving. He did not die because he was resisting arrest. He died because Tensing's ego could not bear him being"defied".

There were numerous nonlethal ways to handle the situation. The horror of the situation is that the lethal resolution was the first response and the last response Tensing chose.

Again keeping in mind that you are dealing with an individual that has been in the military, and have interactions with law enforcement employees regularly. I know the mind set. This is a very dangerous trending and everybody with at least one brain cell knows this. This situation should "never" have escalated to the degree that a man was killed for no "good" reason.

Those that continue to push for an excuse to justify this man's death, to me are suspect. When killing, because you can, is the standard, we all are vulnerable. When life has no value we are all dead, walking zombies, waiting to be the next target or caught in the cross-fires.



Tenzing came to the UC PD from the small Greenhills PD. Greenhills is a sleepy little upper middle class suburb in northern Cincinnati. Crime there is almost non-existent compared to the area around the UC campus. UC was obviously feeling some pressure to insure student safety where black crime against students was increasing. I'm sure this weighed heavily on the UC PD approach to local law enforcement and Tenzing's mentality. Off the top of my head, I can remember two deadly incidents with UC PD. One was an incident at UC Medical Center where a man was tasered while in bed who died later. The other was a disorderly black man that was tased only to die later of heart failure.

It would seem to me, the "corporate mentality" of UC was likely a factor in the murder of DuBose. With declining enrollment because of local crime against students, I feel sure, that there was pressure exerted on the UC PD to clean up the campus area. By citations being issued for the most minor offenses, like no front license plates, the UC PD was trying to put locals on notice that no crime will be tolerated.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
He died because he tried to drive off while an officer was in his window.

The officer was an idiot, but that's why he died.

Would you point a loaded gun at yourself while your finger was on the trigger and it was cocked? Use that same mindset when dealing with police.

It's a very sad reality.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join