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: 16
41
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Nope, you either lied to yourself about where the parked car was (and the oil spot) or you're just intentionally being obtuse.

Watch the video again, the officer was moved quite a distance from his starting point.

a reply to: diggindirt



Its already been proved the officer fired the shoot when the car was aligned to the driveway, which was just under 2 metres from where they started, at the absolute most. He was running with the car for about 1 to 2 seconds so he could get a round off in the guys head at point blank range, then got thrown further after the deadly shot.

The facts are clear, I don't know what your arguing about. There was no dragging before the fatal shot and there was no attempt to use the car as a weapon.




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   
So you're trolling?


As was shown above in two videos it is obvious officers are trained to prevent the subject from fleeing.


Because if you think that was a vague answer then I don't know what to say...perhaps weareone's reading comprehension statement isn't that off base? It's early, maybe you haven't had coffee...

a reply to: Shamrock6



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Legally he turned the car into a weapon as soon as he put it in drive...again, the definition of dragging doesn't have a predetermined length required. 1" or 50' the officer was forcefully pulled along by the moving vehicle.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

So instead of answering the question that was asked, you attack reading comprehension?

I'm looking to get my question answered. You have so far not done so. Officers are trained to do a lot of things. I asked about one specific thing. You did not answer as it pertains to that specific thing, and now have to resort to the same old shtick.

So if asking a specific question is trolling then yea, I guess I'm trolling.
edit on 3-8-2015 by Shamrock6 because: Had to correct a typo. Wouldn't want my typing skills brought into the debate!



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


So if asking a specific question is trolling then yea, I guess I'm trolling.


Asking a question and claiming you didn't get an answer when you did is trolling. Doing it twice is even worse.

You specifically asked:


So you're saying the only thing an officer can do in that situation is stick themselves halfway inside a car and just hope that a person who's already indicated they may drive off will change their mind? Are they required to do this?


Let's look at my quote again, I am going to bold part of it to make it easier for you:


As was shown above in two videos it is obvious officers are trained to prevent the subject from fleeing.


So let's scroll up from that post so we can see "above". Oh look, two videos, as described, which show officers in different states reaching into a car in an attempt to prevent a motorist from fleeing a legal traffic stop.

Obviously they are trained to do so. It is also LEGAL for them to do so. You asked if it was required, and my answer made it obvious they are trained to. Obviously an officer isn't REQUIRED to pull a gun if he feels in danger, but they do because they are trained to. Same with this. You are trying to blur a line in order to fit the scenario to your preconception of how things should have gone down. You are the one being obtuse and ignoring facts and data.

Again, you have had to change your story several times in this thread as to what happened. The only person still ignoring the fact the officer was moved is the OP and DigginDirt, both of whom seem to be ignoring the rock solid evidence posted in this thread to show he was moved at least, if not more than, 20 feet.

It seems you have gotten in over your head, and are trying to devolve the thread into a "you're insulting me" pity party. Your side of the argument is one logical fallacy after another.

It is a shame that DuBose was killed. In hind sight it did not need to happen. However, nothing the officer did was illegal, and the DA knew that which is why they went for a high murder charge because they know the officer will get off. They just want to cover their own aspirin and be able to say "I tried people" as well as keep calm in the now.

Edit: --I am not attempting to change the topic of the thread, I am only using this as an example of what I find to actually be an issue with police-- If you want to be truly outraged, find another case like this to harp on: Source

That was a violation of civil rights. It was a stop on the street and Garner knew it. NYC had implemented a stop and frisk rule which was unconstitutional.

Civil Rights Inquiry

And even then, the courts ruled that the officer in that scenario can't be charged or made to pay civil fines as it was determined that is what he was trained to do. The City will have to shoulder any civil suit settlements.

Stop and Frisk is Unconstitutional
edit on 3-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: starfoxxx

What gets me these days is when a police officer passes me I no longer feel safe, I feel nervous. I'll be in my car checking the speedometer, checking my positioning and thinking "I'm taxed and insured right?".



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

So....still no answer to the specific question then?

Cool.

Oh, no wait. You kind of sort of answered. So officers are trained to reach into the window or a car to try and stop it from driving off? And the source is two incidents that got posted to YouTube? So that's now confirmed, that you believe officers are trained to reach into windows to try and keep somebody from leaving a traffic stop, correct?
edit on 3-8-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Ektar

Of course we know, if truth were told, that the problem lies within the mentality of the people who have been hired to be police officers. We have a huge problem. People who have no compunction in regard to killing another human being or pet, should never be allowed to carry a gun.

The rampant reframes of "fearing for their lives", from actions that are so ludicrous, that to be believable, they should also fear bathrooms, breathing, and touching anything without gloves.

Here is another case of a cop fearing for his life from a car that moves in a different way, when seen through the eyes of a cop. This time a young unarmed 19 year old is killed. Again the story the cop tells doesn't add up.

The trending is escalating. It is way pass time that this behavior is put into check. At this rate of escalation we can't afford a police force. I will take my chances with criminals, at least I get the chance to legally fight for my life.

www.inquisitr.com...

m.ranker.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: raymundoko

Firs this:


So....still no answer to the specific question then?

Cool.


Then this...


Oh, no wait. You kind of sort of answered.


Which is it? Did I answer it or didn't I? I did and you know it. Also, I saw your pre-edit post. You glanced at my post, replied with the first quote, then came back and put the second part, probably after actually reading my post. This explains a lot.


So officers are trained to reach into the window or a car to try and stop it from driving off? And the source is two incidents that got posted to YouTube?


What is the point of either of those questions? The sources on youtube aren't some random person talking, they are actual events that took place and were recorded by body/dash cams. For the same reaction to happen on three occasions in separate states should indicate to you what they are trained to do.

Edit: Here is another example of something to ACTUALLY be outraged for: Source

And in that instance the officers involved are going to Jail because the law was not on their side.

The difference between us is I appear to be picking my battles correctly. DuBose is not a battle that will go anywhere. The video evidence shows without a doubt he attempted to flee, and he did it while an officer was in his window.
edit on 3-8-2015 by raymundoko because: Added Edit Point



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Surely you noticed the edit mark, didn't you? Then again, anything one can do to cast aspersions and belittle somebody and get the attention shifted to something else, one should do

And I'm asking because what an officer DOES is not necessarily what an officer is TRAINED to do. If you see an officer fail to signal a turn, does that mean he was trained to not signal? The videos I found of officers not diving in windows, does that mean they're ignoring their training?

Oh, as for your edit (see how easy that was to acknowledge?): the difference in "correct" is perspective. You think you're correct in "the battles you pick." Good for you. Doesn't mean you are, other than in your own head. The actual difference here is you seem to think an officer can create a situation like Tinsing did and then use that situation to justify the use of deadly force. And I don't.
edit on 3-8-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Local media is saying the coroner report records the gin bottle as containing air freshener. No article yet, just a tweet from media so far.

mobile.twitter.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Really man? Now you've devolved into saying I didn't acknowledge your edit? Can we get more petty?


Also, I saw your pre-edit post.


As far as:


You think you're correct in "the battles you pick." Good for you. Doesn't mean you are, other than in your own head.


I'll concede that point. Very true.


The actual difference here is you seem to think an officer can create a situation like Tinsing did


You mean the situation where he is asking perfectly reasonable questions to a driver acting extremely suspicious? And that said person attempted to drive off when he was going to be removed from the vehicle? Yep, Tensing did it. He removed the license plate, he made sure DuBose didn't have a physical ID (and everyone is glossing over the fact DuBose probably WASN'T going to provide his name, or a real one, since his license WAS SUSPENDED and DuBose had JUST told the officer "straight up, I'm not suspended"...he told DuBose to start the car and attempt to drive off....I somehow missed all that before, but it is so clear now...

I just want to point out that the other officers have been cleared of any wrongdoing and the DA nor the Grand Jury will be bringing charges against them. You know what this means? It means that experts reviewed the videos and the officers reports and determined they more than likely were not lying, and they thought they saw him get dragged...

That means that their testimony is admissible in any trial that happens. This has been nothing but showboating by the DA and national race baiting by the media. Tensing get's off.

Two officers corroborating the story and the stabilized video that shows he was indeed moved some distance before shooting is enough to get him off.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

How do you know he was currently suspended?

I just did a search and didn't find anything. Can you show that or is it just an assumption?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Really? It's in several of the news reports in this very thread....

I swear to god, am I the only one actually reading this stuff???

One of 42 sources I just found on google


Mr. Dubose had been charged more than 75 times with various drug and traffic violations in Hamilton County, and he had his license suspended indefinitely in January by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles


Even the WIKI article on his death Says


DuBose was driving on an indefinitely suspended driver's license and had marijuana and about $2,600 cash in the car


Edit: He had no intention of cooperating with police. He thought he would be able to give a fake name, and when it wasn't working out he decided he was going to flee. He knew his only option at that point was to go to jail or run. He even lied about the car..."Yes it's mine, oh, you already ran the plates? Yeah, that's my wife"...
edit on 3-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I dunno man, can we? Every time I think a new bottom has been reached in pettiness, I get unpleasantly surprised.

The same grand jury that didn't indict the other two officers DID indict Tensing. So I guess the "experts" lied to them so they'd indict Tensing but then told the truth about the other two officers?

And just so we're clear, whatever they said on body cam is not sworn testimony. What matters is what's in their sworn statements. I haven't seen anything about what their sworn statements actually are so far. The DA says the video shows that Tensing was not dragged. And then goes on to say the two officers who were cleared of wrong doing presented sworn statements that "match with the body cam." Gee, that's a resounding endorsement isn't it? Saying the video shows the officer wasn't dragged, and then saying the other two officers' testimony supports that?

Sounds like the DA thinks their statements match his interpretation of the video, and not Tensing's statements.

He may well get off. He may get convicted of a lesser charge. I really don't see how a murder charge sticks. I do see how a lesser charge sticks. But I'm also betting people won't be questioning this DA the way they did the ferguson one.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Well thank you for pointing that out. I searched his last name and suspended licence and didn't get anything. Not sure why.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

That's just it, there is no option for a lesser charge. This is just like the DA in the Zimmerman trial: Go for the crazy charge because you know it won't go anywhere. If the DA were serious about this he would have gone for Manslaughter.

Zimmerman should have gone to jail for at least a few years on a lesser charge, but the DA was showboating so Zimmerman got off completely and he can never be charged for it again.

As far as the other officers, it is illegal to lie in a police report...guess what, their police reports say Tensing was dragged...

Kidd's report says he saw it happen, and Wiebel's report says Kidd and Tensing told him it happened.

But hey, you have a DA named Joe Deters who is a Republican Politician looking to advance his political career.

But hey, I doubt he is doing that here...right? RIGHT??
edit on 3-8-2015 by raymundoko because: Formatting



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

He is charged with both murder and voluntary manslaughter.

Oh and just because it is illegal to lie in reports doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Got one guy that got there just as it happened and the other just saying "ya they told me it happened".

I would be willing to bet you are one to say eyewitness reports are often wrong as well.

edit on rdMon, 03 Aug 2015 14:14:50 -0500America/Chicago820155080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You sure about that?

www.inquisitr.com...

www.cnn.com...

Both those articles say he pleaded not guilty to murder AND voluntary manslaughter. So....?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Yes, I would say eyewitness reports are often wrong...But multiple witnesses to the same thing can corroborate each other making it more believable.

And I am fully aware an officer can lie in a report. What I am saying is the DA and other experts obviously determined those officers did not lie in their reports, or there would have been additional charges. I linked a story of officers who did just that and they are all going to jail.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join