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

originally posted by: Shamrock6
So you're saying that after the officer reached into the car, he became concerned that he would be dragged down the road so he held on to the seatbelt because it was his only choice but then after he shot the dude in the head suddenly not hanging on to the seatbelt seemed like a good idea so then he let go after being dragged.

No, you've got it a bit twisted.

When the officer reached into the car, the car was already started, and the suspect had just put it in gear. The car had started moving, and he most likely feared getting his feet and legs ran over by the car, or his legs getting tangled around the wheels and getting "sucked under" the car when the driver sped off. So he grabbed the seat belt to hang on and prevent all that from happening. Then he started to fear being dragged down the road. It would only take a second for the suspect to get the car up to a speed which could seriously injure the officer. He probably figured that incapacitating the driver would make the suspect take his foot off the accelerator, but when that didn't happen he had no choice but to face his fears and let go before the car crashed into something while he was still partially in it.

The point is, he didn't want to get injured by the car or the driver, and made decisions to try and prevent it from happening. Unfortunately his decision didn't go as planned, and he ended up getting injured anyway.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
All of which happened in a distance less than the span of a single car driveway. And he wasn't trapped by the steering wheel, the victim didn't have a hold of him, and he wasn't hung up on the rear edge of the door. But because he grabbed on to the seatbelt for a literal split second before the shot, he was dragged.

I can't confirm or deny he wasn't stuck to the car in some way, officers have a lot of things attached to their uniforms that may have gotten caught up on the window or something. That I don't know. The suspect did grab his arm, but it was brief.

But yes, this happened very quickly, and the officer had to make quick decisions. The suspect could have easily slammed on the accelerator while the officer was still partially in the vehicle, and things could have gotten serious very fast. The officer did what he had to do to prevent that before it happened. Unfortunately, he ended up still getting dragged a short distance anyway.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Look mate... that second still...officer had already fired...
body already slummed to the right it looks like there might
be blood already on the officers "gun hand".

Of course the car is going to move the driver is dead.
you can see it had only moved a few feet..the truck is still there...
the officer was NOT dragged...he fell back right after that very moment
after the shot...probably falling back in the very next still.

Cheers
Ektar

a reply to: Ektar

Nope, watch the video, the screen shot was the exact moment of the shot. That car was moving and moved a few feet before the fatal shot was fired.

Good day.

originally posted by: Ektar
the officer was NOT dragged...he fell back right after that very moment
after the shot...probably falling back in the very next still.

That is absolutely and completely wrong. After the fatal shot, the officer was still attached to the vehicle, and was dragged several feet before detaching.

You need to watch the video again, much closer this time.

You think he fell back 20 feet? Really?

a reply to: Sremmos80

a reply to: WeAre0ne

So now he was worried about getting sucked under a slowly rolling car so he grabbed on to the seatbelt to keep that from happening and he was worried about the injuries he might sustain injuries if he let go of the seatbelt so he shoots the driver first and then let's go of the seatbelt anyway?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: WeAre0ne

So now he was worried about getting sucked under a slowly rolling car so he grabbed on to the seatbelt to keep that from happening and he was worried about the injuries he might sustain injuries if he let go of the seatbelt so he shoots the driver first and then let's go of the seatbelt anyway?

You seem to be purposefully twisting the words to mock the situation.

He was always worried about getting "sucked under" the car, that is a direct quote from him. Not sucked under by a slowly rolling car, he assumed the driver was going to speed off and he was going to get sucked under by a fast moving car. So he took action to prevent that from happening. If you are standing close to the driver side door of a vehicle, and the driver turns left and speeds off, you can get ran over by the rear tire, and possibly sucked into the wheel wells.

Also, he shot the driver before he could get to a fast speed, and in an attempt to get him to stop accelerating. After the fatal shot he discovered things didn't go as planned, and he had no choice but to face his fears, and let go of the vehicle and sustain injuries.

That is what happened. If you have a problem understanding that may I suggest you take some reading comprehension classes.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

OK as far as I can tell there is no immediate left turn...so no danger there...
and there is NO way that the car could go fast enough in that instance to
"suck" anyone under. That might have been the termed the officer used.

A bloody train can suck you under...but a car at a dead stop cannot "SUCK"
anyone under. There is NO SUCTION....that is just stupid in of itself.

I do appreciate the time & effort you did apply into creating the stabilized
version of the video. I do NOT agree with your opinion so we can just agree
to disagree.

Cheers
Ektar

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Aw. And right back to the personal attacks because somebody dares to disagree with you.

I just feel so lucky to have you and another member here to explain all the legalities and so on for me. The insight you seem to have into the officer's thoughts is truly interesting. It's almost as if you're privy to his thoughts.

So can you explain why it is he climbed in the window? I mean, since you have such an insight into his thoughts and so on.

Again, I really am glad there's people here who can explain all the legalities and what officers are required to do in various situations and whatnot. Granted, a lot of questions that get posed to the experts here seem to go unanswered or only get a partial, vague answer but I suppose it's better than nothing.

a reply to: raymundoko
You asked questions you obviously thought you had ready answers for and yet now you won't answer. My question was simple. You deflected with snarky. Means you have no answer.
Good day sir.

originally posted by: Ektar
OK as far as I can tell there is no immediate left turn...so no danger there...

I wasn't talking about a hard left turn, even a slight turnout away from the curb is all that is needed when you are standing right against the driver side door. This happens quite often to police officers. Since there was a parked car in front of the suspect's car, he had to turn left slightly when driving off. That is enough to get your feet and or legs ran over.

The officer in this video made sure he moved his feet out of the way:
www.liveleak.com...

originally posted by: Ektar
A bloody train can suck you under...but a car at a dead stop cannot "SUCK"
anyone under. There is NO SUCTION....that is just stupid in of itself.

Semantics yet again... Is english not your first language? Do you not interact with people much?

It's more of a pulling motion, not an actual "suction". Fast rotating objects can "pull you in" when something comes into contact with them. It happens a lot around tires, the rubber treads on tires can grab your clothing, and then your entire foot and leg, and pull your entire body under the car.

Something tells me you are not much of a physics person.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Aw. And right back to the personal attacks because somebody dares to disagree with you.

It wasn't an insult. Your last two posts makes it appear as if you have trouble with reading comprehension.

However, I wasn't born under a rock. I can sense your mockery in your last two posts, and it was insulting. Go ahead and twist and rearrange my words and restate them in such a manner to make them seem like a joke. Your thinly veiled mockery didn't go unnoticed. Don't pretend to be innocent.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
So can you explain why it is he climbed in the window? I mean, since you have such an insight into his thoughts and so on.

Are you being serious with that question? Have you just forgotten our entire past conversation? How can anyone take you seriously when you ask a question that has been directly explained to you multiple times?

He tried to prevent the suspect from fleeing the scene! He either tried to turn the ignition off or tried to prevent him from putting the car in gear!

Believe it or not, police actually try to prevent you from starting your car and driving away... geez, that such a new concept to you isn't it?



This is what the officer feared would happen:



Getting caught up in the car and dragged is a common thing for police officers. Just google "officer dragged by car" and you will be opened up to a world that you seemingly have no knowledge about. Educated yourself on this topic, then come back.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

It's getting harder and harder to find any actual information in the midst of all the personal attacks you like to make.

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? Are they required to remove a person from a vehicle for not having a driver's license on them?

Gosh I'm so glad to have such an expert here. I mean granted, you seem utterly incapable of making a single point without surrounding it with multiple insults and personal commentary, but if one can weed all that out one may find a true gem of insight.

If you feel insulted you should do some serious personal reflection.

You're the one attempting to be insulting. And now you're acting ignorant intentionally because there is solid proof the officer was moved at least 20' by the car.

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

a reply to: Shamrock6

Are you suggesting the officer should have used hind sight?

a reply to: Ektar

a reply to: raymundoko

That's not what I asked, but thanks for trying.

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

That's exactly what you 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? Are they required to remove a person from a vehicle for not having a driver's license on them?

a reply to: Shamrock6

a reply to: raymundoko

Thank you for quoting me. It shows what I actually asked compared to the answer you presented.

Specific question. Vague answer. When you can answer the question as it was asked, perhaps we can try this again.