Cop Indicted For Murder

[RavenSky]

It's a handgun--held in one hand.

Which hand was "trapped in the car" and which hand was holding the gun?

His left hand is caught. His right hand held the gun and fired.

Show the pics from the video to prove that, and explain how he shot Dubose in the head with the gub in his right hand while simultaneously having his left hand caught in the steering wheel (which doesn't make any sense anyway if he is right handed) and being dragged along off his feet because (according to you) Dubose was accelerating.

 

[Rhea]

You're dodging. So when exactly does he draw his gun? While he's running backwards at 7mph and staying ahead of the car?

How about something related to reality? Nobody has said he was going backwards.

Dude. **I** said he was running backwards.
IF you claim the car was moving and
IF you also look at the stills from the video
THEN you see that while the car was allegedly moving up to 7mph (as calculated by someone here claiming it was moving)
THEN you see the cop somehow staying forward of the victim while facing the victim during the interim the car is said to be moving.
THEREFORE the cop must be running backwards to maintain his position forward of the victim and facing him for the shot while the car is moving.


There is no other possibility IF you are claiming the car is moving and you see the cop's camera showing the face of the victim. NO OTHER WAY. The ONLY way the cop's camera can continue to show the face of the victim is if the car is moving is if the cop is moving AT LEAST as fast as the car.

And we don't know exactly when the gun came out.

Then how, ion the name of reason, can you claim it was done because the car was moving?

Once again you show you have no idea of the environment.

While it is possible for something like pressing the accelerator to happen with a headshot it's not likely.

Really.
You think it is unlikely for a dying body to stretch out.
What makes you think that?

And since the car was moving before the officer fired it's clear the accelerator was pressed before he fired.

the officer whose camera was maintaining a view of the victim's face? How did that camera do that at a moving car? Fascinating. Tell us more.

"Baby mama" is factual: It describes a woman who has children out of wedlock.

No, it's derogatory and nasty. On purpose. There are other descriptions that are not slathered in disdain. YOu could choose one. If you are a person who is kind.

The reduction comes from the people automatically defending black criminals. Loren was merely describing this reduction.

Loren REDUCED a HUMAN BEING to the words "a black" - that is the point. Not who/what he believed he was addressing, but his actual choice of words including the words he left out (such as "person")

I know you understand what I am saying. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge what is wrong with the sentence "Anything to defend a black." is a reflection on you, too.

I used "a black" in this case because that was the relevant bit of information: He is being defended because he is black. It's not racism.

Loren calling a person "a black" is base nastiness. You should learn to stop it.
Are you really unable to see it, or do you reject that it's nasty? Is it conscious or unconscious?

"a black"
"a shoot / the shoot"

These are horrible things to say.
If you are a person who cares about kindness, you will think, "oh, shit! I didn't know!" and stop.
If you are a person who will on purpose say something nasty and derogatory, knowing it's nasty and derogatory, simply because you can make them hurt without you facing consequences, and you like to see them hurt, then we will see you continue.

It's derogatory of the lifestyle. It says nothing about the race of the person, thus it is not racial.

Dear Mr. Pechtel,
Please be advised that saying "a black" is definitely about race and is definitely and unambiguously racial.

You are lying to yourself.

 

[repoman]

this might be a close analog to the case:

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starexponent/news/local_news/town-seeks-dimissal-of-suit-against-culpeper-police-chiefs-in/article_ee65aa2c-ef24-11e2-bd79-001a4bcf6878.html

 

[Derec]

When cops hesitate too much.
Union: Pistol-whipped detective didn't shoot attacker because of headlines

 

[fast]

When cops hesitate too much.
Union: Pistol-whipped detective didn't shoot attacker because of headlines

This is what happens when we are shunned for advocating violence. Had we that right, we could possibly get more equality in the criminal world.

 

[marc]

But how does this mesh with gun rights and open-carry advocates? If a cop is allowed to shoot on the vaguest belief they are in danger, with the argument that hesitation could lead to them getting harmed, even against unarmed people, then what happens when most people are armed?

 

[fast]

But how does this mesh with gun rights and open-carry advocates? If a cop is allowed to shoot on the vaguest belief they are in danger, with the argument that hesitation could lead to them getting harmed, even against unarmed people, then what happens when most people are armed?

Was this to me?

 

[laughing dog]

When cops hesitate too much.
Union: Pistol-whipped detective didn't shoot attacker because of headlines

Right, because the only alternatives open to the police are either shooting an unarmed person or being pistol-whipped with their own weapon.

What is disturbing and telling about this story is the reaction of the bystanders. I realize that the bootlickers to police authority don't understand this, but if the police were trusted, then the bystanders probably would have reacted differently.

 

[marc]

But how does this mesh with gun rights and open-carry advocates? If a cop is allowed to shoot on the vaguest belief they are in danger, with the argument that hesitation could lead to them getting harmed, even against unarmed people, then what happens when most people are armed?

Was this to me?

It wasn't really to anyone. Just my open question on the overlap of the defenders of cops shooting unarmed people, and gun advocates. Two stances that don't seem like they would fit together very well in the real world.

 

[fast]

Was this to me?

It wasn't really to anyone. Just my open question on the overlap of the defenders of cops shooting unarmed people, and gun advocates. Two stances that don't seem like they would fit together very well in the real world.

Oh okay. Thanks.

 

[abaddon]

Some police are going to get hurt if people keep insisting on their safety from them when posing no serious threat? Well, if true, then OK.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

When cops hesitate too much.
Union: Pistol-whipped detective didn't shoot attacker because of headlines

Interestingly, the article says he was "sucker punched." Also says that he pulled over a driver in the parking lot for driving erratically, and then in the middle of that stop went on to investigate a robbery while he was waiting for backup.

This isn't really a case of "didn't draw my gun and now I'm a victim!" it's more of a case of "Tried to control multiple crime scenes at once, utterly failed."

The real story here is

1) The cop isn't dead, as the guy who "pistol whipped" him clearly had no intention of killing him
2) This is as much an example of poor police training as an actual shooting might be. It seems like the one thing cops are taught how to do best is shoot people; take away that option, and they don't know what to do with themselves.

 

[abaddon]

Apparently it’s better to just shoot people than risk anything, either the officer’s safety or that the ‘thug’ might get away. Don’t hesitate to draw that gun! After all, if the shooting doesn't seem justified at the time, someone'll dig up some post hoc proof of why they deserved to die... they smoked pot or something.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again you show you have no idea of the environment.

While it is possible for something like pressing the accelerator to happen with a headshot it's not likely.

And since the car was moving before the officer fired it's clear the accelerator was pressed before he fired.

Rhea sounds much more well informed about how vehicles move, how fast, and so forth than you do, actually.

More to the point, I think she's actually viewed video instead of repeating the interpretation of some right wing nutjob with an internet connection and/or a camera pointed at his head.

No, she sounds like someone who agrees with you. Numbers have been posted, nobody rebutted the math.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about something related to reality? Nobody has said he was going backwards.

Dude. **I** said he was running backwards.
IF you claim the car was moving and
IF you also look at the stills from the video
THEN you see that while the car was allegedly moving up to 7mph (as calculated by someone here claiming it was moving)
THEN you see the cop somehow staying forward of the victim while facing the victim during the interim the car is said to be moving.
THEREFORE the cop must be running backwards to maintain his position forward of the victim and facing him for the shot while the car is moving.

The cop is facing the side of the car. If the cop is running backwards why isn't he opening the distance between himself and the car?? Stationary cars on level ground don't just start moving sideways!

Really.
You think it is unlikely for a dying body to stretch out.
What makes you think that?

What would make it stretch out?

And since the car was moving before the officer fired it's clear the accelerator was pressed before he fired.

the officer whose camera was maintaining a view of the victim's face? How did that camera do that at a moving car? Fascinating. Tell us more.

The camera that's jerking all over the place once DuBose stomped on the gas.

"Baby mama" is factual: It describes a woman who has children out of wedlock.

No, it's derogatory and nasty. On purpose. There are other descriptions that are not slathered in disdain. YOu could choose one. If you are a person who is kind.

And you missed the fact that I'm not the one using the term anyway.

Loren calling a person "a black" is base nastiness. You should learn to stop it.
Are you really unable to see it, or do you reject that it's nasty? Is it conscious or unconscious?

It's the relevant characteristic, the use of the term is appropriate.

Or do you think there's something wrong with being black?

Dear Mr. Pechtel,
Please be advised that saying "a black" is definitely about race and is definitely and unambiguously racial.

You are lying to yourself.

I'm referring to their race because it's the relevant characteristic. I'm referring to racism, not being racist myself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is what happens when we are shunned for advocating violence. Had we that right, we could possibly get more equality in the criminal world.

Why don't you move to Somalia. It sounds more like the sort of society you want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Right, because the only alternatives open to the police are either shooting an unarmed person or being pistol-whipped with their own weapon.

In the real world there isn't a third course. He didn't fire, he's lucky to be alive. Issue cops with phasers and they'll have another course of action. Until then this is reality.

What is disturbing and telling about this story is the reaction of the bystanders. I realize that the bootlickers to police authority don't understand this, but if the police were trusted, then the bystanders probably would have reacted differently.

Look in the mirror--you're part of the problem. All this promotion of blacks are always the victims causes this sort of thing to happen.

 

[bilby]

In the real world there isn't a third course. He didn't fire, he's lucky to be alive. Issue cops with phasers and they'll have another course of action. Until then this is reality.

The 95% of the world that is not the USA seem to be able to find other options. Are you seriously suggesting that your 5% of the world is the only bit that is real enough for this dichotomy to apply?

 

[laughing dog]

In the real world there isn't a third course.

Bullshit squared. He got sucker punched which mean he was not alert.

He didn't fire, he's lucky to be alive. Issue cops with phasers and they'll have another course of action. Until then this is reality.

It is the reality that gets too many citizens killed.

 

[laughing dog]

Rhea sounds much more well informed about how vehicles move, how fast, and so forth than you do, actually.

More to the point, I think she's actually viewed video instead of repeating the interpretation of some right wing nutjob with an internet connection and/or a camera pointed at his head.

No, she sounds like someone who agrees with you. Numbers have been posted, nobody rebutted the math.

No, Rhea sounds like she has the education and the experience - something you clearly lack. Moreover, she did rebut "the math".