Cop Indicted For Murder

[ksen]

What, not use words that fit? Only use Cockney rhyming slang for everything?

tbf even using the definition you and loren have provided the word still doesn't fit.

 

[Toni]

1. It has not been "demonstrated" that the car was moving before the police officer shot Dubose point blank in the head. It has been "demonstrated" that possibly the car was rolling forward extremely slowly, or possibly the cop was moving his position towards the front of the car.

Look at the post above your reply that goes into some of the physics. In the time of the altercation a floored car moves mere feet.

2. Seriously, stop using the term "rabbiting" incorrectly. It does not mean what you think it means, and it makes your comments look very foolish when you keep using it in the wrong context.

https://www.google.com/search?q=rabbit+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Verb meaning #3. You'll have to expand the pane to see it.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as me 'proving' that he lied: I don't have to 'prove' anything. I am not one of the investigators on the case. I have, however, linked (you do know what linking is, right Loren?) video that shows pretty much that Dubose had his hands in the air immediately before being shot in the head by the cop.

Did you actually watch the video??

You mean the video that I linked? The one that clearly shows Dubose's hands in the air? Yes I did.

Further, I will hazard a guess that I have taken as many university level physics classes as you have and am as familiar as you are with what happens when someone is leaning inside a vehicle or has an arm or other body part inside a vehicle and the vehicle takes off or as you so eloquently yet street wise like to state: rabbits off.

The only way that it works out that the driver is shot in the head at near point blank range is if the shooter fires the gun prior to or simultaneously with the car accelerating.

As you so eloquently pointed out, even if someone stomps on the gas, the car will accelerate such that it moves more slowly at first, compared with its speed even a few seconds later.

So, please explain to me how it happened that Dubose stomped the accelerator (hands in the air, per video evidence) to 'rabbit' off and the officer (gun pointed at his head, per video evidence) manages to shoot him in the head AFTER the car begins to move --and then he falls down?


In the video I posted, the cop's gun is clearly out, clearly pointed at Dubose and Dubose's hands are clearly in the air.

A while back, I asked you if you could please post a timeline (obviously hypothetical) for events that would explain your theory of how events unfolded. It's been a busy week at work and at home, so I haven't kept up with the board or this thread as well as I might have done and it's possible I missed such a time line.

 

[Toni]

He was not dragged after he was down. He was still on his feet during the dragging. The shot is at very close range, cops get a fair amount of practice with their weapons. Hitting isn't exactly a surprise at point blank range.

So, you agree: the cop lied. He claimed, video evidence in a video (not mine) posted in this thread, that he was dragged damaging his pants.

It is even less credible that he was dragged along, damaging his pants, then recovered enough to manage to squeeze off a shot.

I agree that neither luck nor skill is required to hit your target if your target is the head of the man you intend to shoot and your gun is sufficiently close/nearly point blank range.

If you are basing any of your assumptions on the training and skill of the cop, then I think his actions have demonstrated a distinct lack of either.

 

[Rhea]

He was not dragged after he was down. He was still on his feet during the dragging. The shot is at very close range, cops get a fair amount of practice with their weapons. Hitting isn't exactly a surprise at point blank range.

You seem to be saying that a dragging happened AND THEN the cop pulled out his gun and shot the driver in the head to save himself from the dragging. You seem to be saying that the dragging is the excuse for shooting. Which must mean that you think the dragging happened prior to (and hence precipitated) the shooting.

But the video obviously doesn't show that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except he didn't _need_ to "get a shot off". He couold have kept his hands outside the car and his gun in his holster. UNless you are claiming that for some reason it it proper to think it is better that this man DIES rather than him getting away. I still don't get why you think that is a reasonable stance.

I do think he shouldn't have put his hand into the car in the first place. That doesn't change the fact that when his hand became trapped in a car driving off he was justified in shooting.

Whatever he had in the car has nothing to do with whether the shooting is justified. The relevance is in understanding his actions, why he chose to run from the cop.

Meh, he could be running from the cop because he's black and cops are known to shoot black men without cause. And he was, demonstrably, right to be afraid of that, now, wasn't he.

Anything to defend a black.

WHATEVER the reason he was trying to get away from the man who would later shoot him dead, are you saying that this attempt at escape means it is better that this man DIES rather than him getting away.

You continue to make false assumptions about what went down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He was not dragged after he was down. He was still on his feet during the dragging. The shot is at very close range, cops get a fair amount of practice with their weapons. Hitting isn't exactly a surprise at point blank range.

You seem to be saying that a dragging happened AND THEN the cop pulled out his gun and shot the driver in the head to save himself from the dragging. You seem to be saying that the dragging is the excuse for shooting. Which must mean that you think the dragging happened prior to (and hence precipitated) the shooting.

But the video obviously doesn't show that.

Here's where we disagree--I see the cop reach in to turn off the engine, the moron stepped on the gas, the cop was in danger and fired. The car is only moving slowly at that point, the cop was still able to keep his feet under him rather than actually being dragged.

 

[ksen]

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

defend a black.

a black.

..

 

[Toni]

I do think he shouldn't have put his hand into the car in the first place. That doesn't change the fact that when his hand became trapped in a car driving off he was justified in shooting.

How in fuck's sake could he have possibly fired with his hand trapped in the car?

You continue to make false assumptions about what went down.

Yes you do continue to make false assumptions that do not match video recordings.
To paraphrase a song from long ago

Still a man believes what he wants to believe and disregard the rest.

Lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie.

 

[Rhea]

I do think he shouldn't have put his hand into the car in the first place. That doesn't change the fact that when his hand became trapped in a car driving off he was justified in shooting.

You're saying that when a cop does something FUCKING STOOOPID, he gets to SHOOT someone to save his pants!?
Cop does something stupid, a man dies, this is good.

You seem to be saying that a dragging happened AND THEN the cop pulled out his gun and shot the driver in the head to save himself from the dragging. You seem to be saying that the dragging is the excuse for shooting. Which must mean that you think the dragging happened prior to (and hence precipitated) the shooting.

But the video obviously doesn't show that.

Here's where we disagree--I see the cop reach in to turn off the engine, the moron stepped on the gas, the cop was in danger and fired. The car is only moving slowly at that point, the cop was still able to keep his feet under him rather than actually being dragged.

Wait, so NOW you're saying that the cop reaches in "to turn off the engine" (i.e. something abysmally stooopid) then "the moron" (not the one who reached into a car while holding a gun to a guy's head, but the guy who was in the car) stepped on the gas, THEN the cop realized he was in danger, THEN he draws his gun and THEN shoots?

Or, wait, no the gun was out all that time. You're trying to pretend that didn't happen. Why did he pull his stupid gun again? It wasn't related to the gas pedal because that hadn't happened yet.

So WHY DID HE DRAW HIS GUN?


No, he doesn't get to shoot it just because he already had it out when he did something (additionally) stupid. Your excuse that it was drawn as a response to danger is not shown in the video.

So try again. Name the (perceived) danger that was present at the time the gun was drawn.


(bearing in mind that you're not even right that the engine revved prior to the shot, but you story falls down in so many places, I needed to step through the ridiculous one mucky boot at a time)

 

[atrib]

I do think he shouldn't have put his hand into the car in the first place. That doesn't change the fact that when his hand became trapped in a car driving off he was justified in shooting.

Whatever he had in the car has nothing to do with whether the shooting is justified. The relevance is in understanding his actions, why he chose to run from the cop.

Meh, he could be running from the cop because he's black and cops are known to shoot black men without cause. And he was, demonstrably, right to be afraid of that, now, wasn't he.

Anything to defend a black.

WHATEVER the reason he was trying to get away from the man who would later shoot him dead, are you saying that this attempt at escape means it is better that this man DIES rather than him getting away.

You continue to make false assumptions about what went down.

You continue to make up shit as you go along. The black man who was shot to death is the VICTIM. The cop, who was supposed to be upholding the law and serving the community is the KILLER. The cop shot and killed a man on the street, perhaps due to criminal negligence, perhaps out of malice (that is yet to be determined). You admit the cop should not have made the mistake of reaching into the car, but you refuse to acknowledge that the cop's mistake resulted in a human being being killed. At best, the cop fucked up, and that still leaves him responsible for the killing. Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge this fact? Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that black people are equally deserving of the protection of the law, and that cops who kill people through bad decisions or through outright malice deserve to be punished for their actions?

 

[ronburgundy]

He was not dragged after he was down. He was still on his feet during the dragging. The shot is at very close range, cops get a fair amount of practice with their weapons. Hitting isn't exactly a surprise at point blank range.

You seem to be saying that a dragging happened AND THEN the cop pulled out his gun and shot the driver in the head to save himself from the dragging. You seem to be saying that the dragging is the excuse for shooting. Which must mean that you think the dragging happened prior to (and hence precipitated) the shooting.

But the video obviously doesn't show that.

The video gives clear evidence, when evaluated with knowledge of basic physics, that DuBose accelerated the car and that it was going about 7mph and had traveled about 10 feet forward and to the left prior to the officer shooting. In less than a second after the shot, the officer fell, rolled, and when he got to his feet was about 25 feet down the road. IF the car did not accelerate until after the shot, it would have to have accelerated faster than any road legal car in existence to pull the cop that far down the road in less than 1 second. Thus, this sequence is completely impossible, and the vehicle must have already been accelerating for about a second prior to the shot. This is corroborated by the still frame where the gun is first pointed and prior to the shot. It shows that the passenger window is now framing the bushes on the other side of the cross street from where the exchange began where that window was framing the fence and sidewalk on the near side of that street . IOW, the car traveled the width of the crossstreet prior to the gun shot. BTW, that 10 feet is about how far a typical sedan would travel in the first second if you step on the gas. When the cop shot and fell at that point, given his forward momentum, that would put him the 20-25 feet down the road where we see him get up.

 

[ksen]

that the cop's mistake resulted in a human being being killed

There's your first mistake: equating blacks with human beings.

 

[ronburgundy]

In the video I posted, the cop's gun is clearly out, clearly pointed at Dubose and Dubose's hands are clearly in the air.

.

The lie that his "hands are in the air" (note the plural) has been definitely falsified. His right hand is on the wheel and only leaves it for a second to start the car as he begins his attempt to flee the scene of a crime, and as a DUI suspect, put others on the road in danger. Only after he starts the car, does the cop reach in to stop him. At this point DuBose tries to evade the cops grasp by leaning aways and pulling his left arm away. This technically puts his hand in the "air" but not in any sense you are trying to falsely imply that he was "surrendering". His right hand went immediately back on the wheel where it stayed up to, during, and after he was shot, as can be clearly scene in the still frame that show both the pointed gun and a clear shot of where DuBose mid to lower torso and arms. Some of those are the same camera shots showing that the car was not 10 feet down the road with the passenger window framing the bushes on the far side of the SUV.

 

[Toni]

In the video I posted, the cop's gun is clearly out, clearly pointed at Dubose and Dubose's hands are clearly in the air.

.

The lie that his "hands are in the air" (note the plural) has been definitely falsified. His right hand is on the wheel and only leaves it for a second to start the car as he begins his attempt to flee the scene of a crime, and as a DUI suspect, put others on the road in danger. Only after he starts the car, does the cop reach in to stop him. At this point DuBose tries to evade the cops grasp by leaning aways and pulling his left arm away. This technically puts his hand in the "air" but not in any sense you are trying to falsely imply that he was "surrendering". His right hand went immediately back on the wheel where it stayed up to, during, and after he was shot, as can be clearly scene in the still frame that show both the pointed gun and a clear shot of where DuBose mid to lower torso and arms. Some of those are the same camera shots showing that the car was not 10 feet down the road with the passenger window framing the bushes on the far side of the SUV.

Not what it looks like in this video (posted by me earlier):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDiyo9qjISg

Also not what it looked like to the DA or those who actually saw the video in its entirety as the actual shooting was not broadcast on television.

Here's video with a transcript of the dialogue:

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news...ialogue-from-fatal-traffic-stop-in-cincinnati

Think very carefuly about who you are calling a liar.

 

[RavenSky]

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

Anything to defend a black.

defend a black.

a black.

..

Says a lot, doesn't it.

Couple it with the constant use of words like "thug" and "baby mama" and "good shoot" and so many other examples; we've got a really clear pattern of racism, don't we?

 

[Rhea]

You seem to be saying that a dragging happened AND THEN the cop pulled out his gun and shot the driver in the head to save himself from the dragging. You seem to be saying that the dragging is the excuse for shooting. Which must mean that you think the dragging happened prior to (and hence precipitated) the shooting.

But the video obviously doesn't show that.

The video gives clear evidence, when evaluated with knowledge of basic physics, that DuBose accelerated the car and that it was going about 7mph and had traveled about 10 feet forward

Just to explain where I'm coming from, yes I have had college physics (passed with an A). Plus 20 years in industry as an engineer. In addition, I have spent 25 years racing cars, including from a standing start (on pavement, dirt and ice) and with a variety of tires, gear ratios and cylinders.

http://blog.automatic.com/aggressive-driving/

At Automatic, we consider an acceleration “hard” if you speed up 7 MPH or more in one second, equivalent to going from 0 to 60 MPH in about 9 seconds. In most cars, you have to floor the gas pedal to do this.

[...]

The image below shows how the MPGs vary for a BMW 328i at different speeds and accelerations. Red areas are extremely inefficient.

Note that's a standard shift BMW with the pedal to the metal for 0-7mph.
I'm guessing this man's car was not one.
And we would have heard the engine clearly if he had done this.

There's an analysis of a 1957 Dodge 4bbl V8 doing this kind of acceleartion here:


I don't think your "calculations" are supported.

and to the left prior to the officer shooting. In less than a second after the shot, the officer fell, rolled, and when he got to his feet was about 25 feet down the road. IF the car did not accelerate until after the shot, it would have to have accelerated faster than any road legal car in existence to pull the cop that far down the road in less than 1 second.

So it sounds like your distance estimate is wrong. For example someone said, "and those cement blocks are probably 7 feet," and have you ever seen 7 foot sidewalk blocks? Who builds anything to 7 feet? They are 4 or 6, typically.

And also, yes, I noticed that you fail to give the officer time to draw his gun in reaction to the acceleration. So what _did_ cause the officer to draw a gun? Anything reasonable?

Thus, this sequence is completely impossible, and the vehicle must have already been accelerating for about a second prior to the shot.

So you're saying the cop was running - backwards - at 7mph, while drawing his gun and STILL managed to be forward of his victim when he shot.

That's ASTONISHING, don't you think? I couldn't do that. Could you do that? No wonder he tripped and fell.

This is corroborated by the still frame where the gun is first pointed and prior to the shot. It shows that the passenger window is now framing the bushes on the other side of the cross street from where the exchange began where that window was framing the fence and sidewalk on the near side of that street . IOW, the car traveled the width of the crossstreet prior to the gun shot. BTW, that 10 feet is about how far a typical sedan would travel in the first second if you step on the gas. When the cop shot and fell at that point, given his forward momentum, that would put him the 20-25 feet down the road where we see him get up.

You need to reconcile where he was when he fired and that's in front of the victim. And that cannot be possible if the car has moved 10 feet already. What happens afterwards (car moving forward) is consistent with the dead man pressing the accelerator.

By the way, 25 feet in one second is 17mph from a near-standing start. Even if one granted you "7mph," that's still 10mph/s. That's beyond astonishing. I'm surprised you'd attempt to report that as fact.

Anyway - it still looks like he drew his gun for no good reason, stupidly leaned into the car and shot the guy because he felt it was THAT important that he not get away.

 

[atrib]

..

Says a lot, doesn't it.

Couple it with the constant use of words like "thug" and "baby mama" and "good shoot" and so many other examples; we've got a really clear pattern of racism, don't we?

Yes. Unlike our ancestors who dressed up in white sheets and went to lynching parties, modern day racists are more sophisticated, at least in public. They use words like "thug" and "baby mama" to dehumanize the victims of police brutality, and to distract our attention from the fact that people are getting killed on the streets by bad cops.

 

[laughing dog]

..

Says a lot, doesn't it.

Couple it with the constant use of words like "thug" and "baby mama" and "good shoot" and so many other examples; we've got a really clear pattern of racism, don't we?

This is one of the reasons I like this forum. I get to see unbelievable statements like "Anything to defend a black" on a regular basis. Sort of reaffirms that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Derec]

Says a lot, doesn't it.

Not really. It's a correct observation that a certain segment of the "black community" (as well as useful idiots among the overly PC whites) will be in support of a black person no matter what. OJ Simpson was a notable example. #AndreGreen (who jacked a car at gunpoint and then drove said car at police when cornered) and #TyroneHarris (who, being a lousy shot, missed when shooting at police during #Ferguson protests; the police, being better shots, didn't miss although he survived) already became hashtagified.

Couple it with the constant use of words like "thug" and "baby mama" and "good shoot" and so many other examples; we've got a really clear pattern of racism, don't we?

What's wrong with these words?
Thug is a lowlife criminal regardless of race. "Baby mama", while the term did originate in the "black community" it is not limited to it.
People of all races can be thugs or breed irresponsibly. But only blacks have some sort of immunity against being criticized for it. Go figure!
"Good shoot" and "bad shoot" are also race invariant.

 

[Toni]

Not really. It's a correct observation that a certain segment of the "black community" (as well as useful idiots among the overly PC whites) will be in support of a black person no matter what. OJ Simpson was a notable example. #AndreGreen (who jacked a car at gunpoint and then drove said car at police when cornered) and #TyroneHarris (who, being a lousy shot, missed when shooting at police during #Ferguson protests; the police, being better shots, didn't miss although he survived) already became hashtagified.

Couple it with the constant use of words like "thug" and "baby mama" and "good shoot" and so many other examples; we've got a really clear pattern of racism, don't we?

What's wrong with these words?
Thug is a lowlife criminal regardless of race. "Baby mama", while the term did originate in the "black community" it is not limited to it.
People of all races can be thugs or breed irresponsibly. But only blacks have some sort of immunity against being criticized for it. Go figure!
"Good shoot" and "bad shoot" are also race invariant.

But it takes a certain kind of person to make those judgments--thug, baby mamma, breeding irresponsibly-- about people he doesn't know, especially when those judgments are leveled against people of a certain complexion. A very special kind of person. I think there's even a special name for that sort of person.