• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another cop murders a suspect

In all fairness, the cop is going to die someday.*

I have reserved comment thus far. IMO the cop should have took a step back and let the guy go. The driver ain't going to outrun the radio. The drivers hands were in view for the most part and did not pose a threat to the cop. The guy started the car but it was a corpse that drove away.

Total over reaction by the cop. I'm not sure of murder, but thankfully that is not my decision to make.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the slo-mo again, you see the officer toward the front of the window looking back inside (but not by much) his left hand is inside the car reaching for [suspect or whatever], right hand comes up with the gun, you see the kickback, at this point if that car moved it was only inches, clearly not enough to "drag" the cop. You see the vic fall over, at that point the cop's hand is on the door jamb. The car speeds off. The vic is dead when this happens and you can see it knock the officer over, all of which happens after the instant kill shot.
 
Typical LE answer in an interview on Chris Hayes just now: the suspect could have been dangerous, the officer has to decide. Not the suspect was dangerous.
IMO: given the number of cases that we think are suspect due to video evidence, it's hard not to be cynical that simply claiming one is in fear of his life is otherwise an effective defense for abuse.

Xg87IS7.png


And of course, no discussion of the key issue, what is police policy for fleeing suspects?
IMO: Tennessee v. Garner could provide some cover for this officer. If the officer believed the fleeing suspect, even if the suspect was otherwise unarmed, was a threat to others then an officer can shoot a fleeing suspect.

However, the individual must be suspected of a felony (robbery, murder, etc.). The officer would need to show that he was reasonable in assuming that DuBose had committed a serious felony and thus was an immediate danger to the community.
 
IMO: Tennessee v. Garner could provide some cover for this officer. If the officer believed the fleeing suspect, even if the suspect was otherwise unarmed, was a threat to others then an officer can shoot a fleeing suspect.

However, the individual must be suspected of a felony (robbery, murder, etc.). The officer would need to show that he was reasonable in assuming that DuBose had committed a serious felony and thus was an immediate danger to the community.
In the extended video the officer says at least three times "he was going to run me over". I think he will have a hard time changing his story. How do you get run over standing on the side of a car? To be clear, the officer never said on the scene that he was entangled or was about to be "pulled" or "dragged".
 
Did you watch the video? Scuffle is not the word I would use.

Cop asks him to take his seat belt off and opens the door (he remained calm in professional), perp pulls the door closed, puts the key in the ignition and puts the car in drive.

Cop pulls out his gun and shoots the fleeing suspect.

"Perp"? You mean the victim???
 
Several people in the news giving the LE side claim finding the bottle of gin meant the guy could have been a drunk driving suspect.

Not buying it:

The cop would have said to get out and walk the line if he'd smelled alcohol and the bottle was not opened. You can see that on the video and the cop said nothing about, you're getting a ticket for an open container. The cop does say the plate showed a woman owner, but clearly it didn't come up as stolen and the vic said he had permission to use it.

So you have a guy driving without a license and that's it. If that guy is assessed a threat by a cop, then there's no line. Might as well say any fleeing suspect can be shot on sight.
 
In the extended video the officer says at least three times "he was going to run me over". I think he will have a hard time changing his story. How do you get run over standing on the side of a car? To be clear, the officer never said on the scene that he was entangled or was about to be "pulled" or "dragged".
There's a reference to being dragged on the second video. Cop says, I was being dragged, back-up buddy says, he saw it. But I understand back-up buddy later retracted it and said he saw scuff marks or something.
 
Great post until the last bit, IMO.

I'd say "hence a worthless criminal is removed from society."

The officer may have overreacted a bit, but it was a highly charged, threatening and extremely rapid unfolding of events.

I can't even see him needing to lose his job over this. Let alone do jail time.

Absolutely ridiculous point our society has gotten to in its cop-hatred and criminal-loving.

Yeah, that prosecutor looks like a bleeding-heart cop-hating hippie to me.
 
You need to look again at Skeptic Tank's gif. The victim falls down to the passenger side of the car before it moves forward. And again, the prosecutor who has access to the original and professional analysis said in the news conference, the vic was dead before the car moved forward.

The other thing we have to consider is the false police report he wrote.

The Samuel DuBose shooting video proved the police incident report was totally bogus

The incident report filed by University of Cincinnati police, for instance, made two false claims about the traffic stop and fatal shooting of DuBose: that UC police officer Ray Tensing was dragged by the car, and that he was almost run over by the vehicle.

"Officer Tensing stated that he was attempting a traffic stop (No front license plate) when, at some point, he began to be dragged by a male black driver who was operating a 1998 Green Honda Accord (OH.GLN6917)," the report stated. "Officer Tensing stated that he almost was run over by the driver of the Honda Accord and was forced to shoot the driver with his duty weapon."

But based on the video, these claims seem to get the timeline of events wrong. The car started moving very slowly — to the point that it's hard to make out whether it was moving at all. Within seconds, Tensing reached into the vehicle and shot DuBose in the head. He then fell over, stumbling a good distance away from the car.

Tensing never appears to be dragged by or attached to the vehicle, and he's never close to being run over. When he falls over after firing the shot, he's so far away from the car that he has to run after it as it accelerates. (DuBose's body appears to have fallen against the pedal after he was shot dead, causing the vehicle to accelerate, according to Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters.)

It was clearly not "he got entangled first and then shot the victim", he shot first and then the car accelerated. The shooting happened before he fell down, and he wasn't dragged, but he had already killed the man in any case.

Again:
"Officer Tensing stated that he was attempting a traffic stop (No front license plate) when, at some point, he began to be dragged by a male black driver who was operating a 1998 Green Honda Accord (OH.GLN6917)," the report stated. "Officer Tensing stated that he almost was run over by the driver of the Honda Accord and was forced to shoot the driver with his duty weapon."

Clear falsehoods unambiguously contradicted by the video.

Oh yeah, love those weasel words "at some point". If he fell down he was doing what soccer players do when they try to get the ref to call a foul on the other team: "simulation". IOW, I think he fell down purpose upon realizing he had just shot a man and it was on camera and he needed to do something to justify it. In any case it was obviously after he had already killed the guy.
 
Last edited:
!!! Anecdote Alert !!!

From my recollection LE and the judicial system give great deference to a moving vehicle once LE has made a stop. It is, IMO, often treated like a loaded gun. Once the intent to start or move the vehicle is made clear then, again IMO, the vehicle is seen as deadly to officers.

Judge finds officer Brelo not guilty on all counts


I see a significant difference between the threat of a car having recently been driving at you or others and the threat of a car speeding away from you. I'll be a bit more generous in my previous statement and say that if the car is going 10MPH or so and you are genuinely prevented from moving away (either being stuck or the driver restraining you) a case could be made that shooting was necessary. 10MPH is pretty fast for a person to have to travel just to keep up with a large bit of moving metal, so I could see there being situations where a shooting was needed. Not all the time, but conceivable.

I can't quite seem to make this case fit that mold, however. I try not to second guess situations like this as I've never been in anything close to them, but try as I might I have a very hard time seeing the shooting as justified. And again, I have a pretty large pro-cop bias (enough that I don't think I could honestly serve on a jury where the credibility of law enforcement would be a factor). That's why I'm curious to hear what actual departmental guidelines say. Per this cop's training and his department's regs, what was he supposed to do in this case, both 'entangled' and otherwise.
 
Interesting twist: the two officers who arrived at the scene and corroborated the defendant's story about "getting dragged" were themselves involved in the killing of an unarmed black psychiatric patient at the university hospital in 2010. Although it was settled out of court by the hospital and university police department, the family of the victim in that case says that the officers involved, including those two, were supposed to have been terminated as part of the settlement. Obviously that didn't happen.
 
Typical LE answer in an interview on Chris Hayes just now: the suspect could have been dangerous, the officer has to decide. Not the suspect was dangerous.

I saw the cop's lawyer on the news tonight saying that he was afraid of being "sucked under" the car. Yeah, good luck with that one.

Steve S.
 
Interesting twist: the two officers who arrived at the scene and corroborated the defendant's story about "getting dragged" were themselves involved in the killing of an unarmed black psychiatric patient at the university hospital in 2010. Although it was settled out of court by the hospital and university police department, the family of the victim in that case says that the officers involved, including those two, were supposed to have been terminated as part of the settlement. Obviously that didn't happen.
Doesn't surprise me at all. Bad cops are rarely routed out and when they are they just go find some other precinct. It's like the Catholics shuttling bad priests only in this instance it's the officers who are selecting where to work while higher-ups turn and look the other way.

How Police Unions and Arbitrators Keep Abusive Cops on the Street
 
The officer absolutely, without a doubt WAS dragged by the suspect's vehicle. It doesn't matter what the prosecutor has said on this matter, either. It is simply a fact based on the video:

Here's an image I've seen circulating around which provides good evidence of this.

Here's a loop of the important moments, in video, with audio, which I just created. I encourage everyone to watch this and allow it to loop as it will do. Pay attention to the sound of the acceleration and when that comes.

The main reason people are able to be under this misconception that the car didn't move prior to the shot is the fact that during those moments, Tensing's body camera is pretty much pointed right at the vehicle with very little, if any, background being visible. Not having the background to clearly demonstrate movement puts us at a disadvantage, but we can still determine it.

It's also worth pointing out that unless his foot was already on the accelerator pedal, no "dead weight" dynamic could really account for that pedal being pressed down by his foot after the shot. That can only have happened if his foot had already been on the pedal. You can tell that he'd not only accelerated, but also turned left out into the street (and into the officer) based on the trajectory it maintains up to the point where it crashes, btw.

at this point if that car moved it was only inches, clearly not enough to "drag" the cop.

Looking like he was dragged several feet, actually. This is why he ends up falling down and having to get back up, and why he's getting up off the ground several feet from where he'd been standing next to the car talking to the suspect. I'll grant you that some of the acceleration and movement is happening after the shot (some is before the shot, some is during - this all happens VERY fast) but I think it's clear that there was absolutely enough acceleration, movement, and officer-dragging prior to the shot to justify it.

How did shooting DuBose in the head disentangle the officer?

In a moment like that, it isn't a matter of rock solid logical thinking. It's a matter of training and instinct kicking in, and frankly, if the officer had drawn his weapon and was preparing to use it as an incentive to get Dubose to exit the vehicle, it's possible that the sudden jerking motion of the car as Dubose hit the gas contributed to the trigger being pulled.

All that needs to have happened for this shooting to make sense from the officer's POV is "oh crap! I'm going to get run over!" - that would put him in legitimate fear for his life, and frankly I don't even think any rational person can watch that video and NOT realize that this is what was going through his head when he shot. Whether you find it reasonable or not, he obviously did think his life was in danger and that this moving vehicle posed a threat to him.

Dubose wasn't just accelerating, he was turning INTO the officer as well (had to because there was a car up ahead along the shoulder like his was) and could have easily pulled the officer's legs under the rear tire.

I can't help what you see or don't see on the video. I see the vic slumped over in the seat before the car moves forward and so did the prosecutor.

And you're both incorrect. Dubose absolutely applies acceleration AND turns before being shot. He was shot because of these actions, and because of the threat they posed to the officer's safety. The prosecutor charged him out of fear of riots, plain and simple.

The man was dead before the car sped away, pretty sure the frame by frame shows that.

No, while still alive, Dubose started the engine, began acceleration, and began turning out into the street and thus INTO/ONTO the officer standing directly next to the car, and in fact leaning into it. Thus putting the officer in grave physical danger. His fate is exactly why you don't do that.

And how does your arm get stuck inside a wide open window, and if it was is he sawing he shot with his arm in the line of fire? Pretty sure the frame by frame does not show his hand stuck anywhere.

Unfortunately his left arm goes out of frame at the crucial moment, so we can't say exactly what was going on with it. However, it seems very possible that since he'd been grappling with the suspect for control of the steering wheel, his arm may have momentarily been caught in said steering wheel as Dubose turned it leftward. If this is the case, he got his arm free rather rapidly as Dubose straightened out the car a bit again, but it still would've been sufficient to create that feeling of being hooked to the car. This is consistent with the fact that he is dragged for several feet and then falls down and has to get back up.

And why did he lie about being dragged?

He did not lie, and neither did the other officers. He was dragged, without any doubt. Those who have looked closely at it and compared the images are guessing it was for about twelve feet. I agree with that assessment. The officer's actions also make much more sense if you grant that he was dragged. It would create the convincing (and real) feeling of significant danger in his mind and trigger his reflexes and instincts and training in this way.
 
Last edited:
Given that the car in the driveway is in frame during the stop and also when the driver is shot in the head the car certainly doesn't appear to have moved much. The wide angle lens makes trying to judge distances from the change in apparent size of objects very difficult.

In any case the best way to get clear of a car that you are standing alongside is to take a step back rather than shooting the driver in the head.

shooting1a_zpsxyvvyfcy.jpg
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom