Posted on 07/31/2015 7:03:21 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
A synced-up video of body camera footage from three University of Cincinnati police officers – Ray Tensing, Phillip Kidd and David Lindenschimdt – reveals the dramatic aftermath of the police shooting of a 43-year-old unarmed black man.
It shows that both officers were behind Tensing at the time he shot DuBose, but both backed claims the officer had been 'dragged'. These claims were used to justify the shooting, but were later dismissed as false by the county prosecutor who charged Tensing with murder. Kidd and Lindenschimdt have also been placed on leave
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
I repeat: All of that happened AFTER he killed DuBose. Not before. The video (and audio) is clear.
But you don't care. You think this killing was justified because DuBose was a scumbag (he was), and you are going to twist the evidence into whatever knots you need to justify Tensing's conduct.
"At 2:46 officer Tensing fired his shot, 3 second after DuBose had started his car up and began accelerating."
Is that a lie? Your screen caps are vague and unclear. For now, I'm putting much more confidence in #33 and the second by second analysis.
At 2:43 (i.e., 3 seconds before 2:46), the same "script" simply says that DuBose started his car. Nothing about accelerating, and certainly no proof that it did. The part about "accelerating" wasn't added until later in the "script," when it was convenient for the narrative.
You obviously do not know Deters.
Even if your assumption is true, SO FREAKING WHAT?
Tensing got off a clean shot. Using your version of things still indicate some basics.
Um, so every time a police officer sees a citizen driving a car they can say that they are 'in fear for their life' and they can shoot the driver in self defense? Izzat right?
Rather simple to me, he started the car AND had to have put it in drive or it wouldn’t have taken off AFTER the shooting. Obviously he was leaving and I have no doubt that the forward movement of the car began to drag the cop.
Sadly and coincidentally, yesterday our neighborhood had a horrible loss. Our wonderful eighty-five yo, vibrant neighbor, was crushed and killed by his car. We are not sure what happened but it appears he was backing out of his driveway and realized he had dropped his cash and errand list before getting in the car. He was in reverse and either opened the car door to reach out and get it or got out to get it and forgot to put the car in park. He was thrown under the car and was dragged down the driveway into the street and was found by another neighbor minutes after it happened. Whatever, it was a horrible scene and he died instantly of massive head injury. The car had to be jacked up to get him out. Sadly, today would have been his 85th birthday.
I didn't even see that. It looks like the car started moving, he shot DuBose in the head, and then fell to the ground either through loss of balance or the car, it isn't clear which. No dragging. No hanging on for dear life. None of that.
Well DUH! Good thing that he did fire before he fell over. Otherwise he wouldn't have hit his target.
Well he can explain how lucky that was at his trial, and may well have quite a few years to mull over his good fortune at being able to shoot before falling while he's in prison.
Tensing did not reach into the car until AFTER DuBose started it and put it into gear.
You have just spent multiple posts arguing that the shooting was justified because Tensing was dragged 20 feet before he fired the shot. Now, you are saying that it doesn’t matter whether Tensing was dragged 20 feet before he fired the shot. As I said, you are going to keep moving the goalposts, and keep twisting the evidence, until you find some narrative that, in your mind, justifies the shooting. Facts be damned.
I am not saying it is a smart thing to do. What I'm saying is that driving away in and of itself does not justify shooting the suspect. Pursue him, call your fellow officers to assist, and then arrest him when apprehended. How hard is that?
I would call it too stupid to let go of a moving car being driven by a dead man that you just shot.
“Hey, here’s a novel idea. Just do what the cop tells you and you won’t get shot.”
While I agree with you, this guy who was shot was drunk! So I guess to the cops, a drunk is to be used for target practice? This cop, if found guilty, should do life w/o parole at the minimum.
You are mistaken on that point. Any civilian who uses deadly force, and claims it was justified by previous direct contact with the side of a car that flees, is apt to be charged with aggravated assault up to murder 1 (depending on the jurisdiction and other circumstances). It's a fact-intensive point, and turns on the threat a reasonable person would perceive in the same circumstance. There is a case where a cop was convicted on a deadly force charge, shooting at a car that tried to hit him, but missed, and was going away when the shot was fired.
-- (Before during or after he shot DuBose. Who cares and what diffenece does it make to these above mentioned material facts?) --
Before or after has a potential difference in causal link to "car is moving." The cop, who has put himself into a situation with the burden of establishing self-defense, has to convince the jury that the car would have moved even if he hadn't fired a round into the driver's head.
At any rate, "who cares" is going to be the jury, unless the cop cops a plea.
I’m more worried about the people walking in the street and the other drivers than I am about this 75 offenses, 13 children, drunk driver. I’ve watched the video and it seems to me the cop was perfectly decent - he sounded like all the cops that come to my door over the last two years because my senile father bugs them when I don’t call him for a day or two. But then I tend to be friendly and polite to cops and don’t hide open bottles at my feet while driving. I don’t know what happened here but like with that poor dentist, we are all jumping up and down before we know all the facts.
“Just do what the cop tells you and you won’t get shot.”
I’m not willing to live in that country.
If the police support the Constitution then I’ll support them. If they don’t then I’ll oppose them.
After the cop started opening the door, the driver slammed it shut again - or attempted to. That when it all went south.
Whether you want to get shot or not, it is imperative that you obey a cop’s ordinary demands. We used to know this when I was growing up. I saw nothing unusual in the cop’s questions or demands.
Disobeying ANY order, lawful or not, is an invitation for trouble. You can be legally in the right, and still be dead.
It is rare, but not unheard of, for a person to resist an unlawful order and get away with it.
It is rare, but not unheard of, for a person to win a lawsuit for compliance with an unlawful order.
I didn't even see that. Yeah. No kidding. You aren't seeing much of anything, huh?
It looks like the car started moving. Thank you. I've been making this point and you kept denying it.
it isn't clear which. Not to you. But to most people, it's very clear.
No dragging. No hanging on for dear life. None of that. Then HOW did Tensing end up on his ass 20 feet away from the time he fired the shot? Do you want to suggest he WALKED over there, then fell down?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.