How about telling someone to put out a cigarette and then when they refuse you drag them out of the car? Perfectly reasonable, right? Can you imagine what went on before dash cams, vest cams, smartphones, social media? But by all means keep defending these righteous individuals.
Sam DuBose Murder
- Thread starter joeyrupption
- Start date
Haislah v. Walton (6th Cir. 1982), 676 F. 2d 208 -- Ohio law does not authorize the use of gunfire to stop a fleeing misdemeanant. At 215: "Police employment of gunfire to effect the capture of a citizen who is fleeing from the law can, of course, be justified in some circumstances. It is justifiable to prevent the escape of a person known to have committed or be in the process of committing a felony involving violence. It is justifiable, also, on self-defense grounds if the fleeing person by his or her actions endangers the life or limbs of the pursuing officer."
Tennessee v. Garner (1975), 471 U.S. 1 -- Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment requirement of reasonableness. Notwithstanding a statute to the contrary, the police may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless the officer has probable cause that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
---------------------------------------------
12.550 DISCHARGING OF FIREARMS BY POLICE PERSONNEL Reference: Manual of Rules and Regulations - 1.23, 1.24, 1.25 Ohio Revised Code Section 2901.01 Procedure 12.545, Use of Force Procedure 19.105, Tennessee vs. Garner, 471 US 1 (1985)
Policy:
The most serious act in which a police officer can engage is the use of deadly force. The authority to carry and use firearms in the course of public service also carries with it the highest level of responsibility. Respect for human life requires that police officers exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to the use of firearms and then only when an officer reasonably believes that such use of firearms is necessary to protect the officer or another from the risk of serious physical harm or loss of life.
In considering the use of firearms, understand that you are responsible for your acts and that you may be required to justify your acts in a court of law. The Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office will determine the legality of actions taken. You are not required to retreat in lieu of the justifiable use of deadly physical force.
The safety of innocent persons is of paramount importance. Where there is substantial risk to the safety or life of an innocent citizen, the safety of the citizen should take precedence over the apprehension of the suspect.
Police officers may not use deadly force merely to prevent escape in misdemeanor cases. The use of deadly force to prevent escape of felony suspects is constitutionally unreasonable except where the escape presents an immediate risk of death or serious physical harm to another.
Where the suspect poses no immediate threat of death or serious physical harm to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. If an officer uses unnecessary and/or excessive force, or acts wantonly and maliciously, he could be found guilty of assault, even of culpable homicide if he kills the person he is attempting to arrest.
At such time as a police officer perceives what he interprets to be a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm to himself or others at the hands of another, he has the authority to display a firearm, with finger outside the trigger guard and have it ready for self-defense. The finger is only to be placed on the trigger when on target and ready to engage a threat.
Self-Defense:
A police officer is authorized to use that force reasonably necessary to protect himself or others from death or serious physical harm at the hands of another.
• There must be an apprehension of real or immediate danger based on an overt and/or constructive act by another.
Warning Shots: Officers should only use warning shots if convinced a warning shot will possibly save a life or alleviate the need of taking a life. As with any shot an officer fires, the officer must know it will not endanger innocent bystanders. Supervisors should report and investigate warning shots as outlined in Section A.
Felonies: When all other reasonable means at the officer's disposal have failed, the use of firearms is authorized, only under the following circumstances, as a last resort to apprehend a fleeing felon:
• The officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed or is committing a felony, and
• The suspect presents an immediate risk of death or serious physical harm, either to the officer or another person if not immediately apprehended.
• If possible, the officer will give verbal warning before using the firearm.
By itself, notification by Emergency Communications Center (ECC) resulting from a general information broadcast or computer query that a subject is wanted will not provide authority for the police officer to use a firearm.
All Other Felonies and Misdemeanors: In all other felonies or misdemeanors, police personnel will not fire shots even if the perpetrator attempts or succeeds in his attempt to flee.
Moving Vehicles: Officers shall not discharge their firearms at a moving vehicle or its occupants unless the occupants are using deadly physical force against the officer or another person present, by means other than the vehicle.
Tennessee v. Garner (1975), 471 U.S. 1 -- Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment requirement of reasonableness. Notwithstanding a statute to the contrary, the police may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless the officer has probable cause that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
---------------------------------------------
12.550 DISCHARGING OF FIREARMS BY POLICE PERSONNEL Reference: Manual of Rules and Regulations - 1.23, 1.24, 1.25 Ohio Revised Code Section 2901.01 Procedure 12.545, Use of Force Procedure 19.105, Tennessee vs. Garner, 471 US 1 (1985)
Policy:
The most serious act in which a police officer can engage is the use of deadly force. The authority to carry and use firearms in the course of public service also carries with it the highest level of responsibility. Respect for human life requires that police officers exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to the use of firearms and then only when an officer reasonably believes that such use of firearms is necessary to protect the officer or another from the risk of serious physical harm or loss of life.
In considering the use of firearms, understand that you are responsible for your acts and that you may be required to justify your acts in a court of law. The Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office will determine the legality of actions taken. You are not required to retreat in lieu of the justifiable use of deadly physical force.
The safety of innocent persons is of paramount importance. Where there is substantial risk to the safety or life of an innocent citizen, the safety of the citizen should take precedence over the apprehension of the suspect.
Police officers may not use deadly force merely to prevent escape in misdemeanor cases. The use of deadly force to prevent escape of felony suspects is constitutionally unreasonable except where the escape presents an immediate risk of death or serious physical harm to another.
Where the suspect poses no immediate threat of death or serious physical harm to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. If an officer uses unnecessary and/or excessive force, or acts wantonly and maliciously, he could be found guilty of assault, even of culpable homicide if he kills the person he is attempting to arrest.
At such time as a police officer perceives what he interprets to be a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm to himself or others at the hands of another, he has the authority to display a firearm, with finger outside the trigger guard and have it ready for self-defense. The finger is only to be placed on the trigger when on target and ready to engage a threat.
Self-Defense:
A police officer is authorized to use that force reasonably necessary to protect himself or others from death or serious physical harm at the hands of another.
• There must be an apprehension of real or immediate danger based on an overt and/or constructive act by another.
Warning Shots: Officers should only use warning shots if convinced a warning shot will possibly save a life or alleviate the need of taking a life. As with any shot an officer fires, the officer must know it will not endanger innocent bystanders. Supervisors should report and investigate warning shots as outlined in Section A.
Felonies: When all other reasonable means at the officer's disposal have failed, the use of firearms is authorized, only under the following circumstances, as a last resort to apprehend a fleeing felon:
• The officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed or is committing a felony, and
• The suspect presents an immediate risk of death or serious physical harm, either to the officer or another person if not immediately apprehended.
• If possible, the officer will give verbal warning before using the firearm.
By itself, notification by Emergency Communications Center (ECC) resulting from a general information broadcast or computer query that a subject is wanted will not provide authority for the police officer to use a firearm.
All Other Felonies and Misdemeanors: In all other felonies or misdemeanors, police personnel will not fire shots even if the perpetrator attempts or succeeds in his attempt to flee.
Moving Vehicles: Officers shall not discharge their firearms at a moving vehicle or its occupants unless the occupants are using deadly physical force against the officer or another person present, by means other than the vehicle.
Also, you think it was reasonable for the cop to grab the guy's door and open it because he didn't have his license on him? Go back and run it through the computer. Why ask him to take off his seat belt? It was petty. It was unreasonable to begin with. No front license plate? Who cares?
If abh is siding with the victim here, anyone on the other side should really take a deeper look at his/her self.
One thing I see no one mentioning is that during the entire video, the cop does everything with his left hand. That signals to me that he already had the gun ready to draw even though Dubose never did anything to warrant that from Tensing. If I am the prosecutor, I make sure I bring that up because it appears Tensing was immediately ready to shoot him and probably had an itchy trigger finger.
Dubose had 75 arrests. Had never been violent. He obviously had no problem going to jail. I don't know what Tensing will get in way of punishment but he will get something and it will be significant.
Dubose had 75 arrests. Had never been violent. He obviously had no problem going to jail. I don't know what Tensing will get in way of punishment but he will get something and it will be significant.
I wasn't clear on what I meant by something being done. I'm talking about the kind of nation-wide reviews and changes to hiring practices, training, and discipline that are needed to fix a national problem. Please ask questions for clarification if needed instead of presuming and declaring me wrong. I'm not interested in typical message board one-upsmanship, let's have an actual conversation if anything.
I think it's weird that people don't seem to mind killing another person these days. It seems in the past, people would grieve over having to kill someone, even if they had no choice. Now it seems like people are itching for a reason to pop someone. That's strange to me.
I just quoted the traffic fairy post.
I have absolutely no issue with authority at all. In general, I really like police officers. I have a few in my family, and I have several that are friends.
The difference with me? I can set aside the GENERAL feelings I have for police officers, and still judge a SPECIFIC instance on its own merits. Thats something you struggle with. You begin with the general notion the officer is always in the right, until proven otherwise. Its part of the blue line culture, which youre a part of although suddenly you seem to be dodgy about your history in law enforcement. Because you dont want people to see why you carry your obvious bias?
Ask any good officer and theyll tell you im right - they have no/few competent applicants for these jobs. This results in underqualified, underprepared, physically overwhelmed candidates being accepted when they normally wouldnt make the initial cut. These officers are terrified, they panic, and they are physically unable to restrain someone; which in turn results in these officers immediately resorting to lethal force rather than physically restraining the individual, pepper spraying them, or tasing them.
[QUOTE="_Chase_, post: 2018775, member: 2590"
At such time as a police officer perceives what he interprets to be a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm to himself or others at the hands of another, he has the authority to display a firearm, with finger outside the trigger guard and have it ready for self-defense. The finger is only to be placed on the trigger when on target and ready to engage a threat.
[/QUOTE]
This is what I thought would be the crux of the defense. I get the officer could say he thought he was in imminent danger, and according to accounts, his story was that he was dragged. So he will be using the car as a weapon. However, when did the real threat begin? When Dubose started the car, must have been when he pulled, or maybe Dubose saw the cop pulled his weapon and decided to take off? There is a 1 second lapse between starting the car and being shot. So maybe that implies gun was pulled, or dude is quick draw mcgaw.
Also, wonder if the license plate was pulled beforehand and the officer had previous knowledge of the arrests. Did he consider this suspect dangerous due to past infractions, or is this info coming out later, i.e. the officer had no idea.
At such time as a police officer perceives what he interprets to be a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm to himself or others at the hands of another, he has the authority to display a firearm, with finger outside the trigger guard and have it ready for self-defense. The finger is only to be placed on the trigger when on target and ready to engage a threat.
[/QUOTE]
This is what I thought would be the crux of the defense. I get the officer could say he thought he was in imminent danger, and according to accounts, his story was that he was dragged. So he will be using the car as a weapon. However, when did the real threat begin? When Dubose started the car, must have been when he pulled, or maybe Dubose saw the cop pulled his weapon and decided to take off? There is a 1 second lapse between starting the car and being shot. So maybe that implies gun was pulled, or dude is quick draw mcgaw.
Also, wonder if the license plate was pulled beforehand and the officer had previous knowledge of the arrests. Did he consider this suspect dangerous due to past infractions, or is this info coming out later, i.e. the officer had no idea.
That's ridiculous unless you plan on trying to take my parking spot.
-The guy in this story was wanting to kill someone, he did, he claimed standing his ground and he's going to go away for a long time.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/us/florida-road-rage-killing/
He's not a flight risk. She only did that to appease the protesters and waiting-to-rioters.
Actually, I see it as a sign that their case is weaker than the appearance they're giving. Punish him some now, with the excessive bail...
and they are really just praying he'll crumble and take a plea bargain.
The video was blurred out, presumably due to its graphic nature. So its pretty clear he was shot in the head and point blank range. Its on video. In fact the entire encounter is. So Im not so sure that fact needs sorted out.
What will be important will be the officers mindset. His theory will be some form of justifiable homicide, which will be based entirely on his mindset. He'll likely testify he thought he saw Dubose reach under the seat, and in his experience thats where weapons are often kept; or something similar.
In the end, it wont be enough. But its extraordinarily tough to convict an officer using this defense because anything even questionable likely comes out in the officers favor. Thats why it was essentially impossible to convict these guys short of video footage. In the end, theyll probably plea to something in the 8-15 year range, based mostly on public outcry and the current sociopolitical climate against police violence.
If you listen closely at the very beginning of the video, the cop asks Dubose if it's his car. He answers yes, and the cop states that it's coming back as a female (meaning he had already run the plate). Dubose clarifies that it's his wife's car.
Seriously, being asked to put a cigarette out is justification to become belligerent, assault a police officer and land yourself in jail? Even if it's a stupid request it isn't unreasonable, or a threat to your well being. In case you missed the last two decades, no one wants to breath that stuff anymore.
On your second one... You're going to have to first understand that he didn't open the door because he didn't have a license, he tried to open it after he didn't comply with his order to remove his seat-belt (as strange of a request as that is) Ohio has a law that your car has to have a front plate, doesn't matter if you agree with it, that's the law they have. The video is not good enough to make out at what point he started the car and put it in gear. It was before he was shot if what some said about him dying instantly is true. The cop might have grabbed the door in attempt to stop his attempt at escape.
You're also off base suggesting that this is being allowed, it isn't. This cop is fired and facing murder charges, he did not get away with it as you keep suggesting and he was in the wrong. You have read my thoughts on how to handle this so let me ask you, and be honest... do you think if I had been sitting behind the wheel of that car, same background as Dubose that I too would have been killed using my belief's vs his?
Without knowing what kind of data the cop has access to, I'm not sure if we could say whether the cop knew or didn't know about Dubose's priors. If it was his wife's car, would his connection to her come up on the cop's computer?
I'm going to say no simply because before he would have done that he needed his license.
Except nowhere in that video did Dubose ever become belligerent or assault the officer.
If anything, he was very polite throughout.
Bingo. It's because they're full of it. They like to think if they had to kill someone they'd blow the smoke off the barrel and say something badass. Most would just start weeping uncontrollably. I probably would. That's how you should react to killing someone.
And all I hear when someone talks about "being a man" or calls someone else a girl is that they are lacking in personal confidence. It's the old rule about the preacher's worst sins being the ones he constantly preaches about. All I hear when someone goes on about manliness is that they either have a tiny little pecker or some latent homosexuality they don't have peace about.
just adds to the cops state of mind. i believe the imminent danger will be the cops defense. If he had known of the priors, he could state that he was weary/cautious etc, but since he didnt know...
Obviously it is wrong, I am just trying to see what the cops mindset was.
Obviously it is wrong, I am just trying to see what the cops mindset was.
Maybe you should try to communicate better. And you're clearly interested in "one upsmanship" because that's clearly what you're trying to do.
And, again, you don't know what you're talking about. There have been real changes to police forces nationwide based upon this. I could name 20 examples.
How do either of you know how the cop felt about killing someone? Other than the initial few minutes after the incident, you know absolutely nothing about how he feels.
But hey feel free to lecture to everyone, including trained officers about how they should feel.
BTW, your constant analogies are irrelevant and not adding anything to your argument.
I agree but some folks can't stick with this case and want to keep dragging up other cases so I'm left after multiple pages covering that topic in another thread answering questions in this one too [eyeroll]
I think you're right. If they go with imminent danger and the jury buys it, he will have had a reason to have his weapon drawn and ready to fire, and he'll walk. If they go with accidental discharge, he could probably still do time due to negligence, if they can then prove he shouldn't have had his weapon drawn.
Neither post you just commented on was in regards to the Dubose case. It was in response to multiple posters in the thread talking about what would and wouldn't be justifiable homicide.
I don't want to no longer discuss this with you.
Signed; Bristolcat
:victory:
Glad to hear police violence is on the mend nationwide, then. My apologies, I had no idea.
I'm about there with him too. If you wanted to continue the discussion with me you should've been better at it. I don't have time for bad internet conversation. Probably just should've avoided the thread altogether, but I didn't. Still, the discourse in this thread has been weak and when it gets that way I don't let myself get sucked into it the way I used to. Fallacies, name-calling, repeated arguments that have already been addressed, accusations of "Lies! Lies! Lies!" in lieu of asking for clarification... I'm not into it. Sorry.
UC Cops are "Parking and Parties" Barney Fifes.
If you watched the entire video and all press conferences yesterday, you can see how disgusted CPD is with this whole thing.
If you watched the entire video and all press conferences yesterday, you can see how disgusted CPD is with this whole thing.
I'd be willing to bet that was the first/only time that cop has fired his weapon in the line of duty. Not the end-all-be-all of it, if so... but it'd speak more to the accidental possibility, than intentional, IMO.
WTF does it matter? There was zero reason to use deadly force. If he drives off, get in your fricken cruiser and follow him...you have his plates, you have his description...you're going to put his life in jeopardy over a fricken front license plate???
Dude, you've watched the video. Everybody can hear the gunshot before the car moves. What point are you trying to make, exactly?
In your recent activity, your last 50+ items are about this thread. I stopped counting after that. So pretty much all of the above is completely false.
They'll want to get something on him. Deters has taken a hard line on it... but, it's a win-win for him, either way, with regard to his higher political aspirations.
Ive only watched the end of the video once or twice and can't recall off the top of my head, but didn't the cop run up to the stopped car with his gun drawn and pointed in it?
If I'm remembering correctly and that is the case, I'd have a very difficult time believing the accidental discharge defense. If you accidentally discharge your gun, why would you sprint up to he car gun drawn? Wouldn't you sprint up there to see if the guy was okay?
If I'm remembering correctly and that is the case, I'd have a very difficult time believing the accidental discharge defense. If you accidentally discharge your gun, why would you sprint up to he car gun drawn? Wouldn't you sprint up there to see if the guy was okay?
This is a little creepy. I don't care what your opinion of my activity is. It took me less than 2 minutes to scroll through and read. As I did, I liked a large number of posts I agreed with.
Haven't rewatched it, but I'm pretty sure he is running with his gun drawn.
And then he explains his justifications for firing a dozen times.