|
Dead Reckoning posted:I would agree that treating every single interaction with the public as if it is certain to end in gunfire is not reasonable, no (and, yes, I am aware that there are some police who advocate this mindset.) Yeah, that's not what I said, though, or what you said. You were responding to a post that said it's 'reasonable' to treat a stop by the police, if you're a minority, as if it might end up with you being murdered by a cop. You changed that, in your reply, to 'likely' but that wasn't what the poster asserted in the first place.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:The only thing I'm being confident about is that Tensing will be convicted. I'm saying that when he is, Tensing may well get a few years instead of life. I don't know why that sounds very optimistic to you. Well the fact that you think he's going to face any jail time to me seems a bit optimistic, the only recent case I can think of where an officer is facing jail time is the Walter Scott murder, but we don't know the results of that case yet. Rollofthedice posted:How do you expect me to even productively have a discussion with you if you decide to waive everything I say based on what I can only assume is gut-based pessimism? Tensing is vastly more likely to be convicted than, say, Michael Brown ever was. I've given you every indication I can that that's the case, from the reaction of the city at large to the reaction of the county prosecutor who led Tensing's indictment (and will have a say w/r/t his conviction). If all you can do is dismiss me out of hand, then we're done here. It's not gut-based pessimism, it's a long history of similar situations where the officer has faced zero/little repercussions, you pointing out the reaction of the city and prosecutor does nothing to change history. Show me a case where it went how you expect this case to go and I'll gladly be less pessimistic, until then I guess it doesn't matter. The trial won't be for some time and everyone will forget about another dead black man killed by the people we entrust to protect us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Henry Davis has won his appeal, but can't sue because ... No. That quote is from the district court. The appeals court reversed on that issue. Don't read non-legal press analyzing legal decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:16
|
|
:
|
^^^ E: BeatenAbner Cadaver II posted:Henry Davis has won his appeal, but can't sue because Radbot posted:Why even bother having the Constitution if rights just don't apply when you're black? Unless I'm really misreading the decision, that's the statement from the lower court that was reversed. Obdicut posted:Yeah, that's not what I said, though, or what you said. You were responding to a post that said it's 'reasonable' to treat a stop by the police, if you're a minority, as if it might end up with you being murdered by a cop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Here is a longer version of the Dubose shooting than I've seen anywhere else. Tensing starts lying almost immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's not really comparable, since in that case the suspect physically attacked the cop and did some pretty serious damage to his head. According to the cop. A few seconds of blurry movement from a cell phone is all there is. Considering how many times videos show the cop is lying his rear end off like Tensing I don't think it's unreasonable to not just take his word for it. The video could be a teenager attacking an armed cop. Teenagers are dumb and do stupid poo poo but does that sound at all likely to you? How about teenager struggles after being tazed, knocks the cop off him and cop hits his head. People scared and in pain do not act rationally and your survival instinct is stop whatever is causing the pain and get away. Video could be showing him trying to get away after the struggle and cop shot him. The video doesn't prove this either but can you honestly say it isn't at least equally possible? I'm not claiming that's what happened, only if it's a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:According to the cop. A few seconds of blurry movement from a cell phone is all there is. Considering how many times videos show the cop is lying his rear end off like Tensing I don't think it's unreasonable to not just take his word for it. No, it's not equally possible. I know you're deeply in denial about this for some reason, but you can literally see him run at the officer at 5:25 and if you actually read the prosecutor's report, you'd know that the recordings and physical evidence supported the officer's testimony. It would be pretty hard for an officer lying on the ground to shoot someone running away from near-contact distance (close enough to leave soot on the body.) Also, that's some serious dedication to punching yourself in the face, especially if you're doing it hard enough to give yourself a subconjunctival hemorrhage. Please pick a less retarded hill to die on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I know you're deeply in denial about this for some reason, but you can literally see him run at the officer at 5:25 and if you actually read the prosecutor's report, you'd know that the recordings and physical evidence supported the officer's testimony. Also, that's some serious dedication to punching yourself in the face, especially if you're doing it hard enough to give yourself a subconjunctival hemorrhage. Please pick a less retarded hill to die on. I'm not in denial, I just have no reason to believe a 17 year old kid was going to murder a cop that night. He was fighting for his life, obviously he didn't fight hard enough since he died that night. Dead Reckoning posted:I can't tell if you're just sarcasm posting or what, but you do understand that someone being able to convince a judge or jury to not convict doesn't actually make something a reasonable belief, and doesn't somehow invalidate the concept of a reasonable belief standard? Especially since you can't articulate any reasonable alternative to the current standard? I'm merely posting what the apologists have been posting in this thread this whole time. The law does back them up, that's why they're so smug, they know the system is designed to let cops murder people with no repercussions and they're (you're) cool with that. I'm just trying to represent reality as it is. It's easier than going back and forth with you guys about what's legal or not Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not really sure what hair you're trying to split. Threadnaught said that minorities are justified in fleeing any traffic stop, because it is "reasonable to believe [they] will be murdered by a Police Officer if [they] are stopped." That was a stupid thing to say, and isn't a reasonable belief in any sense of the word. You said it's unreasonable because cops only murder less than a hundred minorities per year. He's just pointing out that your definition of reasonable is at odds with police justification of the use of deadly force. If minorities can't reasonably expect to be killed by police then police shouldn't reasonably expect to be killed by civilians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, it's not equally possible. I know you're deeply in denial about this for some reason, but you can literally see him run at the officer at 5:25 and if you actually read the prosecutor's report, you'd know that the recordings and physical evidence supported the officer's testimony. Also, that's some serious dedication to punching yourself in the face, especially if you're doing it hard enough to give yourself a subconjunctival hemorrhage. Please pick a less retarded hill to die on. At 5:25 you see him run at the officer, I see a silhouette of a person getting up and then motion blur. I think if the officer had just killed a child he'd be pretty dedicated to hitting his face to make it look like it was justified. He could've used any number of hard surfaces/objects to cause that kind of damage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
And if you'd said that, I would have agreed with you, but you went off into silly land by saying that it's not 'likely'. The hair I'm trying to split is pointing out that a lot of cop policy is based on scenarios that come up extremely rarely, and yet they do them all the time. This is one of the things that I'd like to see changed, to have interactions between cops and citizens be based on what is reasonable, not what is extremely unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I would reeeeally like to see your basis for this, since the number of traffic stops that end in a minority motorist killed at the hands of police for no good reason is maybe double digits per year. It's certainly visible, but I wouldn't call it likely. The number of traffic stops that result in a dead cop is vanishingly small, and yet they still get to use the slightest little action on behalf of people to justify killing them
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
I see a kid struggling to get away. I don't see him 'attack' the cop and I didn't say the cop hit himself, I said it's possible when the kid got away maybe he got knocked down and the cop hit his head. After the struggle it's just blurry poo poo. People scared and in pain from getting shocked do not act rationally, all I'm asking is it really that unreasonable to say it's possible that the cop got hurt in the struggle not because he was attacked and the kid was running away? I'm not 'picking a hill to die on' I just want to know if you are willing to accept the possibility. Edit: I will agree fighting to get away could be defined as attacking the cop, but not because he was trying to hurt the cop but because he was fighting out of fear. Unfortunately justifiably in fear for his life. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm not in denial, I just have no reason to believe a 17 year old kid was going to murder a cop that night. He was fighting for his life, obviously he didn't fight hard enough since he died that night. ElCondemn posted:You said it's unreasonable because cops only murder less than a hundred minorities per year. He's just pointing out that your definition of reasonable is at odds with police justification of the use of deadly force. If minorities can't reasonably expect to be killed by police then police shouldn't reasonably expect to be killed by civilians. ElCondemn posted:I'm merely posting what the apologists have been posting in this thread this whole time. The law does back them up, that's why they're so smug, they know the system is designed to let cops murder people with no repercussions and they're (you're) cool with that. I'm just trying to represent reality as it is. It's easier than going back and forth with you guys about what's legal or not
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I see a kid struggling to get away. I don't see him 'attack' the cop and I didn't say the cop hit himself, I said it's possible when the kid got away maybe he got knocked down and the cop hit his head. After the struggle it's just blurry poo poo. People scared and in pain from getting shocked do not act rationally, all I'm asking is it really that unreasonable to say it's possible that the cop got hurt in the struggle not because he was attacked and the kid was running away? Of course he doesn't accept that possibility, the reports and the blurry video tell him all he needs to know, that a scared 17 year old was about to murder that officer so he deserved to die. Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, I don't think a police officer should be required to give the suspect on top of him, punching him in the face, the benefit of the doubt with respect to having a pre-planned level of physical violence that definitely doesn't include murder. Yeah, I understand your point of view, you believe the cop was in mortal danger. I don't agree that a 17 year old kid who was not being threatening in any way was intending to murder a cop. Dead Reckoning posted:I agreed that a police officer treating every traffic stop as an attempted homicide about to happen without any individual suspicion was equally unreasonable as a motorist treating every traffic stop as an attempted homicide about to happen. That doesn't really have anything to do with justification of lethal force, which is by definition based on an individual set of circumstances rather than a probability. Yeah, I understand that you think police are allowed to decide when to use lethal force, that's the problem. Dead Reckoning posted:Oh, so you're just doing a lovely job at trolling. (THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME REALLY BELIEVE GUYS!!!) I'm not trolling, I'm trying my best to represent the opposing argument as best as I understand it. It seems to work since a lot of the common apologists in this thread aren't trotting out the same old arguments anymore. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
I thought the thread had come to a consensus that the kid was giving the police officer a beating after the pictures came out. I can't believe we're doing this again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Some people declaring it clearly showed something it didn't isn't a consensus. I'll agree he beat the cop if there was evidence of damage to kids hands. You can't hit someone hard enough to cause that kind of damage without damaging your knuckles. But even then the question is still did he attack the cop intending to harm him or hit him trying get away? Why is even asking if it's possible that what happened was scared dumbass teenager who just got tazed reacted like a scared dumbass teenager who just got tazed and not dumbass teenager decides to attack a cop so unreasonable? Toasticle fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I thought the thread had come to a consensus that the kid was giving the police officer a beating after the pictures came out. I can't believe we're doing this again. I don't want to argue about it, I just used that as an example of a similar case. Just because I didn't want to keep arguing with people over what happened in the video doesn't mean I agreed with their point of view. Silence isn't agreement. This new case is the same because all we have is a blurry video and it's "reasonable" for him to say he was being dragged by the car. In fact that's what a lot of the comments on facebook and youtube seem to be claiming is what happened. The only difference is that there isn't a picture of a cop with a bloody face afterwards. I don't believe either "suspect" was killed justly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Some people declaring it clearly showed something it didn't isn't a consensus. The autopsy report listed external injuries consistent with the reported physical altercation. Specifically abrasions to his right forehead and forearms. You don't have to hit people with your fists to do that kind of damage. Its just a really, really weird hill to die on. At the point they're fighting, it doesn't matter if hes hit the cop to try to get away or trying to attack the cop to kill him. He's still attacked the cop, and given that they shoot people for no reason at all, the expected outcome is always going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Let me preface this with my opinion that I think that Tensing murdered DuBose. To play defense attorney: Tensing was reaching in the car to unbuckle DuBose, and unholstered his gun at the same time. DuBose starts the car. Tensing, having started to lean in the window, thinks that DuBose is trying to drive off. Thinking that his body weight is shifted such that he's going to be tangled in the car as it drives forward, he shoots unthinkingly as a reflex. I'm giving credence to his statement in the video to the other officer immediately after the shooting that he actually thought he was in danger. Objectively, his arm wasn't tangled, and he wasn't dragged as the car went forward. Was his belief reasonable? I don't think so. Will he be convicted? I don't know. Given the reasonable doubt standard and the reasonable belief standard for self defense, you just need one juror to think that in Tensing's shoes, that it's not implausible to think that he could have been dragged, and hung jury at the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Let me preface this with my opinion that I think that Tensing murdered DuBose. I agree, but it doesn't matter what really happened or not. I'm not looking for more cops behind bars, I want less dead people in the streets. The problem is that someone was killed needlessly. If officers can't stop killing people needlessly they need their power removed/reduced, take away their ability to use deadly force.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I thought the thread had come to a consensus that the kid was giving the police officer a beating after the pictures came out. I can't believe we're doing this again. These things always come back around eventually. No matter what went down once the bodycam gets messed up, I think it can best be summed up by saying an armed cop should have the training and ability to handle an unarmed, but disagreeable 17 year-old kid. Call for back-up, don't try to taze a prone kid because they aren't perfectly compliant. Also if someone flashes their brights at you, it's a courtesy even if you don't have your brights on. Maybe your headlights are too drat bright (and there's plenty of lights out there that are - and definitely when in this instance it has already happened to the same cop) and you shouldn't pull people over for that courtesy even if it's some nonsense technical violation you can do it for, and escalating a situation with a kid who's a bit dumb about how it all works (most are). He created that situation, and if all is true lost control of it due to his own incompetence and inability. He should not have that job, at minimum. This amuses me more: Abner Cadaver II posted:Henry Davis has won his appeal, but can't sue because Because sure, good job correcting him, Kalman and Dead Reckoning, while completely ignoring the utterly hosed up quote which mislead the guy. I mean, obviously the issue is one confused guy posting a one-off in here and not that a district court said "As unreasonable as it may sound, a reasonable officer could have believed that beating a subdued and compliant Mr. Davis while causing only a concussion, scalp lacerations and bruising with almost no permanent damage did not violate the Constitution." I'm sure the court's expertise in neurology came into play. It's great to correct people on points of fact. You come off like an rear end in a top hat or a pedantic dimwit when you completely ignore all context of what confused them and what made them make that mistake. e: spelling, my fingers grow tired in the long summer days hobotrashcanfires fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I thought the thread had come to a consensus that the kid was giving the police officer a beating after the pictures came out. I can't believe we're doing this again. Let me tell you about scalp/face wounds. They bleed profusely, even the small ones. Don't use pictures, use a ME's report instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Let me preface this with my opinion that I think that Tensing murdered DuBose. All of this is plausible, but they're going to rake him (and his buddies) over the coals for trying to conceal the truth by making poo poo up out of whole cloth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:
If I'm reading this right, the district court actually put this in their ruling before it was overturned?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:If I'm reading this right, the district court actually put this in their ruling before it was overturned? Yes. With the appeals court basically quoting that with "We disagree" which may not sound like it but is as sick a legal burn as possible. Edit: And yes, for the record the correction was needed because for once the justice system did the correct thing, which was not what was implied by the post. I was going to post that correction myself. Lovely name calling and what not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:All of this is plausible, but they're going to rake him (and his buddies) over the coals for trying to conceal the truth by making poo poo up out of whole cloth. Gut reaction: what you call making up, they'd call eyewitness effect. I haven't actually learned anything other than watch the shooting itself and the like 45 seconds afterwards. What are you referring to?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes. With the appeals court basically quoting that with "We disagree" which may not sound like it but is as sick a legal burn as possible. That is spectacularly hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:That is spectacularly hosed up. Well the district court's ruling was. That's was we have appeals and in this case the appeals court couldn't have said "gently caress you" better to the district judge if they'd taken the opinion, wiped thier asses with it, and set it back with a middle finger drawn in the smears. It made me happy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Gut reaction: what you call making up, they'd call eyewitness effect. Sorry for the delay; was on the phone with my son. Officer claimed he was dragged & nearly run over; another officer corroborated this. Link
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
nm posted:Lovely name calling and what not. Yeah, the correction is fine and warranted. It's the jumping in only to nitpick a random guy's misunderstaing, without bothering to mention a district court's atrocious ruling. I apologize to any unfairly wounded party. e: I stutter while typing, apparently. hobotrashcanfires fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:Sorry for the delay; was on the phone with my son. Again, playing defense attorney, he honestly believed in the moment that he was in danger of being dragged once DuBose turned on the car, and combine that fear with the fact that the car moved forward, and you result in the false recollection (by no malice) that he was, in fact, dragged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
What the gently caress is the cop doing reaching into his car in the first place? I just don't get how creating and escalating a situation to the point where someone ends up dead can be legally excused by the idea that your paranoid racism makes you fear for your life in the presence of black people but it's proven true so many times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Again, playing defense attorney, he honestly believed in the moment that he was in danger of being dragged once DuBose turned on the car, and combine that fear with the fact that the car moved forward, and you result in the false recollection (by no malice) that he was, in fact, dragged. I can see that defense playing out, but I don't think any (sober) juror is gonna' buy it given the video evidence. But defense attorneys have to do what they have to do. My guess is that, on top of that, there's gonna' be Zimmerman-levels of painting the victim as a horrible person who "could've" hurt the officer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Yeah, the correction is fine and warranted. It's the jumping in only to nitpick a random guy's misunderstaing, without bothering to mention a district court's atrocious ruling. It's not a nitpick though, he posted literally the opposite of what happened. The appeals court had the exact same reaction as everyone else who read that passage, which is why they basically sent it back with a note saying "lol, no" attached. It's ridiculous that you think I was somehow being unfair because I didn't write an aside talking about the lower court decision being bad, when the newsworthy item was the appeals court doing exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:I can see that defense playing out, but I don't think any (sober) juror is gonna' buy it given the video evidence. But defense attorneys have to do what they have to do. Funny you say that. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-usa-police-ohio-idUSKCN0Q31ZL20150729 quote:Dubose's family has hired attorney Mark O'Mara, who represented George Zimmerman, the Florida man who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of black teenager Trayvon Martin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's not a nitpick though, he posted literally the opposite of what happened. The appeals court had the exact same reaction as everyone else who read that passage, which is why they basically sent it back with a note saying "lol, no" attached. It's ridiculous that you think I was somehow being unfair because I didn't write an aside talking about the lower court decision being bad, when the newsworthy item was the appeals court doing exactly that. You know, I do think it's weird to only comment on someones mistake and not what's absurd and caused the confusion. But you're right, unfair to draw conclusions based on that alone. I do again apologize to you both for calling you names. Though I do have to disagree that the only newsworthy item was the appeals court correcting that abomination. That abominable quote still came out of the district court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Again, playing defense attorney, he honestly believed in the moment that he was in danger of being dragged once DuBose turned on the car, and combine that fear with the fact that the car moved forward, and you result in the false recollection (by no malice) that he was, in fact, dragged. If you watch the bodycam video at 1/4 speed , you see Tensing put his left arm against DuBose's chest and grab the seatbelt/his shirt to flatten him against his seat and hold him still so he can shoot him in the head with his right hand. You also see DuBose raise his hands (immediately prior to being shot) and the car staying still until Tensing is on the ground. Oh also this: ElCondemn posted:At 5:25 you see him run at the officer, I see a silhouette of a person getting up and then motion blur. I think if the officer had just killed a child he'd be pretty dedicated to hitting his face to make it look like it was justified. He could've used any number of hard surfaces/objects to cause that kind of damage. 
FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:If you watch the bodycam video at 1/4 speed , you see Tensing put his left arm against DuBose's chest and grab the seatbelt/his shirt to flatten him against his seat and hold him still so he can shoot him in the head with his right hand. You also see DuBose raise his hands (immediately prior to being shot) and the car staying still until Tensing is on the ground. My impression was that Tensing started to put his hand in to reach for the seatbelt latch, DuBose reached for the key in the ignition, Tensing moved to try to push DuBose's hand away from the ignition, thereby pushing DuBose back in the seat and shot at the same time. I'll have to rewatch, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:it doesn't matter what really happened or not. What (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
Toasticle posted:I see a kid struggling to get away. I don't see him 'attack' the cop and I didn't say the cop hit himself, I said it's possible when the kid got away maybe he got knocked down and the cop hit his head. After the struggle it's just blurry poo poo. People scared and in pain from getting shocked do not act rationally, all I'm asking is it really that unreasonable to say it's possible that the cop got hurt in the struggle not because he was attacked and the kid was running away? ElCondemn posted:Yeah, I understand your point of view, you believe the cop was in mortal danger. I don't agree that a 17 year old kid who was not being threatening in any way was intending to murder a cop. ElCondemn posted:Yeah, I understand that you think police are allowed to decide when to use lethal force, that's the problem. EDIT: FAUXTON posted:Oh also this: Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:48
|
|