Exclusive!! Samuel DuBose Shooting! Second Police officer's body cam angle.Caught Lying SMOKING GUN

a reply to: liteonit6969

And that is exactly why you... and others of similar temperament should not be cops.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
You don't have the legal, moral or spiritual right to kill someone for not having a front tag and defying you.

Only a complete idiot would think, or even insist, the guy was killed for not having a front tag.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

No, here is where people are confused. When you are stopped at a traffic stop for a legal infraction...for all intents and purposes YOU ARE UNDER ARREST. You have been legally detained.

Driving off is resisting arrest. You are given a ticket or warning IN LIEU OF A FORMAL ARREST.

It can be escalated to a FORMAL arrest, but you are technically arrested while stopped and this is why there are no 4th amendment violations for being removed from your vehicle.

Source

Edit: And not just driving off. Not getting out of your car, not turning down your radio, not providing your license, refusing to be cuffed without Miranda rights being read...

They all end up as "resisting arrest" because you have been legally detained, which is a form of arrest.

Thank you for this information. I did not know that, if a police officer stopped me for a believed infraction, that I was technically under legal arrest.

I guess I am going to have to change all my docements, were I lied, though not intentionally, about never having been under arrest.

Now educate me further. What is the max sentence for any of the crimes you listed? Do any of them warrant a death penalty?

My problem is not so much the thin blue !ine. There have been and always will be some bad cops. My consternation is with the increasing numbers of bad cops, the networking of these bad cops, and the total disregard they have for the American citizenry.

We have become their prey not their job.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Pro-tip: traffic stops don't count for that.

I feel like you're being tongue in cheek but....

Just in case

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: starfoxxx

I have studied the video, and the video shows that Tensing was indeed dragged by the car. It was not a lie, the video evidence shows he was dragged several feet, and I even pointed it out in some of my last posts.

The source you are quoting is wrong, and most likely confused by the video evidence.

dubose car never revved up until after he was shot. Debose could of simply hit the gas if he already had the car in drive . He couldnt because as soon as the car was in drive Terreance shot him so he couldnt flee.

a reply to: starfoxxx

starfoxxx, the video clearly shows the car is moving before the gun is fired. You can see the Chevy truck parked in the driveway in the background move. You can visually see the entire car move... and measurements can be made. You are completely wrong on all accounts, and so is your source.

You can even hear the car's accelerator being pushed before the gun shot. Put some headphones on an listen to the audio very loudly. You seem to only be focusing on the high revving part after the gun shot, and not the engine noise before the gun shot. You can hear the accelerator has been pushed right after the car is started, during the time the officer is yelling "STOP!".

Please, focus, and study the video. I am not wrong on this. These are facts.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
You don't have the legal, moral or spiritual right to kill someone for not having a front tag and defying you.

Only a complete idiot would think, or even insist, the guy was killed for not having a front tag.

I accept your description of me. I will for the moment, be your complete idiot.

First get something straight. What I said was

You don't have the legal, moral or spiritual right to kill someone for not having a front tag and defying you. 

So tell me, what did he do that justified him being killed?

I am just asking.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
You don't have the legal, moral or spiritual right to kill someone for not having a front tag and defying you.

Only a complete idiot would think, or even insist, the guy was killed for not having a front tag.

I accept your description of me. I will for the moment, be your complete idiot.

First get something straight. What I said was

You don't have the legal, moral or spiritual right to kill someone for not having a front tag and defying you. 

So tell me, what did he do that justified him being killed?

I am just asking.

Please stop embarrassing yourself...seriously.

The guy was shot because he created a situation in which the officer feared for his life when he tried to speed off. People have been killed by cars speeding off while someone is standing at the door. Once you speed off in a car and the officer is tangled up, the car is no longer a mode of transportation but a deadly weapon at that point.

[snipped]

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
You don't have the legal, moral or spiritual right to kill someone for not having a front tag and defying you.

Only a complete idiot would think, or even insist, the guy was killed for not having a front tag.

I accept your description of me. I will for the moment, be your complete idiot.

First get something straight. What I said was

You don't have the legal, moral or spiritual right to kill someone for not having a front tag and defying you. 

So tell me, what did he do that justified him being killed?

I am just asking.

Please stop embarrassing yourself...seriously.

The guy was shot because he created a situation in which the officer feared for his life when he tried to speed off. People have been killed by cars speeding off while someone is standing at the door. Once you speed off in a car and the officer is tangled up, the car is no longer a mode of transportation but a deadly weapon at that point.

You cannot possibly be this dense...

This is your response and I am the one embarrassing myself?

You saw behavior that caused the cop to fear for his life and justified killing this man, and I am the dense one?

a reply to: Edumakated

Yes the officer reaching in for no reason wasn't part of it at all.

The man said he would ID him self, it was a traffic stop.

The speeding off happened after he shot.
I watched the video and that is my opinion just like it is yours that it didn't.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
I accept your description of me. I will for the moment, be your complete idiot.

It wasn't a description of you. It was a statement not directed at anyone. However, I will take note that you narcissistically found a relationship between my quote and your self.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
First get something straight. What I said was

You don't have the legal, moral or spiritual right to kill someone for not having a front tag and defying you. 

I know exactly what you said. What you said was still idiotic.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
So tell me, what did he do that justified him being killed?
I am just asking.

If by "justified" you mean in a legal sense...

en.wikipedia.org...

The use of deadly force is also authorized when a person poses a significant threat to a law enforcement officer, usually when the officer is at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

The suspect tried to drive off while the officer was leaning into his car. The officer could have fallen and had his feet and legs run over by the car, or even worse, get a body part or article of clothing tangled with the car, and get dragged for many miles. Either way, the officer was in a situation where serious bodily injury, and even death, was possible.

The cop was LEGALLY justified to use deadly force. Should he have used it? No. But he was within is right to use it.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Pro-tip: traffic stops don't count for that.

I feel like you're being tongue in cheek but....

Just in case

Yes, I was being facetious.

Thanks Sham for looking out for a poor o!d dense lady, after all I really don't want to embarass myself.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

I hold in my possession a flawlessly stabilized version of the video we are discussing, and have studied it with utmost precision. Do you hold the same? Most likely not.

Are you going to share this video with the rest of us?

a reply to: mymymy

Yes, that was the original plan.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Cool should be up soon right?

Doubt you are a novice when it comes to getting a video up on here.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Cool, I would love to see it because these body cam videos always make me nauseous and I can never make anything out

a reply to: Sremmos80

Would've thought over four hours would be enough time.

But I'm no expert.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I most likely will not get a chance to upload it until later tonight, or whenever I get back home. Sit tight. In due time.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Yup we have all heard that one before.

Well I just hope you actually deliver.

I mean you are the expert and all, I guess uploading it after you finished stabilizing it would have made to much sense.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I'm hoping the flawlessly stabilized video also shows why the officer felt that reaching into the window of a vehicle in the possession of a driver who had made it clear he was going to drive off was a better idea than like....not doing it.