Incident during Traffic Stop in Texas - Death While In Police Custody Under Investigation

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**BeAfraid**

Xenomancers wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Is this yet another case that claims police brutality on a job well done?

No. Read the thread and the article before commenting. Quite how you can see this as a "job well done" is beyond me, no matter what your opinions are on the traffic stop, or the apparent suicide whilst in police custody.

I skimmed through it - found no evidence of misconduct. The subject refused to put out a lit cigarette which could be used to harm the officer - furthermore the officer has every justification to remove you from your car if you are being non compliant. Further belligerence only insures your arrest. JOB WELL DONE.

I have an anecdote to add to this. I am white and I was once pulled over buy an officer because I didn't have my headlights on driving at night. One of the first things he asked me was are their any weapons in the car and I said yes and turned and looked at him. His hand immediately went to his sidearm and he told me "Don't reach for it." He had me step out of the car and I complied, I showed him my concealed carry permit and then he went on to let me go and told me to make sure I turn on my lights. I have no doubt in my mind that I would have had a gun in my face and been arrested if I had been non compliant in this event. Treating people with respect is the best way to get favorable outcomes out of people. Want to get a cop to arrest you? Blow smoke in their face and refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.

A "Cigarette?"

A "Deadly Weapon?"

Maybe there is something else you have been smoking.

Or a pretend news station you have been watching.

MB

**Frazzled**

I didn't see where he compared the cigarette to a deadly weapon. Can you clarify.

**Xenomancers**

Frazzled wrote:
I didn't see where he compared the cigarette to a deadly weapon. Can you clarify.

Pretty certain I never used that exact phrase. I did say a cigarette can cause serious bodily harm. This is indisputably true.

**d-usa**

Now we know why the liberals want to make every area a non-smoking zone. To disarm us and take away our tiny smokey sticks that protect us from the police state.

**Grey Templar**

d-usa wrote:
Now we know why the liberals want to make every area a non-smoking zone. To disarm us and take away our tiny smokey sticks that protect us from the police state.

Unless its weed, in which case its ok to smoke it.

**d-usa**

Grey Templar wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Now we know why the liberals want to make every area a non-smoking zone. To disarm us and take away our tiny smokey sticks that protect us from the police state.

Unless its weed, in which case its ok to smoke it.

the decrease in reaction time renders those burning sticks harmless to police officers

**Xenomancers**

d-usa wrote:
Now we know why the liberals want to make every area a non-smoking zone. To disarm us and take away our tiny smokey sticks that protect us from the police state.

I wouldn't call that a liberal issue I know plenty of conservatives that don't want smoke blown in their face. Myself included.

**d-usa**

In other news (I figured one "cop stuff" thread is enough, but I could always start a new topic):

University of Cincinnati Police Officer charged based on body camera evidence.

tl;dr: Officer shoots guy, says he was dragged by his car, second officer that shows up later says he saw him being dragged, the body camera reveals it was a lie.

**Frazzled**

I saw that.
Is the video from the body cam available?

I think the only responsible thing to do is raze the University of Cincinnati (Cincinnati, the only town so messed up you need spell check to write it). Has anyone asked Johnny Fever about his opinion?

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
I saw that.
Is the video from the body cam available?

Not directly at the link I posted, but they do have a link on that site that forwards you to the local news who do have it posted.

**Frazzled**

OK I watched it once (got vertigo). Looks like car guy resists being pulled out of car and then gun goes off. Does that look accurate?

If so thats so a bad shoot.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
OK I watched it once (got vertigo). Looks like car guy resists being pulled out of car and then gun goes off. Does that look accurate?

If so thats so a bad shoot.

I didn't watch it with the sound on (at work), but from what I could see it seems like the cop is trying to open the door and the guy I holding the door shut. The car (maybe) moves a tiny bit and the guy gets shot and the car takes off. My guess is that he didn't have the car in park (or had it in neutral if it was a manual) and when he held onto the door his foot might have slipped off the break causing the tiny movement (and the driving away once he was shot).

Nothing there to really justify any kind of shooting, and a stark difference to the "he drove away and dragged me along with his car, so I had to shoot him" story the cop initially told (and which was backed up by the other cop). It's a pretty good example of why body cams are a good development.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
OK I watched it once (got vertigo). Looks like car guy resists being pulled out of car and then gun goes off. Does that look accurate?

If so thats so a bad shoot.

I didn't watch it with the sound on (at work), but from what I could see it seems like the cop is trying to open the door and the guy I holding the door shut. The car (maybe) moves a tiny bit and the guy gets shot and the car takes off. My guess is that he didn't have the car in park (or had it in neutral if it was a manual) and when he held onto the door his foot might have slipped off the break causing the tiny movement (and the driving away once he was shot).

Nothing there to really justify any kind of shooting, and a stark difference to the "he drove away and dragged me along with his car, so I had to shoot him" story the cop initially told (and which was backed up by the other cop). It's a pretty good example of why body cams are a good development.

Sounds off(same situation).
Even at best if driver tried to rev out of there, thats not a shooting circumstance. He's not presenting a threat to the officer or others. If the officer was caught or was struck/trying to be struck then yea, otherwise no way.

You can see why car stops are so dangerous though. If it didn't end so badly I'd show the kids. There's four times as a cop I would have flipped. He keeps reaching fast for stuff.
On the flipside if I were a definite bad guy with mal intent that cop would have been shot. He reached in positions on either side of him where the cop couldn't see and where people often stash firearms.

Its why I don't understand the practice of keeping them in the car. I'd tell them to get out of the car and come back to me. But hey I can barely use words so what do I know.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:

Its why I don't understand the practice of keeping them in the car. I'd tell them to get out of the car and come back to me. But hey I can barely use words so what do I know.

At one point a long time ago...that was the policy in some areas. I think a driver (asked to get out of his car) got hit by an ongoing car that put a stop to that.

**d-usa**

It seems like it could be argued either way. Having you stay inside the car also places a physical barrier between you and the officer and makes it harder for you to start a physical fight.

**Frazzled**

That is true.

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:
In other news (I figured one "cop stuff" thread is enough, but I could always start a new topic):

University of Cincinnati Police Officer charged based on body camera evidence.

tl;dr: Officer shoots guy, says he was dragged by his car, second officer that shows up later says he saw him being dragged, the body camera reveals it was a lie.

I think you might want to start a new thread if that hasn't happened because the article I read said the Cincinnati PD was preparing for possible riots when the tape came out. You know it's bad when, prior to the tape's release, the police chief is saying how bad it is and the cop's lawyer is saying he expects his client to be indicted.

I literally just woke up so if that already happened please disregard

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looks like he got indicted for murder so maybe no point in a new thread because the facts are so clear and justice looks like it might actually happen

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/us/ohio-sam-dubose-tensing-indictment/index.html

**d-usa**

I think Cincinnati might be one of the places where thinks may actually stay fairly calm. They learned from horrible riots in 2001, the PD already fired him, the family is very vocal and are encouraging calm.

**Xenomancers**

I really don't know what to make of this. It does indeed seem asinine but I like to give law abiding citizens the benefit of the doubt.

Here is the unedited version it has almost an additional minute of dialog with the two. It certainly paints a different picture getting shot after 10 secodns of talking and 2 minutes of talking is a dramatic difference. Though I am still not 100% convinced use of force was justifiable. However - from this video it is clear that the engine was revving BEFORE the man got shot. What is not clear from this video is if the officer was in anyway restrained from back up from the car or was dragged in any way. I am not certain that this would constitute use of deadly force even if this were the case but I could easily argue a case that this officers life was in danger of being run over by the mans car. I am certain though that in this culture of police hatred - this man will be annihilated by the mob and the media.

http://www.copblock.org/134093/dash-cam-video-released-officer-ray-tensing-charged-with-murder-in-fatal-shooting-of-sam-dubose/

**Ouze**

Truly, someone will defend anything.

At this point, you have to be trolling

**whembly**

@Xeno.

The police still CANNOT shoot a fleeing suspect like that. Full stop.

The only... ONLY way I can foresee it ever to be justified, is if the cops *sees* and *knows* that the driver is going to intentially run someone over to kill... but, that's crazy pants talking here.

**Jihadin**

Whoa
There's a 2nd body cam involved from another officer
Foreman (the Detective from Simpson diabolical) explained (they didn't show the 2nd video) that it seemed as the Officer pulled his weapon and had a "Negligent Discharge"
Pretty much he did from the video. He should have stepped back
The officer was saying he was worried about being pulled under or dragged by the vehicle yet the video

**d-usa**

Ouze wrote:
Truly, someone will defend anything.

Well, as long as the guy "running" from the cop is fleeing from an unjust law he should be fine...

At this point, you have to be trolling

And here I thought that he said that he isn't a fan of smoke blowing in peoples faces

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Whoa
There's a 2nd body cam involved from another officer
Foreman (the Detective from Simpson diabolical) explained (they didn't show the 2nd video) that it seemed as the Officer pulled his weapon and had a "Negligent Discharge"
Pretty much he did from the video. He should have stepped back
The officer was saying he was worried about being pulled under or dragged by the vehicle yet the video

So video 1 (from the guy that shot):

- Shows nothing happened to justify the shooting.
- Officer lied about being dragged.

Video 2 (from the other officer):

- Shows nothing happened to justify the shooting.
- Shows that the officer fired by mistake
- BOTH officers lied about the negligent discharge and tried to cover up the death by blaming the dead guy.

It seems like if they would have been honest to begin with Officer #1 would only be looking at a manslaughter charge at best. Of course cynical me might think that this was done on purpose to undermine the murder charge.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
Whoa
There's a 2nd body cam involved from another officer
Foreman (the Detective from Simpson diabolical) explained (they didn't show the 2nd video) that it seemed as the Officer pulled his weapon and had a "Negligent Discharge"

That sounds right. He pulls gun (not sure why) they struggle, gun goes off, "oh crap I forgot my drop gun...er he tried to run me over!"
Never a better example of needed body cams on da PoPo, for their protection and ours

(flip it-cop says car tried to hit, driver alive and says he didn't, people freak, but cam shows he actually did try to...)

**Xenomancers**

whembly wrote:
@Xeno.

The police still CANNOT shoot a fleeing suspect like that. Full stop.

The only... ONLY way I can foresee it ever to be justified, is if the cops *sees* and *knows* that the driver is going to intentially run someone over to kill... but, that's crazy pants talking here.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. This is the craziest thing I've ever seen a cop do. I was thinking purely from a legal perspective. Could the cop have feared for his own life from being run over by a car? If the cop was in fact stuck to the car in some way - he was indeed in danger. You can't really disagree with that. The video really isn't clear here. What we really need is the dash cam...Where is the dash cam?

**NuggzTheNinja**

Xenomancers wrote:
I really don't know what to make of this. It does indeed seem asinine but I like to give law abiding citizens the benefit of the doubt.

Here is the unedited version it has almost an additional minute of dialog with the two. It certainly paints a different picture getting shot after 10 secodns of talking and 2 minutes of talking is a dramatic difference. Though I am still not 100% convinced use of force was justifiable. However - from this video it is clear that the engine was revving BEFORE the man got shot. What is not clear from this video is if the officer was in anyway restrained from back up from the car or was dragged in any way. I am not certain that this would constitute use of deadly force even if this were the case but I could easily argue a case that this officers life was in danger of being run over by the mans car. I am certain though that in this culture of police hatred - this man will be annihilated by the mob and the media.

http://www.copblock.org/134093/dash-cam-video-released-officer-ray-tensing-charged-with-murder-in-fatal-shooting-of-sam-dubose/

The mental gymnastics required to justify a shooting in that case are absolutely mind boggling. Maybe you could tell me though - what do police boots taste like?

If anything, the other cop who lied needs to go to jail too as an accomplice.

**Jihadin**

2nd body cam from the other officer debunked that.
Officer should not have drawn his weapon as you can tell the victim was taking off on a clear street.
I cannot locate that 2nd body cam video.

**Xenomancers**

Jihadin wrote:
2nd body cam from the other officer debunked that.
Officer should not have drawn his weapon as you can tell the victim was taking off on a clear street.
I cannot locate that 2nd body cam video.

I agree - if there is a clear view from a second body cam (I havnt seen that yet) - both officers should be convicted for lying to the police in a murder investigation and the man officer who fired the shots convicted of manslaughter or possibly murder.

**nkelsch**

Xenomancers wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
2nd body cam from the other officer debunked that.
Officer should not have drawn his weapon as you can tell the victim was taking off on a clear street.
I cannot locate that 2nd body cam video.

I agree - if there is a clear view from a second body cam (I havnt seen that yet) - both officers should be convicted for lying to the police in a murder investigation and the man officer who fired the shots convicted of manslaughter or possibly murder.

Don't worry... someone can manufacture a "Witness 40" if needed to come up with an account which isn't directly contradicted by videos to put it all in context and support the officers claims.

**Jihadin**

Um.
Prosecution/DA let him keep talking before they pulled the 2nd cam out showing how wrong he was........
Negligent Discharge into a head. I'm calling it to like Foreman.