Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Sam DuBose Shooting: Let’s Go to the Video Tape

Sam DuBose Shooting: Let’s Go to the Video Tape

Officer’s body-cam video is Exhibit 1 in traffic stop shooting

On July 19, just 10 days ago, UC police officer Ray Tensing shot and killed motorist Sam DuBose in the course of a traffic stop, according to reports by CNN and others. Today, prosecutor Joe Deters announced that Officer Tensing had been indicted for murder in the killing.

The silver lining for bloggers everywhere is that much of the event was captured by Officer Tensing’s body-cam. You can watch the full video here, but I have relevant portions reproduced in slow-motion and relevant screen captures below, as well.

Officer Tensing claims that he shot DuBose because the driver began dragging the officer with his car. Certainly, dragging someone with your car is conduct likely to cause death or grave bodily harm, and thus warrants the use of deadly force in self-defense.

Indeed, there is corroborating evidence that this dragging occurred. Screen captures from the officer’s body cam clearly show that his patrol car in the background was more distant in later images than in earlier images. (The following timestamps refer to the video above.)

Sam DuBose F. 1.54

[1:54]

[1:56]

[1.56]

Note also the span of time we’re talking about–a mere two seconds.

In addition, witnessing police officers attested to the dragging of officer Tensing, as documented in the police incident reported (embedded at the bottom of this post).  In particular, Officer Phillip Kidd stated that “he witnessed the Honda Accord drag Officer Tensing,” and Officer Eric Weibel, who produced the incident report, noted that:

After speaking with Officer Tensing, he complained of pain to his left arm. Officer Maxwell was on scene and was instructed to stay with Officer Tensing until CFD could evaluate his injury. Looking at Officer Tensing’s uniform, I could see that the back of his pants and shirt looked as if it had been dragged over a rough surface.

So that’s all evidence favorable to Tensing.

Now let’s take a more critical look at the video.

Before we do, however, it’s worth noting that a few oddities leap out from between the lines of the news reports I’ve seen, indeed from the lines of the reporting itself.

One is the speed of the indictment–ten days from shooting to indictment strikes me as remarkably fast.

Second is the somewhat strange conduct of Prosecutor Deters in this case.  WCPO news reports that in reference to Officer Tensing pulling DuBose over for his failure to have a front license plate on the car he was driving, Deters argues that the stop itself should never have happened, and indeed Deters reportedly characterizes it as “a chicken-shit stop.

It leaves one to wonder how traffic cops are supposed to know which of the laws passed by their superiors are “legitimate” and thus worthy of a traffic stop when violated, and which are “chicken-shit.”

It’s also notable that once again the groundwork for violence during a traffic stop was laid by the outright non-compliance of the suspect, here Sam DuBose.  Once stopped it turns out that DuBose is driving without a license, that apparently the car is not his but “my sister’s” (although the audio is hard to hear at that point), and that he’s driving with a pint of gin at his feet (although to my eyes the bottle appears full and as yet unopened).

Further, DuBose is persistently unresponsive to Tensing’s repeated inquiry as to whether DuBose has a license on him, taking a full minute-and-a-half to finally concede that he doesn’t have his license on him.  DuBose also claims to know the traffic laws better than the officer, which while certainly possible would seem unlikely, and in any case unproductive during the stop itself.

Finally, when Tensing asks DuBose to step out the vehicle, which the officer is fully authorized to do, especially now that DuBose has conceded he is driving without his license on him, DuBose grabs the car doors and pulls it shut after Tensing has begun to open it.  Thus DuBose becomes physically non-compliant to Tensing’s lawful orders.  This, of course,  warrants Tensing’s escalating his use of force to compel compliance.

Have we seen this movie before?

It’s at this point, of course, is where things begin to go off the rails. I’ve created a slow-motion version of that relevant portion of the video. All time-stamp references made henceforth are to this particular video clip:

Even in slow motion, however, the clip can be difficult to analyze, so I’ve included some screen captures as well.

One difficulty for Tensing’s narrative of innocence–that when he fired the shot he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm–is that the video does not appear to show the car moving until the shot has already been fired.

Here’s a screen cap at 7:06.  Note the truck in the left-hand background of the image.

[7:06]

[7:06]

Here’s another screen capture, at 16:13, which appears to be the moment the shot is fired into DuBose’s head (you can see his head snap back if you watch the video frame-by-frame), and you can still see that same truck in the same position:

[16:13]

[16:13]

This would suggest that perhaps the car moving and the dragging of Officer Tensing might not have occurred until after the killing shot was fired.

Now, it must be said that this is not decisive on the issue of whether Tensing’s shot was lawfully justified.  One is permitted to use force to defend against an imminent attack, one is not required to wait until one has actually suffered the threatened injury.

Was there a rational basis on which Tensing could conclude that he was about to be dragged by DuBose?  A revving engine, a shift from park to drive, something along those lines?  And note, again, the rapidity with which everything physical happened, a mere two seconds.  The jury will be instructed to judge the officer’s perceptions, decisions, and actions not in a purely objective matter but while also taking into account the circumstances as the officer reasonably perceived them to be.

OK, I’m out of time for further analysis.  But I do know one thing for certain.

There are some video analysis expert witnesses who are going to be driving nicer cars after this trial than they were before.

And promised, here’s that police incident report:

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense


Attorney Andrew Branca and his firm Law of Self Defense have been providing internationally-recognized expertise in American self-defense law for almost 20 years in the form of blogging, books, live seminars & online training (both accredited for CLE), public speaking engagements, and individualized legal consultation.
“Law of Self Defense, 2nd Ed.” / Seminars / Seminar Slides / Twitter / Facebook / Youtube

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“outright non-compliance” is no death warrant.

But in practice it is exactly that. Police should be no more indemnified from any action they take than any citizen taking the same sequence of actions in like circumstance. The problem is they are. Under case and statute law, under sad modern habit, This enables arrogance, and also a fatal psychological distancing — I think it is a big factor in why police have high rates of suicide. It is unnatural.

    kermitrulez in reply to bvw. | July 29, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    Police face outright noncompliance on a regular, if not daily, basis without anyone getting hurt. They also face regular and increasing condemnation and ridicule from many vectors while performing jobs that keep everyone, innocents and criminals alike, safe. Many times the person they are helping today is the person that was spitting on the while being arrested last week.

    They do all of this for less money and benefits than should truly be right. The do this while working strange hours and holidays, while braving weather that no one else would even leave their house in, and in situations that would scare the pants off of the vast majority of people. They see things that they can’t relate to their loved ones or their families and they can’t just leave it at the office.

    You’re right that there are rare cases when a police officer goes off the rails. When that happens, they should be prosecuted in a manner that is fair to their actions and the situation. But the rest of your post, and the tragic position that much of the mainstream media coverage has taken, that takes a tone of equating police officers with the worst of our society is quite simply a steaming pile of crap.

      There is no “noncompliance” among free citizens. There are disagreements over what law applies, if any. Those have to be handled as one is the equal of the other. For we are. Equal as citizens. In such cases, without a warrant, “noncompliance” is really the submission of one citizen to another, and that by force of arms. Not part of what the Founders wanted in this nation.

        sidebar in reply to bvw. | July 29, 2015 at 7:35 pm

        You seem to not understand. When a police officer detains you based on reasonable suspicion you are no longer a “free citizen“. You are a detained citizen.

        Noncompliance with lawful orders — such an order to exit a vehicle for officer safety is rarely helpful to you. If need be let your lawyer argue the lawfulness of the order before a judge. Don’t have legal arguments with a police officer in the field. You will lose nearly all the time.

        You will usually lose.

          bvw in reply to sidebar. | July 29, 2015 at 7:55 pm

          “When an police officer detains you” …. So much is wrong with that modern construction. You realize that for most of the history of this nation such actions of some “officer” detaining” a person were rare? And only upon clear evidences on obvious misconduct and public endangerment?

          “Detainments” for trivialities have been tolerated too long, and have induced –trained — the modern generations of Americans to be overly submissive and greatly hampered a key bulwark of a free republic: citizen vigilance. Why do we have such corruption in the national legislature — one reason is that people no longer know how NOT to be submissive, but instead to be assertive. Instead of vigilant, morally able and stalwart, brave citizens we have “compliance” a massive compliance. It’s mot a good form of that compliance, that is clear too. For is a form of dejection, depressive compliance that enables the worst in those who do end up in positions of “authority”. I quote that “authority” for what is authority in a republic to the free citizens in it? It is only, in ideal, the authority of good law and modest deportment under the law.

          this word, this term “compliance” disgusts me. It is so dang close to idolatry, in an abstracted way.

          Sanddog in reply to sidebar. | July 29, 2015 at 8:10 pm

          Americans tend to be overly submissive? I think the word you were looking for is “entitled”. Too many people today are all about “rigts” (most of which aren’t actually rights) and firmly reject any discussion of responsibilities. You don’t have a “right” to do whatever you want, whenever you want once you step outside your front door.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to sidebar. | July 30, 2015 at 3:13 am

          bvw, my friend, have you considered the possibility you may have toked one too many at that commune in the Emerald Triangle? You seem to be a little zoned out.

    Ragspierre in reply to bvw. | July 29, 2015 at 8:12 pm

    “You realize that for most of the history of this nation such actions of some “officer” detaining” a person were rare? And only upon clear evidences on obvious misconduct and public endangerment?”

    Where the FLUCK do you come up with this anti-historic bullshit?

    Relative to our ancestors, we live in a garden of civil liberties.

      Your lack of knowledge of history is only exceeded by your malevolent rudeness.

        Char Char Binks in reply to bvw. | July 29, 2015 at 8:34 pm

        “Fluck” is rather salty language, true, and there was no need to go all caps, but Rags makes a good point.

        Ragspierre in reply to bvw. | July 29, 2015 at 9:47 pm

        Tell you what, I’ll put my knowledge of ACTUAL American history…especially LEGAL history…up.

        Post your links.

          healthguyfsu in reply to Ragspierre. | July 30, 2015 at 10:16 am

          I see Mr. Double Down hasn’t returned to give his links.

          You can’t bluff in blackjack and it looks like you’re busted.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 30, 2015 at 12:38 pm

          Yeah. The guy is a full-on bullshit artist of the Sovereign Citizen variety.

          He wallows in the “cops are just us” myth. This is fostered by two additional lies…

          1. no citizen has a right to intrude on the liberty of another, and…

          2. some bullshit from the guy credited with the idea of BRITISH metropolitan police.

          As I say, two lies…or myths.

          The first is refuted by the FACT that any citizen can “arrest” (i.e., STOP) another citizen. That is a “natural right”. Sorry, bvd, that’s the truthhhhhh. It is also a true fact any citizen can use any force necessary to effect the “arrest” of his fellow citizen, up to and including deadly force.

          bvd doesn’t know…and damn sure does not UNDERSTAND…American history.

          Now, if bvd wants to CHANGE American law, that’s swell. He doesn’t get to LIE about it, however.

          Rags you and your tag alongs have serious emotional management problems. You drag this forum down a *lot*.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 30, 2015 at 3:01 pm

          What I’ve demonstrated is that all you’ve got behind your evident didactic bullshit is ad hominem attacks.

          I LOVE that process…!!! LOVE. IT!!!

          And now everyone can see it.

          platypus in reply to Ragspierre. | July 30, 2015 at 6:36 pm

          Just for the record, FLUCK those six down votes. Dumbazzes.

        healthguyfsu in reply to bvw. | July 30, 2015 at 10:13 pm

        Still waiting for those great links of history…

    That’s just another way of saying “no police.”

    I think most people appreciate the opportunity to call 911 when circumstances warrant. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      So the only two options we have are either a police force allowed to execute citizens in the street for petty crimes, or no police force at all?

      I mean, there’s no middle ground? Really?

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 1:28 pm

        Poor Amy.

        You’ve gone completely batspit bonkers over this.

        Was this LEO, who is now facing the MOST serious charge one may face, guilty of “summarily executing” anybody? For what, again…???

        Don’t you think there is some due process due…???

        Skookum in reply to Amy in FL. | July 31, 2015 at 7:16 am

        Who, other than yourself, defines putting a person’s life in jeopardy as a minor crime?

DINORightMarie | July 29, 2015 at 7:14 pm

Totally OT – a “glitch” in the post:

The imbedded quote is under the right-margin images/links block area.

The following paragraph has much of its text also under the right-margin block.

ON Topic: Glad you posted on this. It is amazing how many in the MSM (including this UK Daily Mail article) have already tried and convicted this UC officer. With guys like you on this, I know the truth will become known – and we will know what the trial is doing right/wrong, in context. Thanks! 🙂

    Thanks, I’ve alerted the appropriate authorities. I’m afraid it’s beyond my limited IT abilities to fix such things. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    Skookum in reply to DINORightMarie. | July 30, 2015 at 8:39 am

    Watching Fox News last night (Greta, I think) I noticed that they, too, have already convicted the officer of murder. But, they did the same in the Gentle Giant and Eric Garner cases. Even at Fox News most of their anchors and commentators feel the need to signal strongly that they are in no way racist, and that is something one is apparently guilty of if one sides with a cop (regardless of the cop’s race or cultural heritage) who shoots a black person.

    I suspect the decision to bring a charge of murder so quickly was the jurisdiction’s politicians effort to strongly signal their non-racist essence. Out of fear of avoiding another Ferguson or Baltimore for sure, but just as likely out of a desire not to be labeled as racists by the media and the black grievance industry. Screw it — hang our cop out and let a jury decide.

inspectorudy | July 29, 2015 at 7:25 pm

This is another case of the “Crime” not reaching the level of punishment meted out. Like the tail light out case and the traffic violation case, they are misdemeanors and should be treated as such. Non compliance is offensive but could be radioed in by the stopping officer and if the violator still does not comply the tag and identity has been recorded for later prosecution. There is never a need to bring the violator to “Compliance” at that moment since they were not a threat to anyone or themselves. This seems to me to be the area of the most conflict. A cop seems to not be able to process the loss of total control over a violator and goes into high gear to make that person comply even though the crime does not warrant it. I understand the need for all of us to act reasonable to any cops commands, I know I will, but failure to do so should not be a death sentence. This man did not act reasonably but did he deserve to die for refusing to comply?

    tom swift in reply to inspectorudy. | July 29, 2015 at 7:47 pm

    That depends on a few things.

    First, the manner of non-compliance. If, say, the driver’s plan to escape from the traffic stop involves driving at high speed through a school crossing zone, I’d prefer that the police do whatever is necessary to stop the escape.

    Second, motive. Why is someone so desperate to escape from a minor traffic stop? Usually because a more substantial crime is in progress. The most likely is DWI. Again, I’d prefer that the police do whatever is necessary to stop the escape of a drunk driver.

      platypus in reply to tom swift. | July 30, 2015 at 6:50 pm

      Not to put too fine a point on it but the video clearly shows the driver handing the officer a pint bottle of booze. To me, that’s reasonable suspicion of likely DUI. Which makes operating the vehicle a potential threat to others.

      This guy is going to walk on a murder charge and it will likely be his testimony about drunk symptoms plus aggressive actions that gets him off.

      As far as his false statements about being dragged, technically they are irrelevant except for assessing the credibility of the declarant.

      The prosecutor is supposedly a rock solid guy. But his behavior in this case is both abysmal as well as poisoning to the jury pool. He sounded way too much like that Mosby witch.

    “This man did not act reasonably but did he deserve to die for refusing to comply?”

    The shooting is not being justified on the basis of non-compliance.

    It’s being justified as a reasonable response to an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm.

    Now you may buy that narrative or not, but that IS the justification being offered.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      GrumpyOne in reply to Andrew Branca. | July 30, 2015 at 9:54 am

      I agree with you on the moving vehicle analysis but isn’t there one little fly in the ointment as the officer made the stop out of his jurisdiction, (off campus)? Would this negate his capacity to make a stop for a minor traffic violation? And if so, what effect should this have on the prosecution of this case?

        I don’t know how UC does things. Here in Boston it’s routine for campus police to patrol not just on the actual campus grounds but also the vicinity immediately around the campus.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Ragspierre in reply to Andrew Branca. | July 30, 2015 at 1:58 pm

          I think that, generally speaking, a state certified LEO CAN enforce state laws anywhere in the state.

          They generally restrict themselves to their “territory”, BUT that includes the ETJ (or Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction) abutting their actual “territory”.

          GrumpyOne in reply to Andrew Branca. | July 30, 2015 at 3:36 pm

          As to your analysis which it think is spot on, the prosecution is sticking hard otherwise. I’m seeing more similarities to the Baltimore model as time passes.

          Do you see this as backfiring on the DA etc?

        In any case, even if the officer were, strictly speaking, outside of his lawful jurisdiction, that still wouldn’t justify DuBrose dragging him with his car.

        The proper course under those facts is for DuBrose to take the ticket, and argue the jurisdictional issue, if any, in traffic court.

        I mean, it’s not like DuBrose didn’t know how to get to traffic court.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to inspectorudy. | July 29, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    There was no punishment for the traffic violation. There was no punishment for driving without a valid license in possession. The reason Dubose was shot was because, once again, we see an act of violent resistance to simply being asked to step out of the car, or step over here, or put the weapon down, whatever.

    All Dubose had to do was get out of the car. That’s all. Just get out. He’d be alive and happily swilling his gin if he’d just followed Tensing’s direction to step out. The worst that would have happened to him might have been DUI and vehicle impound with future repercussions to follow IF he’d already been drinking, somewhat suggested by possession of a full bottle. The least would be a citation for driving on a suspended license, which was pretty obviously Dubose’s problem and his reason for flight. He didn’t want to be identified, probably because of a bench warrant or suspended license, or both. Neither are that big of a deal, are overcome in time, and certainly not worth running someone down over, either morally or legally. Dubose acted stupidly and desperately with no impulse control, and thus had no regard for Tensing’s life or safety. Possible curtailment of his own activities for the next several hours or days or paying some fines was of more concern to him than injuring or killing someone.

    Tensing didn’t have to wait to be run over to fire. Dubose wouldn’t get out of the car, wouldn’t take his seatbelt off, then put the car in gear, so it’s perfectly reasonable to fear being run over or dragged at increasing speed. The fact that the vehicle moved at all and then ran up the bank shows Dubose put the car in gear to move when he was alive. Tensing’s torn clothing shows he was dragged, and whether it was before or after Dubose was shot doesn’t much matter to me because Dubose clearly put the car in gear to move it, which tells me all I need to know. Dubose didn’t give a flying duck about Tensing’s life and was willing to take off with Tensing in the way, dragging or running over him, likely killing him. For what? To save a few hundred bucks in fines, or having to spend an afternoon or night in jail? Kill or injure someone for life over that? Really? Really?

      inspectorudy in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | July 30, 2015 at 1:04 am

      Wow! I hope you never become a criminal judge. There has to be some common sense to these stops. All the guy did was to close his door to prevent the cop from pulling him out. The video shows that the shot was fired BEFORE the car moved. Even if the guy slammed his door and left the cop has his name and car tag number. But to kill someone over this and for you think it is justified you may have watched too many detective shows on TV. This is a man’s life we are talking about. What would be the consequence if he had been allowed to go where ever he was going or just followed? I guess you’ll dream up some scenario where he kills children and then blows up a church. Cops are not supposed to be executioners. Their motto is “To serve and protect” not “Stop and kill”.

        Milhouse in reply to inspectorudy. | July 30, 2015 at 2:37 am

        All the guy did was to close his door to prevent the cop from pulling him out.

        Oh. That’s “all” he did. You say that as if that were a minor offense. It’s a felony for which any cop will arrest you with as much force as is necessary to do that.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to inspectorudy. | July 30, 2015 at 3:18 am

        One simple question: Why do we have law enforcement?

        Char Char Binks in reply to inspectorudy. | July 30, 2015 at 11:30 am

        A drunk driver doesn’t have to TRY to kill people.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to inspectorudy. | July 30, 2015 at 3:31 pm

        “All the guy did was to close his door to prevent the cop from pulling him out.”

        Actually he pulled his door out of the officers grip, which is resisting and is illegal.

        “The video shows that the shot was fired BEFORE the car moved.”

        “This is a man’s life we are talking about.”

        Yep, its also the life of a cop we are talking about and the lives of people in the public who he is supposed to protect. So say he let the guy go. You seem to think that a high speed chase through public streets, which is exactly what would have happened, is somehow more safe than how things went down.

        “What would be the consequence if he had been allowed to go where ever he was going or just followed?”

        Most likely a high speed chase through public streets that would have endangered the public.

    Milhouse in reply to inspectorudy. | July 30, 2015 at 11:44 am

    if the violator still does not comply the tag and identity has been recorded for later prosecution.

    What tag or identity? It wasn’t his car, and he had no license. If this scumbag had been allowed to drive off, how would the cops ever find him again?

    FrankNatoli in reply to inspectorudy. | July 30, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    Until the driver provides identification, the police have no idea who they’re dealing with. This fellow refused to provide any identification. The police rightfully sought to detain him, and he really needed to comply. As I noted in my post below, if the policeman was being “dragged”, then let go, get in your car, and pursue. Absent an attempt by the driver to run you down, or use a weapon on you, I cannot imagine any police having instructions to shoot to kill. On the basis of the information provided with this article, it does appear the policeman severely overreacted.

MouseTheLuckyDog | July 29, 2015 at 8:17 pm

Actually it’s hard to tell whether kthe seal has been broken, the quantity of alcohol in the bottle seems to be less then comlete ie the bottle was open.

For those missing the significance, that would mean the driver was in violation of Texas open container law,

Char Char Binks | July 29, 2015 at 8:24 pm

How was Officer Tensing being dragged? Was his clothing caught on the car somehow? Once DuBose turned on the car, and/or put it in gear (if he did, or Tensing thought he did) could he have been considered a fleeing felon, and a fleeing felon with a dangerous weapon (the Honda Accord)? I haven’t made up my mind about this case, but I’d rather a drunk driver, especially one fleeing the police, take a bullet than risk the life of some innocent person he may run into. It looks like Tensing was knocked over and turned around by the car, as he ends up facing the fence after falling, the opposite of when he was standing.

    rokiloki in reply to Char Char Binks. | July 29, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    At the start of the first video when the officer is walking up to the car, you can see another gold or tan car 20 or 30 feet ahead parked.

    Later when the officer gets up off the ground, he is near that parked car. So he definitely got dragged and not just “knocked over and turned around.”

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to rokiloki. | July 29, 2015 at 9:12 pm

      That’s the way I see the video, too. It’s hard to tell how far Tensing was dragged, but that’s irrelevant to what he perceived when he shot Dubose, except to the extent that Dubose had no regard for Tensing’s life.

      This is quite similar to the Brown case in Ferguson. The difference here is the prosecutor is a coward.

        I did a little unofficial measuring.

        During the stop, a pedestrian walks by. I counted 16 strides between Dubose car and the tan parked car. Averaging 30 inches per stride, it is about 40 feet between the cars. Even with a shorter stride, the cars are at least 36 feet apart, which is nearly the distance the officer was dragged.

      Char Char Binks in reply to rokiloki. | July 29, 2015 at 9:53 pm

      I think you may be confusing the silver/gray car on the right side of the street (as the video starts) with the sort-of-tan car parked on the opposite side of the street, near the fence or guard rail, that was in view after he got turned around. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding. I get that he was dragged, but I’d just like to know if his arm or clothing got hung up on some part of the car, and how.

        rokiloki in reply to Char Char Binks. | July 29, 2015 at 10:05 pm

        I thought there were two parked cars as well. But if you watch the beginning of the video, there is no car parked on the left. I think it appears that way because the officer got tumbled around.

        The officer reached in the car to try turn off the engine, but Dubose grabbed his arm. View the slow motion video and stop it at 6 seconds.

        rokiloki in reply to Char Char Binks. | July 29, 2015 at 10:08 pm

        Also, at the beginning of the first video, near the parked car, there is an oil stain or a road patch.

        After the officer is dragged, he is right beside that spot. So the car we see parked on the right is the same car the officer ends up by after being dragged.

          Char Char Binks in reply to rokiloki. | July 30, 2015 at 12:21 pm

          At 1:58 real time, Tensing has been spun around and is facing the tan car parked on the left by the fence. By 2:00 he has managed to turn about 90 degrees to his right and the cam now has the silver car on the right side of the screen. By this time, the DuBose car is probably near it’s final destination, if not already there.

          rokiloki in reply to rokiloki. | July 30, 2015 at 1:14 pm

          Char Char , yes, I think you are right. There does appear to be a car driving by just as the officer stands up.

          But the distance is still the same. Use the pavement patch on the ground as a marker instead of the parked car. The officer ends up around the same spot.

      inspectorudy in reply to rokiloki. | July 30, 2015 at 1:08 am

      He was being dragged by a dead man! WTF is wrong with you? Can’t you see the video and see that he was shot before any dragging began?

        Murphy in reply to inspectorudy. | July 30, 2015 at 7:29 am

        The killer shot the victim in the head, and fell backwards with his arm still in the car, as the dead man’s foot fell onto the accelerator, which led to the killer being dragged along. That’s what any normal person saw.

        The majority of police involved shootings are justified. This one wasn’t. The majority of police officers act with honor and restraint. This one screwed up. I can’t believe the lengths some people are going to excuse him.

          rokiloki in reply to Murphy. | July 30, 2015 at 1:17 pm

          actually, his foot “fell” on the accelerator before the gunshot. Listen to the audio carefully. he engine revved before the shot.

          His hand also “fell” on the key turning on the engine and then “fell” on the gearshift and moved it into drive.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Char Char Binks. | July 30, 2015 at 2:55 am

    Watch the slo-mo video closely. Tensing tells Dubose to take off the seatbelt. He then reached in and grabs the seatbelt. Dubose doesn’t grab Tensing, he’s trying to get Tensing to let go of the seatbelt. It looks to me like Tensing fired before he was dragged, and the Dubose’s car left the scene because his foot came off the brake, allowing what was almost certainly an automatic to engage the transmission and make the car move. So, did Dubose “grab” Tensing with the intention of dragging him? No. Tensing had hold of the seatbelt which he could have released at any time to assure his own safety.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 3:25 am

      If Tensing could have just let go to get free of the car, then he would have. He got dragged.

      Or do you think Tensing somehow purposely dragged himself? How do you know that Tensing knew Dubose was even dead? Remember the amount of time involved in the critical part of this: 2 seconds.

      divemedic in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 6:19 am

      One thing you all agree on is that the car was in gear before the shot was fired. The difference you all have here is in whether or not the car began to move before the shot was fired. However, it doesn’t matter if the car began to move or not, just like a cop mat shoot when a person points a gun at him and mustn’t wait until a shot is fired, the decedent had already taken the steps necessary to run the officer down, making the threat an imminent one.

        the decedent had already taken the steps necessary to run the officer down

        There is no evidence to support that.

        If you’re out in the driveway arguing with your wife, her in the car and you at the window on the left hand side of the car, and she looks like she’s about to drive off to get away from you, are you allowed to shoot her in the head and claim “self defense”?

          rokiloki in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 1:58 pm

          Your scenario doesn’t work because an angry husband has no right to try and detain his wife.

          But a police officer *does* have the right to detain a person who is in violation of the law.

          You can use reasonable self defense if someone attacks you without justification or holds you against your will. You cannot use self defense to resist a lawful detainment.

          Yes, “a police officer *does* have the right to detain a person who is in violation of the law.” He doesn’t necessarily have the right to execute him if he tries to flee.

          Tensing’s narrative of innocence isn’t that he shot DuBose because he didn’t want to let DuBose get away. I’m pretty sure even he knows that that one probably wouldn’t fly.

          No, Tensing’s narrative of innocence is that when he fired the shot he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, and was thus warranted in the use of deadly force in self-defense.

          So I’m back to my question.

          Milhouse in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 7:58 pm

          Amy, you’ve already been answered: A policeman has the right to detain a person who is in violation of the law. Therefore when that person threatens the policeman’s life he’s entitled to defend himself. A husband does not have the right to detain his wife; therefore if he she tries to break free in a way that threatens his life he is obligated to let go rather than defend himself. For instance in a case like this, he should let go of the car and he won’t be dragged. Or if she pulls a gun and says “let me go or I’ll shoot you”, he should just let her go, whereas that obviously is not the case with a cop detaining a suspected felon.

          rokiloki in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 8:20 pm

          Amy, again, NO. A husband attempting to detain his wife has no legal authority to do so. She has the right to resist and the husband cannot then shoot her and claim self defense.

          The cop did have the legal authority to detain DuBose. So once DuBose resisted with force that potentially could cause death or serious harm, the officer had the right to defense himself.

          Just like if someone tries to rob you and you fight back, the robber cannot use deadly force and claim self defense. But if an officer tries to arrest you and you fight back, he can use and claim self defense.

          The difference is between lawful and unlawful behavior. The officer was acting lawfully, a husband trying to stop his wife is not behaving lawfully.

          I can’t make it any simpler than that. If you still can’t see the difference, maybe someone else can explain it better.

sarainitaly | July 29, 2015 at 8:26 pm

Thanks for the analysis. A couple of things I wanted to add, one being that the bartons gin bottle was opened. Bartons gin is not yellow, but clear. It was most likely mixed and full. That would make him driving illegally with an open container, right?

I would think at that point the officer suspects him of a. Driving without a license. B. Possibly driving under the influence. C. Driving with an open container. D. Possibly driving a stolen car. Then Sam shuts the door, and starts the engine, and begins to attempt to drive away…. seems to me he was working with quite a lot of reasons to treat the suspect as potentially dangerous.

I don’t know if the shooting was justified or not, but it doesn’t seem like murder. The driver was quickly racking up arrestable offenses, and when he attempted to drive away, I think the cop reacted. Possibly fearing for his safety, thinking the guy was drunk or driving a stolen car. He certainly didn’t help his cause by alledgedly lying, although I suppose with the adrenaline rushing, it could have seemed like the truth to him at the time….

    Char Char Binks in reply to sarainitaly. | July 29, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    What was the lie?

      sarainitaly in reply to Char Char Binks. | July 29, 2015 at 8:52 pm

      Alledgedly he lied about the sequence of events, that he was being dragged before he shot. I don’t know if he was lying, really thought he was, or he actually was being dragged. Appears he was dragged, but after he fired his gun, but the driver was definitely attempting to leave, by closing the door and starting the car. And the car did move, so it wasn’t in park.

        rokiloki in reply to sarainitaly. | July 29, 2015 at 9:04 pm

        As Andrew mentioned, the whole physical confrontation only took about two seconds. So much was happening during that two second, I think it is understandable if the officer stated he was being dragged as he fired as opposed to about to be dragged. We were talking about the span of a millisecond. The officer could have made the statement as he honestly recalled it, not necessarily to be deceitful.

        Remember, the officer doesn’t actually have to be dragged to justify the shooting, he only needs a reasonable belief that he is in immediate danger of being dragged. So whether he was dragged, or if he was a fraction of a second from being dragged makes little difference from a point of self defense, imo.

          sarainitaly in reply to rokiloki. | July 29, 2015 at 9:30 pm

          I just watched it again, paying attention to the gold car, and he was definitely dragged down the road.

          I saw another video of the police afterwards, telling what happened, and it seems like they all saw him getting dragged, and believed it was the truth.

          I get now what others were saying, he doesn’t have to wait to be dragged to respond, etc., and can see why the policeman responded as he did…. I just don’t see a murder charge. (But I am not a law professional!)

    “Thanks for the analysis. A couple of things I wanted to add, one being that the bartons gin bottle was opened. Bartons gin is not yellow, but clear. It was most likely mixed and full. That would make him driving illegally with an open container, right?”

    Just goes to show how much I know about gin–nothing. Yuckie. Make my martinis with vodka, thank you very much 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to sarainitaly. | July 29, 2015 at 10:48 pm

    Thanks for the analysis. A couple of things I wanted to add, one being that the bartons gin bottle was opened. Bartons gin is not yellow, but clear. It was most likely mixed and full. That would make him driving illegally with an open container, right?

    Hmm. I did not notice the color. That may not be alcohol but but pee.

    Still what did happen to the alcohol? I don’t know anyone who brings an empty container into a car to pee in, they just use whatever container they had been drinking from.

    ackbarsays in reply to sarainitaly. | July 30, 2015 at 12:40 am

    Is it mixed, or did he pee in the bottle? You’re right about Barton’s gin, though. It’s clear.

    https://www.abc.virginia.gov/library/product%20images/gin/regular/633175116783394285.jpg?h=460&w=460&hash=41E462202761FF879792E434E50B7FF6429316E2

    “Gin bottle handed to U. Cincinnati officer by shooting victim Sam DuBose contained air freshener, coroner’s analysis finds”

    http://www.breakingnews.com/item/2015/08/03/gin-bottle-handed-to-u-cincinnati-officer-by-shoo/

      Char Char Binks in reply to Amy in FL. | August 4, 2015 at 1:11 pm

      Since the perfume was in a gin bottle, it was still reasonable suspicion to warrant a sobriety test. No tox report yet; I’m sure they don’t want to slow the buildup of outrage that can’t be deflated by facts. Shot point blank, murdered in cold blood fo’ a bottle o’ air freshener! SMDH!

I am glad you posted this, Andrew.

One thing I’d like to point out about the slow motion video.

At 6 seconds in, you can see the officer reach his hand in to the car, presumably to turn off the ignition. Dubose actually grabs the officers arm against the steer wheel. That, coupled with the car being shifted into drive and the engine revving makes the officer’s fear of being drag more than reasonable.

I think this is not necessarily the best shooting scenario but it does appear to be justified. Deters is charging this officer maliciously to avoid a riot. It looks like the violence the last few months is paying off. Now officers will be persecuted and prosecuted for doing their job.

I wouldn’t be a police officer under the current climate.

    DaveGinOly in reply to rokiloki. | July 30, 2015 at 2:58 am

    Not what I saw. Tensing tells Dubose to release his seatbelt. When Dubose didn’t comply, Tensing reached in and grabbed the seatbelt. Dubose didn’t grab Tensing, he was trying to get his hand off the seatbelt.

Anyone got the stats of how many “chicken shit” pull overs end in shoot outs?

I’m thinking of one locally involving a woman (mental) who led police on a high speed chase. It ended with her emptying 30 rounds of .223 into the cop car. The cop returned fire with lethal results.

The cop is a friend of the family and a really nice guy. He was just going to inform her that her light was out and ought to scoot across the parking lot to the parts store.

This would suggest that perhaps the car moving and the dragging of Officer Tensing might not have occurred until after the killing shot was fired.
**********************************************
the closer I look the more this seems to be the case.
this one is bad.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to dmacleo. | July 29, 2015 at 9:24 pm

    Let’s try some ratiocination:

    Who started the car?

    Who put the car into gear?

    Where was Officer Tensing when Sam put the car into gear?

      After the car was started, who put himself in danger by reaching for the keys? Who knew that if he was unsuccessful at grabbing the keys, that he’d be in a very dangerous situation? Was it smart for this person to put himself into a potentially lethal situation over a minor traffic infraction?

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 1:53 am

        For the average person it would be a mistake, but it is what we expect of LE. We expect them to keep unlicensed drivers, drunks, etc., off the streets.

        First, Dubose has no license with him and numerous times tried to divert Tensing’s attention from that by asking questions that Tensing had already answered. He had an open container. What tensing was presented with was a driver who wouldn’t answer straight, didn’t have a license, apparently had an open container of alcohol, and may have been DUI. Those last three facts would make any officer suspect the license was suspended, possibly for DUI because here he is in front of the officer with an open container. If Dubose was under the influence, and Tensing did not try to stop him, especially with Dubose having no license on his person, and Dubose injured or killed somebody, and it was discovered he’d been stopped and let go, who do you think the public, the family, and the lawyers are going to hold responsible? Tensing and his department, of course.

        If we are going to say, “Oh well, if he tries to flee, just let him go”, then we have anarchy. All anybody has to do after they beat you half to death and rob you is run away if they see a cop and they’re good to go. Is that what you want? Let’s just let them holler at the cop, “Dude, I don’t wanna go with you. I don’t want to cooperate. See ya’!” If that’s the way you think it should go, then you’re in the wrong country.

          Just let him go? Yes, exactly. Police do it all the time when they break off high-speed chases when the situation endangers the public. When they break off a chase, they allow people to escape who are guilty of far more serious crimes than Mr. Dubose. Mr. Dubose was a member of the public who should have been given the benefit of the same level of concern, and could have been allowed to drive away for his own safety (and Officer Tensing’s, had he not precipitously reached into the car and grabbed the seatbelt), and who could have probably been arrested at a later time when the police could have engineered a more secure situation in which to do so. It is done all the time with those who escape high-speed chases.

          who could have probably been arrested at a later time when the police could have engineered a more secure situation in which to do so.

          How, exactly? How would they have known who he was, or where to find him?

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 2:21 am

        By that time it was no longer a minor infraction. By that time this felon was going to be arrested no matter what. The attempt to flee just added one more felony to the stack, and it was Tensing’s right and duty to stop him.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 3:48 pm

        No typically you would not consider it “smart” to put yourself into a potentially lethal situation and you seem to think that cops should avoid lethal situations.

        So the cops who were killed in LA when they confronted 3 bank robbers armed with automatic weapons and body armor, it’s their fault for putting themselves into that lethal situation?

        You think it is the wounded or dead soldiers fault because they put themselves in that situation?

        You think that my squad coming under fire and having one dead and 2 wounded was our fault for putting ourselves in that potentially lethal situation, when we went in to rescue kids who were being forced to work in a drug lab?

        Because that is what you are saying. Now I am sure you will come up with some kind of excuse as to how that’s not what you meant or how I am over reacting, but that doesn’t change the truth. The fact of the matter is that we pay these people to move towards danger and to put themselves into potentially lethal situations and then you want to persecute them for doing so.

          This was not “3 bank robbers armed with automatic weapons and body armor.” This was one unarmed guy whose car was missing a front license plate. Perspective, please.

          Char Char Binks in reply to Gremlin1974. | July 30, 2015 at 6:28 pm

          This was an “unarmed guy”, a fleeing felon who was disobeying lawful police commands, who was using a car (not his own, possibly stolen) as a weapon while committing his 8th or 9th DUI. Just a little perspective for you.

    Char Char Binks in reply to dmacleo. | July 29, 2015 at 9:38 pm

    How is it bad? If it looks like the car wasn’t moving just before the shooting, and at the time of the shooting, that could be because Tensing, and thus his body cam, was moving along with the car, as would have been the case had he been being dragged. He was definitely turned around and knocked down by the car.

      hard to say for sure with the vids we have but if car had ALWAYS been in gear (foot on brake) the altercation then head shot could have caused foot to hit gas pedal.
      there are questions that need to be answered here, this is not a simple one.
      thats what I mean about a bad one, not that cop is guilty but that its not a simple one.

sarainitaly | July 29, 2015 at 9:33 pm

Were any blood tests done, released? Was he intoxicated?

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to sarainitaly. | July 30, 2015 at 2:34 am

    Apparently nothing medical about Dubose has been released, unless you consider being the father of 13 kids ‘medical’. I don’t think his record of 75 (not a typo) previous arrests could be considered ‘medical’ except maybe the ones for drugs and DUI. It’s unlikely that the 7 or 8 arrests for driving on a suspended license, the several DUIs and the 3 or 4 for not having a front license plate would count as ‘medical’, unless we’re talking learning disability as a medical condition.

    But we’ll find out. Sam may not have been drunk. One of his 9 yr. old sons assured the press that his dad was ‘turning his life around’.

I don’t think I will be accused of taking up for the cops when unwarranted.

After looking at this video and freezing it several times at key points leading up to the shooting, it seems clear:

1) DuBose starts the car

2) The officer puts his arm in the vehicle in an attempt to get the keys/turn off the vehicle

3) DuBose grabs the officers arm.

4) The car is in now in gear

5) The officer fires his weapon killing DuBose

In a moment like that and the aftermath, the officer may very well believe he was being drug before the fatal shot. It makes little difference, IMO. He was certainly in a precarious and dangerous position, struggling with DuBose through the window. As a result the officers life was in jeopardy. The shooting was justified.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Barry. | July 29, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    It was a stop for a minor offense. By no account was Dubose threatening harm to the public. When Dubose started the car, Tensing could have allowed him to leave the scene, but instead he elected to put himself into a potentially dangerous situation, knowing that Dubose was about to drive away (if your review of the video is accurate). Question: Can you legitimately use lethal force against someone when you have intentionally put yourself into a position in which the actions you believe to be imminent will endanger your life? This looks like the Hegelian dialectic writ small.

    Although officer Tensing had the authority to prevent Dubose from leaving the scene, because the exercise of that authority would necessarily endanger his life if he did not succeed, was it good judgment knowing that once his life was endangered that he would have to use lethal force against someone stopped for a minor traffic offense?

    Once again Andrew and others are stressing “compliance” with officer commands. However, citizens are not trained (like officers) in how to deal with stops. They don’t have the experience of thousands of stops that many cops have (I worked in a cop shop in which a cop producing fewer than about 600 stops/year was under-performing, and the best performers had in the 1,000 to 1,200 range). Because cops have so much experience with people who are compliant it seems their training fails them when they have those stops in which citizens don’t comply, and some become enraged because they do not get what they are used to getting and believe is their due. I don’t expect citizens, with no training and possibly no experience, to conduct themselves properly during stops. I do expect it of the police. Officer Tensing placed himself in jeopardy over a minor traffic offense. How smart was that? Not very – he may have been killed because someone had neither a front plate nor a license. As it was, his subject was killed because he (Tensing) decided to put himself in harm’s way over a trivial matter. This was the result of extremely poor judgment. Under some circumstances a cop can lawfully shoot a fleeing suspect. But a cop shouldn’t contribute to a situation in which lethal force potentially becomes necessary to stop a subject he couldn’t otherwise shoot for fleeing. Let the man go. It’s really OK if someone without a license continues to drive, considering how poor most licensed drivers are it can hardly do harm.

      Sanddog in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 29, 2015 at 11:40 pm

      “However, citizens are not trained (like officers) in how to deal with stops.”

      I was “trained” not to try and flee after the police pull you over on a traffic violation. In the absence of “training”, I’d think common sense would kick in.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Sanddog. | July 30, 2015 at 2:34 am

        The citizen is under no obligation to use common sense. Sometimes they panic. On the other hand, the police are under every obligation to use common sense, according to their training, their status as servants, and their obligation to the safety of everyone in the communities they serve. This latter included Mr. Dubose, and Officer Tensing let Mr. Dubose down, not the other way around.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Sanddog. | July 30, 2015 at 3:19 am

        You (and others here) really don’t get it, do you?

        The police are obligated to avoid killing citizens unnecessarily. The law does not demand that police allow situations to escalate into lethal confrontations when opportunities exist to de-escalate them. Does the law exclude common sense?

        And I said people panic. When they panic, they do stupid things (among them is failure to obey the law). They shouldn’t be shot and killed by public servants for doing stupid things under pressures and in situations with which they have neither the training nor the experience to handle rationally all the time. Catch them later, charge them with eluding. It’s better than charging them for the death of an officer, or for them to end up dead for acting stupid. “Stupid” is not a capital offense.

          All great points DaveginOnly. Ray Tensing took the first step against another citizen. For what reason? No front plate? That’s a reason to stop a citizen in a free country?

          Ray Tensing demanded the man exit the vehicle. Why? What was served by that? Under what concept of liberty can one citizen order another out of his vehicle?

          The citizen wished only to get away top get away from a pest that was obviously dangerous. We citizens have that duty — to protect ourselves.

          Ray Tensing escalated by reaching in. Doing so he greatly endangered himself, and made clear the harm he wised to inflict on the citizen.

          What happened next is unclear, but the officer clearly made the judge-jury-executioner decision that the citizen must be killed. And so he did.

          Personally I don;t want ANYONE on my nation’s streets who thinks they have a license to kill, and other general warrants to detain for trivialities.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 11:33 am

          All great points DaveginOnly. Ray Tensing took the first step against another citizen. For what reason? No front plate? That’s a reason to stop a citizen in a free country?

          Yes, it is. You have no right to drive a motor vehicle on a public road. It is a privilege granted to you by the authority that owns the road, on condition that you obey the relevant laws. If your state requires a front license plate, and you drive a car without one, that is absolutely a good reason for a policeman to stop you. (You can generally get away with it in any state but your own, because most cops can’t remember which states don’t require them, so they just assume your state doesn’t.)

          Ray Tensing demanded the man exit the vehicle. Why? What was served by that? Under what concept of liberty can one citizen order another out of his vehicle?

          Tensing was not just another citizen, he was a policeman, and therefore had the right to make a traffic stop and to order the driver to get out. Again, driving on a public street is not a right.

          Travel in the public ways is a right. The roads are public. The “privilege” contract is a bastardization of a law not found in America since we threw off King’s. On e could link the operation of vehicles in the public ways to older theories of law that do not involve “privilege”, just a demonstration of competence in management of the vehicle or animal, and the safety of the vehicle or animal. But we are Americans. Rights and duties are our language not privilege.

          Ragspierre in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 3:35 pm

          More Sovereign Citizen/Ronulen nonsense.

          I remember talking to Erwin Shiff decades ago about how there was no legal IRS, and him making a logical chain up to a point.

          I asked him a few innocent questions, and he accused me of being an FBI plant.

          That was between his stretches in the iron-bar hotel.

          Try driving without a license and resorting to bvd for your defense in court.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 4:45 pm

          Travel on public ways may be a right, in the sense that they have for the moment been dedicated by their owners to that purpose; use of a motor vehicle on them is certainly not a right. You may drive a car on your own property to your heart’s content, but the moment you take it onto a public road you are doing so only by the road owner’s permission, and subject to your acceptance of the rules, including the right of policemen to stop you pretty much whenever they like. Thus license or sobriety checkpoints, which would not fourth-amendment violations if applied to pedestrians.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 12:34 am

      Once again Andrew and others are stressing “compliance” with officer commands. However, citizens are not trained (like officers) in how to deal with stops. They don’t have the experience of thousands of stops that many cops have (I worked in a cop shop in which a cop producing fewer than about 600 stops/year was under-performing, and the best performers had in the 1,000 to 1,200 range).

      You know Dave is right. So as a public service go showing this video to all your friends. Spread the knowledge around.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ

        DaveGinOly in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | July 30, 2015 at 2:46 am

        Funny, I just watched a video called “Germany After the War.” It was about the occupation up until the Berlin Airlift and the division of Germany into the FRG and the DDR. In the video, there was a brief bit about 4,000 select German POWs who were re-educated into democratic beliefs and “how to think for themselves.” They showed some posters created by the Germans themselves, exulting freedom of thought and democracy, and ridiculing their previous, thought-controlling leaders in Nazi Germany. One of the posters showed a citizen surrounded by barbed wire with signs all about warning the citizen “don’t do this,” “that is forbidden,” “keep away,” and so on. It was the German soldier’s new-found view of his previous mental servitude to the state he had once served. Also, it made me think of the modern USA, this ham-sandwich nation, in which you can’t turn around without the state telling you what you can and cannot do. This includes police who are excused (at least by some at this site) for allowing simple traffic stops to escalate into encounters lethal to fellow citizens, and the mentality of the citizens who find such conduct acceptable.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 2:57 am

          “allowing it to escalate”? Huh? Are you saying Tensing should have shot Dubose sooner than he did? Because all Tensing did was start to open Dubose’s door when DUBOSE pulled the door back shut and DUBOSE started the car and DUBOSE held Tensing’s arm against the wheel and DUBOSE revved the engine and DUBOSE put the car in gear. So Tensing should have shot DUBOSE before DUBOSE escalated the encounter with HIS acts? That certainly would have kept the situation from escalating. Yep.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 4:00 pm

          Whether you like it or not, most likely, the perp grabbing the officers arm when he stuck it into the car is more than enough reason for the use of deadly force.

          Want to know what kind of damage I can do to you if I have a grip on your arm while I am setting in a car that offers me a fair bit of protection?

          1: I can do severe damage to you limb.

          2: I can pull you into the car and shove a knife I have concealed into your throat, or a pen, or a pencil, or just my stiffened fingers.

          3: Such as happened here, I can just keep ahold of you and hit the gas.

          All of which would be considered great bodily harm or cause death.

          Also, you argument that he should have just been let go is completely without merit. Unless you actually believe that he was going to flee the cops at a safe 5 mph under the speed limit. Allowing him to leave would have endangered the public, which is what the cops are supposed to prevent.

        Char Char Binks in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | July 30, 2015 at 11:52 am

        Dubose was certainly “trained” in how to deal with cops by his numerous brushes with the law.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Char Char Binks. | July 30, 2015 at 7:43 pm

          Dubose’s record also tells us that he knew a front license plate was required in that state because he’d been cited 3-4 times for not having one. Therefore, he lied to the cop when he said he didn’t know it was required by law.

          Dubose was full of BS, and anybody who’s ever had to stop a loser like Dubose can see it in a heartbeat.

          Dubose could have been on probation and, fearing a violation of probation which may well have sent him back to jail for some time, decided to take the Greyhound defense. “Too bad if this young, white cop gets killed or becomes a paraplegic, I ain’t going back to jail!”

      ackbarsays in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 12:51 am

      The man appeared to be drunk and had an open container. Are the police supposed to just let those people go and hope to catch them another day?

        DaveGinOly in reply to ackbarsays. | July 30, 2015 at 2:47 am

        It’s unclear from the video whether the container was open or not.

          sarainitaly in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 4:54 am

          The bottle was most definitely opened. Barton’s Gin is not yellow. Whether there was alcohol, a mixed drink, or pee in the bottle, I don’t know, but it was NOT sealed.

          rokiloki in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 1:27 pm

          It was not clear from the video, but it was certainly clear from the trained eyes of a police officer. The officer would know at a glance if the seal was broken.

      Barry in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 1:07 am

      You left out a few details.

      1) The officer stopped him for an offense. Minor or not. Are the officers supposed to let minor offenses go? No.

      2) Mr. DuBose could not produce documentation that he was the owner of the vehicle or a drivers license. This makes him a highly suspect individual. Your saying he was not a threat to the public – how would the officer know this? He knows only that he has stopped an individual breaking the law that cannot produce documentation for the vehicle or driving license. Does he have insurance? In that case one might presume something very shady. Stolen car, drunk driver, fill in the blank here. Lots of reasons to detain him.

      Now, you have decided there is no reason this man should be detained. With your guidelines in place every single stop is going the same way, the driver will race off in the hopes he can elude arrest.

      Andrew (and others) stress compliance because it keeps you from having an unpleasant experience. I have been critical of the officers in many cases, while understanding this point.

      You may question this officers judgment. It simply wasn’t murder, not even close if my understanding of the video is correct. Just because he didn’t have to try and stop the guy from driving off doesn’t mean it is murder when the end result is the perp dies as a result of putting the officer in harms way.

      That was the only point I made. The shooting was legal and justified. Your screeching the LEO’s have no need to enforce the law doesn’t change that.

      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 2:30 am

      Question: Can you legitimately use lethal force against someone when you have intentionally put yourself into a position in which the actions you believe to be imminent will endanger your life?

      Absolutely. Why would you think not? So long as you had the right to put yourself in that position, you have the right to defend yourself when the danger you expected materializes. For instance, a woman wearing a microskirt and walking in a dangerous area is entitled to shoot a would-be rapist who accosts her.

      In fact, even if you didn’t have the right to put yourself there, you still have the right to defend yourself. A trespasser who is attacked by a fellow criminal is entitled to defend himself.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | July 30, 2015 at 3:36 am

        NO, certainly a private citizen cannot. If there’s someone on the other side of 12 foot high fence threatening you with a knife, if you step around the fence to allow him to attack you so you can shoot him dead, you will end up in jail. (This scenario is right out of several books on the law of self-defense. If someone threatening you doesn’t have the opportunity to harm you, you can’t shoot him. And you certainly can’t intentionally give that person the opportunity to harm you in order to shoot him.)

        Does the officer have an obligation to uphold the law? Yes, he does. Do police allow fleeing suspects to get away? Yes, they do, every time they break off a pursuit because of danger to the public. Mr. Dubose was a member of that public the police have an obligation to protect. Officer Tensing, instead of stupidly putting himself in danger over a minor traffic offense (and that is what he did, even if he had been successful in stopping Mr. Dubose from driving away – without putting a bullet in him first, that is), could have allowed Mr. Dubose to drive away, and his arrest could have been facilitated later, as is done in the case of others who elude police in chases (fleeing suspects who are guilty of presenting far greater threats to the public). Happens all the time. Just tag “eluding” onto the list of offenses, and then throw him in jail later.

        There are plenty of active arrest warrants open at any given time, many for the arrest of people suspected of violent and serious crimes. If it were so vitally important to uphold the law and to arrest these people in a timely manner, these active warrants wouldn’t exist. But the police have the resources to stop people for not having a front license plate.

          Barry in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 10:15 am

          “Do police allow fleeing suspects to get away?”

          Just because they sometimes “allow fleeing suspects to get away” doesn’t make it murder when they don’t. Period.

          “Mr. Dubose was a member of that public the police have an obligation to protect.”

          The police have an obligation to protect the public from an individual that is pulled over with no ID, no auto ownership proof, no drivers license, and likely no insurance, that has an open container of alcohol leading any NORMAL person to conclude there might be an intoxicated driver.

          “Officer Tensing, instead of stupidly…”

          You make the claim it was stupid. I will make the claim it was DuBose who acted stupidly, and criminally.

          “putting himself in danger over a minor traffic offense”

          Once again, it was no longer a minor traffic offense. he was now without any ID, no drivers license, no auto registration, and suspect of being DUI. What part of this do you not get?

          “But the police have the resources to stop people for not having a front license plate.”

          Your implication is that the police should not bother with this offense. Take it up with the politicians that make it illegal to drive without and require the police to enforce such.

          ONE more time, the officer is charged with murder. Your rather ignorant and pathetic attempt to justify that charge is based upon your feeling that:

          1) the police should not enforce minor traffic laws
          2) The police should let go anyone stopped that has no vehicle registration, no drivers license, and is suspected of being DUI

          You can call the officer stupid all you want, but that does not make him guilty of murder.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 11:38 am

          NO, certainly a private citizen cannot. If there’s someone on the other side of 12 foot high fence threatening you with a knife, if you step around the fence to allow him to attack you so you can shoot him dead, you will end up in jail.

          Bulls**t.

          Do police allow fleeing suspects to get away? Yes, they do,

          Just because they sometimes do doesn’t mean they have to.

          could have allowed Mr. Dubose to drive away, and his arrest could have been facilitated later,

          How, exactly?

          Gremlin1974 in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 4:18 pm

          “instead of stupidly putting himself in danger over a minor traffic offense”

          Well lets look at that “Minor Traffic offense”

          Offense: No front license plate.

          Offense: Driving without a license.

          As far as I know in every state you are required to have your DL in your physical possession.

          Offense: Interference with an investigation or obstruction.

          Not answering the cops very direct and simple question as to whether he was in possession of his license. If you read the law about your drivers license you will probably discover that it isn’t actually your property, it is the states property that they are loaning to you. Part of that loan is that you must surrender that license upon request to certain people, like cops.

          Offense: No proof of registration and/or ownership of the vehicle.

          Offense: Probably open ETOH container.

          Offense: Probable DUI

          Listen to the guy, he is drunker than cooter brown any reasonable person can tell that.

          Offense: Failure to comply with lawful orders.

          Offense: Assault on a police officer.

          The moment he put his hands on the officer that was assault, period.

          Humm, not so minor after all. Also, all of this happened before the cop drew his gun.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 2:49 am

      Dubose should have figured out ‘compliance’ after 75 arrests. What Dubose was doing was trying to flee in order to avoid more jail, fines, suspensions, etc..

      One of Dubose’s 9 yr. old sons, who is one of Dubose’s 13 known children, told the press his dad “was turning his life around”. Good adlibbing for a 9 yr. old, eh? I digress. If Dubose was ‘turning his life around’, maybe not resisting arrest and taking off while gripping a cop’s arm would have been a step in the right direction.

      I hear Mark O’Mara is representing the family. That’s a lot of clients.

      sarainitaly in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 4:58 am

      He was pulled over for a minor offense, but during the course of the stop the officer discovered the driver didn’t have his drivers license, the car wasn’t his, and he had an open container of alcohol. The officer had to suspect the driver had a suspended license, the car might be stolen, he might be drunk…and then the driver shut the car door, and started the car, attempting to flee. It was no longer a minor offense.

      Char Char Binks in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 30, 2015 at 11:49 am

      A drunk driver is ALWAYS a threat to public safety, and based on his record, Dubose was ALWAYS a threat to public safety in one way or another.

        Cop isn’t fired after two DWIs. He then drives drunk a third time, with a BAC of .24, and kills two people. Two months later, he’s still on the payroll.

        DWI apparently only calls for extra-judicial summary execution if you’re not a cop.

        Because it’s different when they do it.

        Because shut up.

          Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 1:17 pm

          Poor Amy. You’re REALLY off the rails today.

          Can you possibly number the people who (with good legal counsel) have multiple arrests for DWI?

          “Summary executions”. Simply nuts.

          Poor Amy.

          Is DWI such a threat to public safety that anyone suspected of it should be summarily executed on the spot, or is DWI such a nothing-burger that even after three arrests and two dead victims, a law enforcement officer should keep his job?

          Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 2:08 pm

          Poor Amy.

          You insist on being crazy today. OK. Up to you.

          “Is DWI such a threat to public safety that anyone suspected of it should be summarily executed on the spot.”

          Urm…no. Which is why that doesn’t happen. It’s just nuts to suggest it does, ABSENT a lot of other stuff.

          “…or is DWI such a nothing-burger that even after three arrests and two dead victims, a law enforcement officer should keep his job?”

          OK, Poor Amy, two different things.

          The FIRST is employment policy, which is often loopy. But what has it to do with criminal justice, I ask ya…? The LEO in question has been on a desk since his ONLY conviction. Did you miss that? Or was that simply inconvenient to your railings?

          The SECOND is criminal legal stuff. The LEO in question was himself critically injured in the accident that killed his two companions. Right? You figure that MAAAAAAAYbe he will be charged in that incident? Due process…???

          Chem_Geek in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 6:51 pm

          Poor Rags – are you on the rag, Rags? It’d explain much – can’t handle the fact that there’s a double standard that shouldn’t exist?

          Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | July 31, 2015 at 10:14 am

          Well, moron, since you decided to add your stupid to this, I’ll ask you the same questions…

          1. is employment policy often loopy? (Think firing pederast union teachers and killing their pensions.)

          2. do YOU think the guy will be charged?

          So, WTF “double standard” are you blowing out your butt?

        Char Char Binks in reply to Char Char Binks. | July 30, 2015 at 2:22 pm

        I know of someone who had 6 or 7 DWIs without getting shot, until his luck ran out.

    rokiloki in reply to Barry. | July 30, 2015 at 2:35 am

    You need to add:

    4) The car is in now in gear and DuBose hits the gas

    If you listen carefully, you can hear the car rev-up just before the gunshot.

MouseTheLuckyDog | July 29, 2015 at 10:52 pm

Since this was a University cop, who pays foir his defense?

    That itself is a problem, that there are university “cops” with guns and arrest powers, making traffic stops for trivialities.

      Yes, it’s certainly a problem.

      In the past, laws governing campus police required officers to be sworn and to pass minimum training requirements before they were given full arrest powers. Even then, they could exercise those powers only while on duty and within the boundaries of the college property. Non-sworn officers were either deputized by local police agencies or weren’t given arrest powers. These boundaries have gradually eroded over the years. According to BJS, more than 70 percent of college and university police agencies now exercise off-campus jurisdiction, and 35 percent have policing powers that extend statewide.

      Is this really what communities want?

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 1:09 pm

        Not only was this LEO a fully accredited peace officer, he was a veteran LEO with a degree and who had served for years in another Cincinnati suburb.

        But carry on with your railings…

          Even then, they could exercise those powers only while on duty and within the boundaries of the college property.

          Why should a campus cop be allowed to go around killing people who didn’t hire him, and who aren’t in his traditional jurisdiction?

          And does the community at large think this is a good thing?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 30, 2015 at 1:51 pm

          WTF, Amy…!!!

          The LEO is charged with a VERY serious felony. How is that being “allowed to go around killing people”…???

          WTF does it matter “who hired him”…???

          “…in his traditional jurisdiction?”

          This is an IMPLICIT lie. What “traditional jurisdiction”? Put up a link to what you are railing about here.

          A STATE certified LEO can enforce the law.

          “And does the community at large think this is a good thing?”

          Why, yes. Apparently it DOES. Their democratically elected representatives passed LAWS to that effect.

          Poor Amy.

          What “traditional jurisdiction”? Put up a link to what you are railing about here.

          “Even then, they could exercise those powers only while on duty and within the boundaries of the college property.”

          That traditional jurisdiction. As in, the one they traditionally were limited to, until fairly recent changes.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 30, 2015 at 7:36 pm

          You mean according to an opinion piece.

          In WaPo.

          By a guy who writes for Al Jazeera.

          ‘K.

          Gotch. Was the LEO in this case a certified peace officer in Ohio?

          Yes or no, please, Kinky.

          Are you denying the fact that traditionally, campus cops could exercise those powers only while on duty and within the boundaries of the college property?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 31, 2015 at 9:39 am

          Can’t you answer that question, Amy?

          In some jurisdictions, campus police are rightly considered private security. Because that’s all they are.

          Not here.

          Can a state certified peace officer enforce the law in that state, Kinky?

          Yes or no, please.

          Well interestingly, until 2 years ago this cop would have been limited to his traditional jurisdiction – university grounds. And now after the killing of Mr. DuBose, the uni rent-a-cops have been put back on their leash by the same folks who did the experiment of letting them roam free back in 2013, and Tensing & Co. are no longer free to shoot community members for contempt of rent-a-cop.

          So I was actually correct:
          (a) this was not the uni cops’ traditional jurisdiction, and
          (b) after a 2-year experiment, the community has decided that this is not indeed what they want.

        Semper Why in reply to Amy in FL. | July 31, 2015 at 2:45 pm

        Is this really what communities want?

        Yes, it probably is. With modern university housing practices, communities most likely do want the campus police to enforce the law on campus and also nearby. Campus police probably specialize in a lot of typical university crime such as DWI, drunk in public, petty theft, noise complaints and other such violations than your average city PD. Dealing with 18-25 year-old people with new freedoms but still learning responsibility is most likely also a specialty that applies to campus, nearby bars, off campus housing and surrounding surface streets.

        The days of Roscoe being foiled by the Duke brothers because they managed to drive across a jurisdictional line are long gone.

          “Campus police probably specialize in a lot of typical university crime such as DWI, drunk in public, petty theft, noise complaints and other such violations”

          No.

          On Dec. 19, 2013, CPD and the city amended and updated an agreement with UC, allowing UCPD to patrol inside of Cincinnati police districts. The agreement limited UCPD’s patrols outside its jurisdiction to “serious traffic offenses.”

          The agreement defines “serious traffic offenses” as those that “jeopardizes public safety and/or constitutes a misdemeanor of the fourth degree or a higher offense.”

          What “serious traffic offense” was DuBose pulled over for? Failure to have a front license plate? Really?

          Interestingly, “The report also shows the number of blacks who came into contact with UCPD quadrupled from 633 in all of 2013 to 2,354 from Jan. 1, 2015 through July 27, 2015.” Not a good look. No wonder they’ve been put back in their box.

Paul In Sweden | July 29, 2015 at 11:04 pm

The crime was assaulting a police officer with a moving vehicle, a deadly weapon.

    The only one ‘guilty’ of ‘assaulting a police officer with a moving vehicle’ was the corpse of the man the police officer had already shot in the head and killed. Once you kill a man, you can’t really go and charge his dead body with ‘crimes’ it committed while dead.

      Char Char Binks in reply to Murphy. | July 30, 2015 at 11:53 am

      You don’t know when DuBose died. He could have survived the few seconds it took to drag Tensing down the street.

I already know how this will turn out.

Today is July 30,2015. This is the 1st yr anniversary of the acquittal of Detective Joseph Walker. As you know off duty NJ Black detective Joseph Walker had to use deadly force on white racist drunken criminal Joseph Harvey who threatened Detective Joseph Walker after pursuing him in criminal road rage. Instead of letting it go since he wasn’t harmed or going home after Walker cut in his lane,Harvey chose to be a racist criminal. Thereby causing his own death. Andrew,will you do a follow up on anniversary follow up on this,as you did the 2 yr anniversary of Zimmerman’s acquittal?

    bvw in reply to m1. | July 30, 2015 at 11:08 am

    Walker was acting in honest self-defense in MD a state whose legal entities are rabid and frothing on the anti-gun side. It is fortunate, an honor to justice, that he was exonerated, and damnable that he was charged and tried.

      Walker got away with murder because he’s a cop. You or I or any other private citizen would be in jail right now if we’d done what he did.

        bvw in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 2:44 pm

        Walker killed a man who was trying to and continuing to try to kill or seriously harm himself and his family. That’s self-defense.

          Ragspierre in reply to bvw. | July 30, 2015 at 3:39 pm

          Wow. There are soooooo many terms/words you just don’t get.

          Huh?

          Gremlin1974 in reply to bvw. | July 30, 2015 at 4:25 pm

          Walker killed an unarmed man who was walking, not running, towards him from more than 100 feet away. Giving him time to get into his car a flee.

          He got away with murder, period.

          bvw in reply to bvw. | July 30, 2015 at 5:28 pm

          Rags: that’s simply more drive-by-rudeness on your part. Stalking.

          Gremiln: the man coming at Walker had already attempted to run Walker and his family off the road and had done so after a chase. That’s attempted murder. If Walker had walked away, as you claim he should have done, it is likely the assailant would have continued the chase.

          Ragspierre in reply to bvw. | July 30, 2015 at 5:36 pm

          “Walker had already attempted to run Walker and his family off the road…”

          No, see THAT’s a LIE, and you’re a liar.

          We know this by the lack of damage on BOTH cars.

          You don’t understand concepts. Obviously.

      m1 in reply to bvw. | July 30, 2015 at 9:34 pm

      You are 100% correct. At least you aren’t sympathetic towards a racist drunken criminal. Out of respect for Mr Branca,I will no longer refer to Harvey using a prophylactic euphemism.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to m1. | July 30, 2015 at 4:23 pm

    Hey, its my favorite basement dweller. How is the below ground temp. today?

I got an opinion and two cents, so . . .

This looks like a bad shoot. Having said that, the State of OH has the burden of proof in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt, and at this point, I’m not convinced the cop is guilty.

Since the BOP is different in a wrongful death case, I could probably be persuaded to award reasonable damages to the family of the driver.

I’m curios about how a self driving car will be able to handle traffic stops in the future!

I tend to agree with Andrew in his comment of the speed of the charges. The Prosecutor seems to be more concerned with the politics than the actual facts of the case. Watching a grainy video on a laptop doesn’t cut it. A frame by frame analysis on professional equipment is the only method to see the fine details. The comments made were far from professional and simply pandering to the population.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to rscalzo. | July 30, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    The prosecutor’s own comments should have disqualified him from making any decisions about this case.

OnTheLeftCoast | July 30, 2015 at 9:48 am

To me, it looks and sounds as though at :20 on the full video above, DuBose shuts the ignition off. The conversation goes on; during most of it DuBose’s right hand is on the wheel near 12 o’clock.

At 1:51, he appears to be reaching for the ignition key with his right hand. I think I hear the car cranking at 1:53, at which point Toensing orders “Stop!”

healthguyfsu | July 30, 2015 at 10:20 am

I see a good dead idiot that was probably going to run someone else down while drunk. Problem?

Unless my clothing is somehow caught on the vehicle, I can’t imagine being dragged unless I was holding on. And if I’m holding on while being dragged, I use my “free” hand to pull my gun and shoot?

    rokiloki in reply to FrankNatoli. | July 30, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    What did you expect him to do, just hold on for the ride and hope he doesn’t go under the wheels if he grip fails?

    Another cop did that a few years ago and had both legs crushed. She barely survived.

    I don’t understand why it is so difficult for some to get this – the officer had every right to try and stop DuBose from fleeing. He had every right to reach in the car and try to turn off the ignition. When DuBose made it clear he intended to drive off, the officer had every right to use deadly force to stop him.

      FrankNatoli in reply to rokiloki. | July 30, 2015 at 2:38 pm

      My question, which you chose to not answer, but instead provide sarcasm, was how could someone being “dragged”, thus holding on with one arm, feet no longer supporting him, use his other arm to draw and fire his weapon?

      In response to your sarcasm, I believe the safest recourse would have been to let go ASAP, while car speed was low, roll away, get in your car, and pursue.

      Would be nice if some LEO could offer information on how they are trained to respond to precisely such a incident. Let go? Hang on? Draw and fire?

        Milhouse in reply to FrankNatoli. | July 30, 2015 at 4:52 pm

        I believe the safest recourse would have been to let go ASAP, while car speed was low, roll away, get in your car, and pursue.

        Pursue?! At whatever speed the suspect sets, I suppose. How safe is that?

        More to the point, let’s suppose he does pursue, and catches up with him. Then what? The suspect has already refused to be arrested once; how is the second encounter going to go any better? What is he supposed to do when the guy takes off again? Pursue again, rinse, lather, repeat?!

        rokiloki in reply to FrankNatoli. | July 30, 2015 at 5:14 pm

        Let go?

        And could you, in your infinite wisdom, guarantee the officer would not have been run over or cracked his skull on the pavement? It is not an officer’s duty to retreat from danger.

        It would be nice if armchair cops with no training and no common sense would stop second guessing police officers every time they have to make split second decisions to save lives, including their own.

        Barry in reply to FrankNatoli. | July 30, 2015 at 5:36 pm

        “I believe the safest recourse would have been to let go ASAP, while car speed was low, roll away, get in your car, and pursue.”

        OK, Frank. What would you have to say if in the “pursuit” a child (or adult) was run over and killed?

        forksdad in reply to FrankNatoli. | July 30, 2015 at 8:05 pm

        Drawing and firing? That’s a one arm deal.

        AghastinFL in reply to FrankNatoli. | August 1, 2015 at 10:33 am

        Here is an example of your scenario Frank… it ends badly for the LEO involved, notice also many of the variables are identical:
        http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/news/2015/01/08/florida-officer-run-over-by-dui-suspect.aspx

    Char Char Binks in reply to FrankNatoli. | August 2, 2015 at 9:38 pm

    No, if DuBose turned the wheel and the car was moving towards the center of the street, as he would have had to do to get past the silver car, Tensing could suddenly have found himself pinned against the car, and leaning or lurching forward into it. That’s how he was dragged, I think. I doubt his clothing or any body part was pinned or hooked; he was simply was moved by the force of the vehicle, and he was obviously spun around and dumped on his ass. It looked like he was holding on, trying not to land on his head or get caught under a wheel.

Just some observations.

(1) I don’t think this is a white-black thing at all, at the point of the events, not speaking to the public response since, where we see demagogue trying to make it so

(2) I do suspect that the age inversion has a lot to do with it. The cop is a acned kid of 25. The man in his forties looks to me more like he is in his fifties. The youth is demanding that his own dad comply with his new-won authority and power. Sad result.

    Ragspierre in reply to bvw. | July 30, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    More high-toned BS from the high-chair of complete ignorance.

      Poster Ragspierre you are stalking — another indication of your serious problems. Take a break for about six months from posting. Seek counseling. You need help And you do drag this forum down with your malevolent spite and crudeness.

        Barry in reply to bvw. | July 30, 2015 at 4:10 pm

        “you do drag this forum down with your malevolent spite and crudeness.”

        Actually it is the stupidity of your observations that do this. You know, like the psychoanalysis of “The cop is a acned kid of 25. The man in his forties looks to me more like he is in his fifties. The youth is demanding that his own dad comply with his new-won authority and power.”

        So which is it, acne or youth that caused this cop to murder the man?

          bvw in reply to Barry. | July 30, 2015 at 5:24 pm

          My observation of the difference in ages based on the facts. Facts are not “stupid”. You may disagree with the import of “acned kid”, but neither is that a “stupid” comment. It is simply one you choose to disagree with. Rags has his posse. A bully’s posse a bullying as he is. It’s not a good thing.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | July 30, 2015 at 5:41 pm

          “The youth is demanding that his own dad comply with his new-won authority and power. Sad result.”

          No, moron.

          To OBSERVE the age difference is one thing. A pretty irrelevant thing, but a THING, nonetheless.

          To LEAP adroitly…but stooooooOOOOOOoooopidly…to the conclusion you draw…

          just bonkers. And cheap. I mean…Oedipus…???

          Sad result.

          Heh!

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | July 30, 2015 at 5:50 pm

          Oh, and Nancy…

          If you’re feeling “bullied” because I blow holes in your bullshit…

          you REALLY need to up your game, honey.

          (Remarkably delicate for a “free citizen”, innit he?)

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | July 30, 2015 at 5:42 pm

      Posse my ass. I’ve had more than one ‘at odds with rags’.

      Facts my ass. Acne now makes one a murderer? Age makes one a murderer? The stupidity just drips.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | July 30, 2015 at 5:55 pm

        I know, right?

        I mean, NOBODY agrees with Rags all the time.

        Including Rags.

        Hell, I’m Scots-Irish. I’ll fight myself in a pinch…

      How easy mockery is to you! That’s why you pull the forum down, you make it so “fun” and casual. That’s why sort of like fresh dung you attract a certain kind of weaker person to your bully’s posse.

      I don’t like being misquoted and mocked. No one does. Poster Ragspierre you constantly resort to rudeness, incivility and ad hominem — and your posse the same, like wee little nymphs of echoes of the great master.

      But what recourse do I have — in an open forum bullies often take over the place. It’s up to the participants to just say no, as Mr Reagan’s wife used to say. Having the run of a bully and being in a bully’s posse is like a potent drug. It gives a sense of power and bravado. Every ass in Congress shows that. And we should vote out the bullies. In Congress and in the forums we gather in. That’s my opinion.

        Ragspierre in reply to bvw. | July 30, 2015 at 10:16 pm

        Well, yes, I DO find…like Breitbart…that mockage is a very useful tool.

        And you, being a tool, are easy to mock.

        But let’s review the intellectual gravamen of our exchange, shall we.

        I resisted your thread-jack of Sovereign Citizen bullshit relating to “free citizens don’t…”.

        I challenged you historical LIES, and you ran into the tall grass like a little girl, and called ME names.

        Why was I confident in my challenge? Because I know history, and I know you DON’T.

        I rationally holed your hull on the idea that “cops are just us, and we can’t make other ‘free citizens’ comply”. I know that we each have a natural right to STOP (or “arrest”) others. Because we DO.

        You stated (falsely) that Walker was acting in “self-defense”. I pointed out THAT FACTUALLY was a lie, AND you don’t know your ass from a cypress stump about the law of self-defense.

        You offered us the cheap psycho-babble of “age difference and shooting Daddy”. I really DID mock that, because it just cried out for it. I can’t take all the credit for that one.

        So. I think our time here has been enriching intellectually. Plus, YOU didn’t get to run the thread with your crap.

        I call that time well spent. I hope you’ve learned some new things…

        Barry in reply to bvw. | July 30, 2015 at 11:47 pm

        “I don’t like being misquoted and mocked.”

        BS, you poor baby. No one misquoted you. You get mocked when you say stupid shit like the cop is guilty of murder because he is young with acne and wanted to kill his daddy.

        Your entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mock it when I see fit.

        As a reminder, your words:

        “(2) I do suspect that the age inversion has a lot to do with it. The cop is a acned kid of 25. The man in his forties looks to me more like he is in his fifties. The youth is demanding that his own dad comply with his new-won authority and power. Sad result.”

    Char Char Binks in reply to bvw. | July 30, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    Don’t cops have the authority to stop, question, and arrest people, even those older than they?

It’s an unhealthy culture which believes #ContemptOfCop should be punishable by immediate extrajudicial summary execution. It’s a #CultOfCompliance, and it’s distinctly un-American.

#ComplyOrDie, kids – Comply or die. Welcome to the new American police state. Enjoy your ride. Just keep your hands inside at all times. Or outside. Or whatever the the hell the cop tells you to do. Because he can kill you if he thinks you got it wrong. And your little dog too.

    Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 1:05 pm

    Poor, kinked Amy…

    She also believes that having LEOs respond to your suicide attempt is a GUARANTEED death sentence.

    Which, of course, is an inversion of the truth.

      The fact that I have a different view on this matter than most readers here upsets some of you. That’s okay.

        Barry in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 1:36 pm

        It’s that your view is usually ignorant

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 1:37 pm

        Yep. You, like anyone else, can have a “different” view.

        It’s also OK if some of us call you on nonsense.

        Innit…???

        To Amy in Fl
        I’m not surprised at how your fellow LI commentators are treating you. The same thing happened to anyone who supported Detective Joseph Walker. Now that you are against this white cop who killed a black person,people here are ragging you. This is SMO for those who don’t defend white killers of black people.

          Char Char Binks in reply to m1. | July 30, 2015 at 2:29 pm

          I supported Walker, and nobody here treated me badly. Musta been cuz of my charming personality.

          Barry in reply to m1. | July 30, 2015 at 4:14 pm

          Screw you m1, you lefty trash. I’ve been on both sides. When the cop is bad I call it. When they defend their selves or the public I call it that way. Sometimes it’s close. But just because it is close doesn’t make it murder.

          Amy see’s it one way all the time. then uses stupidity to defend her view. And then gets called on it.

    rokiloki in reply to Amy in FL. | July 30, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    DuBose was not “executed” nor was he shot for contempt or noncompliance.

    He was shot in self defense for recklessly and deliberately threatening the life of an officer by dragging him.

    It doesn’t matter if you think the officer’s actions were prudent or not. He was acting within his legal authorization and attempting to detain an unidentified man who had multiple violations.

    And it isn’t a cult of compliance. It is a societal expectation to follow directions of a law enforcement officer during a stop. If the officer violates your rights or exceeds his authority, you have legal options to challenge him and receive restitution for any wrongs.

AgainstRacism | July 30, 2015 at 2:14 pm

Andrew, I like your analysis of the video looking for facts, too many other media outlets fail to provide (with intention or not) all the facts and try to muddle in opinion with fact.

I especially like your comparison of vehicle distance based on the size shown on video. Based on that, I have a question on your comment that Mr. DuBose was shot before the car was moving – if you look at the stills above that prove the officer was being dragged by the car and compare the officer’s car in those stills against the still when the shot was fired, do you think the officer’s car is still the same size? It seems like you are looking at the truck being “in the same position”, but since the car would move parallel to the truck’s location, the size of the truck would not change. The “shot fired” still also shows more of the green bush/tree next to the truck than in the previous still, so it does not indicate to me the truck is a good frame of reference to determine vehicle movement.

    rokiloki in reply to AgainstRacism. | July 30, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    It is difficult to tell whether the car moved before, during, or after the shooting, but the fact remains that the officer had reasonable fear his life was in danger at that moment.

    DuBose had started his car, shifted into gear, and attempted to drive away while the officer was acting within his authority to stop him. All in a matter of only a few seconds.

    The officer had only a few options and only a fraction of a second to decide:

    1) He could terminate the threat

    2) He could have let go and hoped no one else got hurt by a fleeing, unidentified suspect

    3) He could have held on and hoped for his own survival

    The officer chose option one. He ended the threat with relatively minor damages and no harm to anyone but the person responsible for the danger in the first place.

    Char Char Binks in reply to AgainstRacism. | July 30, 2015 at 4:08 pm

    It seems people are assuming that the car was moving straight forward the whole time. There could have been some lateral and circular movement. We also must keep in mind that Tensing and his camera were moving along with the car, at least for awhile, so there may have been movement that wasn’t apparent from the video.

Bruce Hayden | July 30, 2015 at 4:21 pm

A couple of things.

Normally, the police probably are not legally entitled to ask someone who had committed a minor traffic offense to step out of his car, absent something more. But, they had something more this time – the lack of license, registration, probably insurance, and potential of a DUI. The lack of a valid driver’s license means that the driver was not legally entitled to drive on public streets or roads. They can walk, ride a bus, maybe even a bicycle, etc., but not drive. The right to travel is a right. The right to drive a car on public road or street is not a fundamental right, but rather requires a license, and the driver didn’t have one (apparently due to multiple DUIs). I am surprised that this is questioned here – likely everyone here has a valid driver’s license, and has it on their person (or in their purse) whenever they get behind the wheel of a car. You also need either title to the car that you are driving, or license/permission of the owner of a car to drive it. Absent that, you are committing a crime, potentially a felony, by driving a car without title or license/permission. We are potentially dealing with grand larceny, or at least vehicle theft, joy riding, etc. All offenses that can, and probably should, get the perp thrown in jail, at least over night. And, yes, I point this out selfishly, because I would hope that if anyone ever steals on of my vehicles, the cops can find and arrest him, and not allow the thief to just drive away because he doesn’t want to be bothered by being arrested.

Could the police have shot the driver if he had tried to just drive away, absent holding onto the police officer and dragging him, etc.? I think not. For the most part, police need some sort of danger to themselves or the public to justify shooting someone during an arrest. But, that doesn’t mean that the police have to allow someone they want to arrest (or are contemplating arresting) to leave the scene just because they don’t want to be arrested, etc. And, that is what appears to have been happening – the driver was (legally) told to get out of his car. Instead, he restarted his car and made to drive away. The officer (legally) reached into the car to turn it off. At that point, the driver apparently trapped or grabbed the officer’s hand. He then put the car into gear. He was not legally entitled to do that, but it might not have been a problem if he had not held onto or trapped the officer’s hand or arm. The police might not have been entitled to shoot him – except that he is starting to drive away in such a way that the officer will be dragged. And, that is where the source of the officer’s legal right came from – putting the car in gear, and potentially driving away in such a way that the officer would be dragged. That probably put the office in a reasonable fear of loss of life or great bodily injury. And, the fact that the officer was dragged in that way would seem to me to support his fear that being dragged by the car could potentially kill him or cause him great bodily injury.

That said, one thing that might change the result is if the officer could have let go of the keys and not been dragged. From what I saw, the driver was preventing that, but….

    Milhouse in reply to Bruce Hayden. | July 30, 2015 at 5:19 pm

    Normally, the police probably are not legally entitled to ask someone who had committed a minor traffic offense to step out of his car, absent something more.

    This is not correct.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Milhouse. | July 30, 2015 at 10:32 pm

      Thanks. Good catch.

      I didn’t find their analysis though as compelling towards the bottom, when they said that some of the situations that sound like requests are actually orders. This ignores the reason why police are trained to ask, and not tell, suspects to get out, etc, and that is partially in order to not start the arrest clock, with the necessity of giving a Miranda warning, etc. If the officers actually ask, and don’t order, then the actions of the suspect are voluntary, and, thus, no arrest.

      platypus in reply to Milhouse. | July 31, 2015 at 2:47 am

      Maybe. Under Mimms, the command to exit the car was made and Mimms complied. The issue on appeal was whether the order was valid and therefore whether the gun that was seen only after Mimms left the car should be suppressed.

      The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment rendered the order invalid an therefore the gun was illegally confiscated. The US Supreme Court reversed. What is important here is that Mimms made his claim based on the federal constitution. Had he made it under a state constitutional provision, he probably would have gone free and the US Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction to consider the matter since no federal question could have been presented.

      In WA state, our state constitution flat out prohibits (based on prior rulings) police from ordering someone out of a vehicle without a particularized basis. IOW, the cop must have a legal basis for what he orders the driver to do. Much tighter than the fed constitution.

    rokiloki in reply to Bruce Hayden. | July 30, 2015 at 5:25 pm

    Two things to add – the car was not registered to him (it was registered to a woman). So, in addition to the many violations you listed, the police had the obligation to confirm he had the right to be in that vehicle. For all the officer knew, the car could have been stolen.

    Second, self defense is permissible if the office reasonably thought he was in danger. He didn’t have to wait until after the car started moving. He could defense himself as soon as it became apparent he was about to be dragged. So the officer may have been entitled to shoot, in self defense, before DuBose started to drive away. The officer was not obligated to wait until after the vehicle started moving.

    Char Char Binks in reply to Bruce Hayden. | July 30, 2015 at 5:52 pm

    The cop would have been justified in shooting even if he hadn’t been dragged. DuBose was driving without a license, in a car that didn’t belong to him (making him a possible car thief), was driving with an open intoxicant, and was a DUI suspect with 7 or 8 prior convictions for that offense. Shooting a fleeing felon is lawful when that felon presents a danger to the public, as any drunk driver does.

      gravytop2 in reply to Char Char Binks. | July 30, 2015 at 6:30 pm

      An absurd analysis. I’ll give you one free hint: the cop didn’t even know his identity before he shot DuBose, so he would have had no reasonable belief that DuBose was “a DUI suspect with 7 or 8 prior convictions,” and thus no reason to believe DuBose was “a fleeing felon.” I’ll let you discover the other stupidities in your comment on your own.

        Char Char Binks in reply to gravytop2. | July 30, 2015 at 8:30 pm

        He didn’t know who DuB was because DuB didn’t provide ID as required by law, which is very suspicious, and itself a crime. DuB was also driving a car without a front plate, with an open bottle of gin, no doubt stinking of juniper, and was acting like he was obviously intoxicated, and pretty far gone at that, so yes, Tensing could reasonably assume DuB was a fleeing felon when he started the car and started to take off, the mere act of which made him a fleeing felon, even without all the rest.

        Barry in reply to gravytop2. | July 30, 2015 at 9:00 pm

        “so he would have had no reasonable belief that DuBose was “a DUI suspect with 7 or 8 prior convictions,” and thus no reason to believe DuBose was “a fleeing felon.””

        Wow, the stupid be powerful today.

        DuBose had a bottle of gin at his feet and acted drunk. So gee whiz, maybe the cop suspected he was a drunk DUI type since he also had no license or registration. He did not need to know anything about priors to come to that conclusion.

        I guess when the felon decided to flee with the cops arm still in the car that fleeing myth was busted as well. I really think that was a clue.

        For about the millionth time.

        No license
        No ID
        No registration
        can’t answer a direct question asked about 50 times
        Liquor bottle at his feet, now pulled out of the car
        Will not follow the direct command to get out of the car
        Starts the car
        grabs the cops arm

        But, no reason to suspect this dude was anything other than a fine upstanding citizen.

          Bruce Hayden in reply to Barry. | July 30, 2015 at 10:13 pm

          The problem here is that Char Char is not talking about the standard for arrest or requiring the driver to get out of the car, but rather, whether the officer could reasonably believe that the driver posed enough danger to the public that the officer would have been legally entitled in shooting him to protect the public. And for that, I think only the probability of DUI is really relevant there.

          gravytop2 in reply to Barry. | July 31, 2015 at 1:32 pm

          And which of those is a felony, Einstein?
          That’s right. None.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | July 31, 2015 at 8:16 pm

          Resisting arrest IS a felony in this case.

        platypus in reply to gravytop2. | July 31, 2015 at 3:02 am

        Hold on a second. If he gave his name to the cop but had no ID, the cop would have run his name anyway. The cop had a body cam; he most likely had one of those shoulder mikes clipped to an epaulet with an earpiece. So he could have ran his name and whatever came back would not be audible. It is possible that the cop knew he had a record which might explain why he reached in for the keys (he didn’t want this particular drunk driving away due to his record).

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Char Char Binks. | July 30, 2015 at 10:02 pm

      Not sure if we know at this point whether or not the driver was drunk at that time, or if the officer was justified in believing him to be drunk. Maybe, but we don’t really know enough. I am also not sure whether or not the police knew that the driver was a repeat DUI recipient, since the driver may not have identified himself (after all, be was driving w/o a license).

      The other part of this is the relevant standard. Supreme Court precedent is a floor, not a ceiling, on the state law in regards to using deadly force to prevent escape of a criminal. In the case of Wilson in MO, state law was that blasting someone running away from the cops was fine, and it was Supreme Ct case law that said that there had to be danger to the public. Not sure where the law is in OH – it could have a higher, not lower, standard for the police.

      And, I am not sure whetheran obvious DUI is sufficient danger to society to justify the use of deadly force to prevent escape of the DUI. Remember, we are talking statistics in many cases, with those who are slightly drunk only increasing the probability that they would injure someone only slightly (the statistical relationship between BAC and dangerousness is far from linear, which is why MADD statistics are so bogus).

        Other than CCB’s bit above no one is suggesting the officer shot the man to prevent him from harming the public.

        We are suggesting he shot him in self defense, after he tried to protect the public by detaining the man and asking him to step out of the car. certainly with good reason, pointed out over and over.

          Char Char Binks in reply to Barry. | August 2, 2015 at 6:26 pm

          I didn’t say Tensing shot because of the possible DUI. Certainly his own self preservation in the face of being dragged by a car was uppermost in his mind. I’m saying there would be other legal justifications for the shooting even if Tensing’s life hadn’t been in immediate danger, and there are many reasons I’m glad DuBose is dead.

        platypus in reply to Bruce Hayden. | July 31, 2015 at 3:08 am

        And everything you just wrote means that there is reasonable doubt that the prosecution cannot overcome since the cop does not have to testify. This makes the charge of murder untenable and I would say it should not have been filed at all. It lives until the first evidentiary hearing, at which point the murder charge dies. Maybe a lesser charge such as manslaughter but as long as there is reasonable doubt, the prosecutor should not file the charge.

I’m trying to figure out Tensing’s or Branca’s theory on how the officer either was dragged, or reasonably feared he was about to be dragged. Was his arm trapped in a partially closed window? Was it trapped in a door jamb? Was some part of his clothing somehow caught in the car? Other officers use the term “tangled up,” but that’s nicely nonspecific, and really kind of meaningless.

    rokiloki in reply to gravytop2. | July 30, 2015 at 6:58 pm

    The officer reached through the steering wheel in am attempt to turn off the ignition. DuBose grabbed his arm and revved the engine to drive off. Everything happens in under two seconds.

    The engine was running, the car was in drive, and DuBose was hitting the gas. When fractions of a second matter, how much longer should the officer have waited?

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to rokiloki. | July 30, 2015 at 8:17 pm

      Wait for it…wait for it….it’s coming…..”The officer should have shot his own arm off to untangle it rather than shoot an unarmed black man.”

        Char Char Binks in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | July 30, 2015 at 8:31 pm

        Perfect!

        I’m really wondering where the bottle of gin was this whole time? Did the cop put it on the roof of the car like they do lots of the time? Did he shove it into his back pocket? (okay that last one was rude) Seriously, what happened to the bottle?

          MarlaHughes in reply to platypus. | July 31, 2015 at 6:29 am

          The officer put it on the car roof. Lost track of it after that.

          platypus in reply to platypus. | July 31, 2015 at 7:02 pm

          Marla – that’s what I thought but it never slid off (no sound of breaking glass).

          I once drove 10 miles with my coffee cup sitting on the trailer hitch but that was not something I could duplicate on a bet.

      gravytop2 in reply to rokiloki. | July 31, 2015 at 1:34 pm

      If true, note that only an idiot would reach through a steering wheel like that. Of course, Tensing has already been shown to be rather underdeveloped in the brain region.

    Char Char Binks in reply to gravytop2. | August 2, 2015 at 6:58 pm

    I’m beginning to think that no part of Tensing’s body or clothing was trapped, hooked, or otherwise held onto by by the car, or by DuBose, at least not in the way people are looking for. When DuBose took off, and he did so before the shooting, he drove in a circular path, not straight forward, turning left to get away from the side of the street and around the silver car, and to brush off Tensing. I think Tensing’s torso was so close to the car that he was suddenly leaning on/in the car, with his left hand inside it, so he was effectively trapped and dragged that way, at least for a short time, as he was spun around and knocked on to the pavement. He was dragged for a very short time, but long enough to be in fear of death or great bodily harm.

Officer is out of jail. I imagine his family posted their property. Glad he is out.

Good deal. He’ll be acquitted. But it is a tough thing to go through.

Much of the commentary here focuses on the point in the timeline when Officer Tensing was “dragged” because that is what Tensing told another officer. I think most are missing the point. The question is “at what point (if any) did the suspect put the officer in fear of imminent harm?” I would focus on the moment before the shot, when the car is being revved up and DeBose’s actions indicate he is going to flee.

If I am representing Tensing, this is what I’m arguing to the jury: (Briefly)

“Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. The Judge will instruct you in a moment as to the law. If is the duty of the jurors to determine the facts of this case, and then to apply the law to the facts as the Judge will instruct you.

The judge will instruct you that the State has the burden of proof for every single element of the offense of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The State will have to prove that Officer Tensing shot Mr. DuBose without cause or justification. The lack of legal justification must be proven to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let me take a moment to review the video tape from Officer Tensing’s body cam. Listen to the car engine in the seconds before the shot was fired. The engine is clearly increasing rpms, which indicate that Mr. DuBose was accelerating the vehicle. Mr. DeBose was accelerating the vehicle while Officer Tensing’s arm was inside the vehicle. We know, based on the forensics and the testimony of witnesses that the vehicle was in drive, prior to the shot.

It is within the purview of this jury to determine Officer Tensing’s state of mind. It is also within the purview of this jury to determine, after weighing all of the relevant facts, whether the Officer’s actions were reasonable and justified.

The evidence shows that Officer Tensing’s actions were reasonable and lawful based on the facts of this case: Mr. DuBose refused a lawful command to take off his seat belt. Mr. DuBose purposefully accelerated the vehicle in an attempt to flee, all while Officer Tensing’s arm was inside the vehicle. Mr. DuBose refused the Officer’s command to stop the vehicle. In fact, DeBose did the opposite. DeBose began to flee while the Officer’s arm was inside the vehicle. Clearly, Officer Tensing was in fear of imminent harm when he shot Mr. DeBose. Therefore, I ask you, the members of the jury, to find Officer Tensing’s actions legally justified, and to return a not guilty verdict of Murder. Thanks you.”

I would not even mention the issue of Tensing being “dragged” because it occurred after the shot (or at the same time). Tensing’s justification for the shoot must be found prior to the shot, and the dragging issue overly complicates this issue.

    Ragspierre in reply to Redneck Law. | July 31, 2015 at 8:55 am

    I liked it.

    ElephantMemory in reply to Redneck Law. | July 31, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    Were I on that jury, I’d be saying “close, but no cigar.” I see a lot of legal hairsplitting and detailed analysis of the video in these comments, and in your argument. That is all well and good. The basic point that we should never lose site of however, is how and why a routine traffic stop elevated into lethal action so quickly. Yes, I belived the order by Tensing for Dubose to get out of the car was legal, given that probable cause for driving without a license existed, and possibly other offenses like not having proper insurance, registration, or operating under the influence. Yes, Mr. Dubose should have simply gotten out of the car. In a perfect world, he would have done so.

    Thing is, we don’t live in a perfect world. Mr. Dubose made an error in judgement. He got a bullet in the brain for that. Let that statement sink in for a minute.

    If I’m on that jury, I have to think, that’s a pretty damn short time interval between Dubose turning the key in the ignition to the shot ringing out. Tensing really concluded in that period of time that his life was at risk? Or, possibly, just possibly did he go into this encounter thinking to himself, “If this guy gives me any crap, I’m gonna shoot him.” From where I sit, it is a reasonable question. I would need to see incontrovertible forensic evidence that the officer was in fact, being dragged through the streets before I buy that argument.

    The larger question that both the jury and society must deal with is what we need to do in order to resolve these kinds of situations peacefully. Nobody wins in this situation regardless of whether Tensing is acquitted or convicted. Hamilton County will spend a boatload of time and money in court, and more money will probably go to the Dubose family. The seeds of distrust sown by this action will last for generations to come. Everybody loses, and people will keep getting shot in situations like this.

    I’m a former engineer. When designing systems, we would always think in terms of robustness, i.e. how does the designed system react to errors, and situations that are not ideal, and tolerate faults. We do not have a robust policing situation here in the United States. I don’t know if it genuinely getting worse or if more incidents are being noticed by the press. It doesn’t matter, it is unacceptable. It is possible to resolve these, and other even more dangerous situations peacefully. The UK police seem to have figured it out.

    http://www.break.com/video/skilled-uk-police-arrest-crazy-man-with-a-big-knife-2876679

    In the US, they would have expended every round of ammunition in the police armory on this guy.

    If you don’t think racism is an embedded component here, how is the weather on that planet you’re living on? Those who disagree with this statement, kindly explain to me how guys like Tamir Rice and John Crawford can get mowed down so quickly by cops (Crawford brandishing a deadly BB gun!) and a belligerent, heavily armed white guy like CJ Grisham down in Texas antagonizes a cop while refusing to comply with his order, and gets a free pass? For those carrying the water of Dubose should have just gotten out of the car, kindly explain to me the rational used by Sean Groubert to shoot Levar Jones in South Carolina. In a similar kind of traffic stop, Groubert ordered Jones to produce his drivers license, which is what Jones was trying to do when Groubert opened fire.

    Sorry folks, the system stinks to high heaven. Officer Tensing is on thin ice here. Personally, I think he will skate on it, thanks to endless paralysis by analysis of the kind we see here, but it doesn’t mean that our civil rights are not in serious danger from the very people sworn to protect them.

      rokiloki in reply to ElephantMemory. | July 31, 2015 at 6:23 pm

      Well, thank goodness you won’t be on the jury or Tensing would not get a fair trial. You typed:

      “I would need to see incontrovertible forensic evidence that the officer was in fact, being dragged through the streets before I buy that argument.”

      This means you would ignore self-defense laws. Self-defense does not require one to experience an attack. It only requires that one has a reasonable belief of imminent attack.

      You acknowledged everything that transpired took place in a very short interval. But you only accept that two things happened in that short span, 1) the ignition being turned on and 2) the shot fired.

      Let me add, that in that short span of time several other things happened:

      1) The ignition was turned on.

      2) The car was shifted into gear.

      3) Tensing attempted to turn the ignition off.

      4) DuBose physically grabbed Tensing’s arm.

      5) Tensing struggled with DuBose, ordering him to stop – TWICE.

      6) DuBose stepped on the gas (the engine revs before the shot)

      7) Then the shot was fired.

      When a person considers all these events, in the span of a couple of seconds, it is clear that Tensing had a reasonable fear that he was about to be dragged. Again, self-defense does not require Tensing to actually get dragged before he can respond, but only requires a reasonable belief that it is about to happen.

      Again, thank goodness you won’t be on the jury.

        Ragspierre in reply to rokiloki. | July 31, 2015 at 6:45 pm

        Yeeeeeup.

        Good points. Let me say again that the officer does not have to be “dragged” in order for him to have a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm.

        Why else would a suspect rev a car engine if he was not going to flee? (With the officer’s arm still inside the vehicle.)

      platypus in reply to ElephantMemory. | July 31, 2015 at 7:08 pm

      You should have stopped at your first sentence. Close but no cigar = not guilty. (it’s that pesky reasonable doubt thingy)

      As I stated before I know how this will end.Study American history and you’ll know what’s coming.

      Now if you want to see the true meaning of hypocrisy. Read every LI article on Walker/Harvey. You will see how a racist drunken criminal who was killed in the commission of a crime,becomes a martyr,simply because he’s white and the cop who shot him was Black. It’s as if Harvey had the right to threaten Walker,chase him down in criminal road rage. I’d love to have someone cite a Maryland law which allowed Harvey to do the things I mentioned.

      “I’m a former engineer.”

      If your engineering is on par with your analysis, I understand why.

      “Thing is, we don’t live in a perfect world. Mr. Dubose made an error in judgement. He got a bullet in the brain for that. Let that statement sink in for a minute.”

      OK, a minute is up. That’s about 58 seconds more than the officer had to make a decision that may have saved his life or kept him from grievous harm.

      He didn’t get a bullet in the brain for an “error in judgment”. He got it because he threatened another human beings life and the threatened fought back.

      I’m a current engineer.

And if I recall correctly, the standard of proof required for the Officer is “Preponderance of the Evidence.

    I believe you are confusing the burden of proof in a civil damages case (preponderance) with the burden of proof in a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt).

    I have stated before that the difference in the level of this burden could allow a criminal jury to acquit Officer Tensing and a civil jury to find for damages for “negligence” or some other such tort. (See OJ Simpson)

    Ragspierre in reply to Marcus. | July 31, 2015 at 8:05 pm

    2901.05 Burden of proof – reasonable doubt – self-defense.

    (A) Every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof for all elements of the offense is upon the prosecution. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused.

    And Andrew has provided this mind-twister…

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/that-odd-duck-ohio-self-defense-as-an-affirmative-defense-kind-of/

      Good catch, Rags. Marcus is correct if he adds “Ohio is the only state that requires an affirmative defense in a criminal case to be proven to the jury by a preponderance of the evidence.” Examples of an “Affirmative Defense” shown in Rags’ link to Andrew:

      Necessity
      Coercion
      Entrapment
      Insanity
      Intoxication

FOP filed in court demanding the officer be given his job back since his firing violates his contract, i.e., he’s entitled to a due process hearing. They are right.

    platypus in reply to coplon. | July 31, 2015 at 7:11 pm

    Shut up. We have a meme going here and you’re gonna screw it up with this due process crap.

Hate to poke a hole in one of your assessments. But where you talk about the truck in the back ground being in the same position is wrong. The angle of the camera changed from the first screen shot to the second. In the first screen shot the camera is basically pointing straight across the car so you can see what is on the sidewalk directly to the right of Dubos car. In the second screen shot the camera is pointing almost threw the back window and you can now see cars behind Dubose’s car. The truck is still in the shot of the second screenshot. Only way for that to happen is for the car to have been moved forward so that the cars behind Dubos and the truck are now both visible in the same shot.

Phillep Harding | July 31, 2015 at 5:15 pm

The post on the hinge side of DuBose’s passenger’s door hides the passenger side headlight of the truck in the background in the first photo, but headlight is visable in the second. DuBose’s car had to have moved.

TrojanWarrior | July 31, 2015 at 5:24 pm

This video: https://youtu.be/wj8o4Je9v3w Uses screen grabs from the bodycam to put geographic landmarks and the time stamps together to show how things moved. In short, The prosecution alleges that Tensing moved almost 20 feet, backwards, from a standing start in one second (13 MPH), while falling. That’s the only way to believe that the car wasn’t moving.

Just saw another video on Tensing on and need.com . You see a pattern. Backgrounds matter.

    Ragspierre in reply to m1. | July 31, 2015 at 8:40 pm

    If you insist on posting moronic crap here, you have a duty to learn to type intelligibly.

    Phillep Harding in reply to m1. | August 2, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    Yes, background matters. In your case, you have a history of posting absurdities in hopes of getting people upset.

    Say “good night” Gracie.

    Char Char Binks in reply to m1. | August 2, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    Is that the video of the two dindunuffins mau-mauing Tensing, complaining about getting pulled over for dragging a bumper on the pavement while black, refusing a lawful order to exit the car, asking Tensing for his name and then talking over him, complaining about him not answering, while he tried to answer? He didn’t shoot them, which is what I would have done, so what’s your point?

7:06 truck is near the front of the window, the left side of the image, Sam is leaning forward.

16:13 truck is near the rear of the window, Sam is leaning all the way back in his seat.

The car was moving. Cars don’t instantly start moving, some portion of a second elapses between putting it in drive and pressing on the accelerator.

Threat existed and escalated from the moment the car was started prior to the two commands to stop, all prior to the shot.

    rokiloki in reply to MikadoCat. | August 1, 2015 at 9:07 am

    Good eye. I just noticed that myself.

    Also, in the same images, the fence post position indicates the vehicle is moving.

Conservative Tree house has a thread that has stills that tend to show he was dragged Based on the silver car he falls off car and it is more than half way up to the car Either the car was moving or when it accelerated .If he was thrown halfway up there

Andrew, your own screen caps from the slow motion video appear to show the vehicle moving at the time of the gunshot.

At 7:06, the truck in the background is even with the front of the passenger door.

But at 16:13, when the shot is fired, even though the body cam angle has shifted more toward the rear of the car, the truck is still visible only now it is more toward the rear of the passenger door window.

Also, the fence indicates the vehicle has moved. In the first screen cap, DuBose is leaning forward but you can still just barely see the fence post.

In the second screen cap, DuBose is leaning back in the seat, and the fence post is still barely seen. So there is some forward movement of the vehicle.

Thanks for laying out the fact issues Andrew. LEO’s are at risk of being run over, stabbed, beaten, shot, bitten, spit on and verbally abused every day. Apparently society is deciding to instantly blame the officer every time a stopped person of color escalates in defiance. If we want to recruit and hold effective police, we need to respectfully give LEO’s a presumption of innocence while the evidence is gathered and adjudicated.

Please view whole video you are making the mistake police did. I have been trying to tell people to that it is so simple At beginning of video there is car at top of hill car and it’s in the footage right when he falls and gets up .It is the second car 60 degrees 10 or 15 feet away he begins to run he takes 4 or 5 steps and passes rear he probably landed 15 feet over towards the left side and five feet behind. The silver car He was pulled up to a place about five feet behind the silver car on the left hand side he run ,5 or 6 steps and passes a car that is easily 20 yards from beginning of the traffic stop. I have asked so many how did he get from the bottom where original stop in like 5 or 6 steps

    Marcus in reply to dmi60ex. | August 2, 2015 at 1:48 pm

    dmi60ex, I would have found your post more helpful (or not) if you had been able to construct an intelligible ENGLISH paragraph.

In June 2015,ARMED white Ohio teen couple Rose May and Tristan Kindle went on a multi state crime spree. These criminals robbed people,stole money,committed property damage even dragged a cop who responded to their crimes. When their crime spree was over ,in spite of all of their crimes including injuring a cop. No LEO felt the need to shoot them to death. No LEO felt the need to shoot them 137 times. Sam Dubose,Tamir Rice,John Crawford,Malissa Williams and Timothy Russell.

ScienceMadeEasy | August 2, 2015 at 1:14 pm

Check out this video analysis, It breaks everything down really well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-uUzpkg5Lk

Really all we need to do is count. The man takes 23 ,steps from Sam’s car to car on hill. Tensing gets up walks in and can almost spit on the silver car.He passes car in 3 steps,I already left message on Tensing s lawyers box but that probably don’t mean nothing. Poster Dissymisl at Cth did a breakdown of shots from start of tussel to first sight of silver car.It is in comment section 5pm ish Friday” ,The Silence of the Lambs story.It really illuminates movement of car Tried to post a comment on it here Friday but no luck

Sorry my post on Friday .I was having phone problems and was trying explain how Tensing ended closer to the silver car by angles and was having phone problems. Basically he was about halfway between Sam’s original spot and the silver car and he was on the opposite side of the road When Tensing spun around and view second car (not one in drive you can tell he is on opposite side of road than he was originally and the silver car was slight less than 45 degrees angle. The previous post mentioned when the guy posted it said “And I thought he was guilty.Tensing probably land Halfway between both cars and I’m other side of road

Sorry still issues with phone Better to see CTH post seeing is believing

    Sharpshooter in reply to dmi60ex. | August 3, 2015 at 5:04 am

    Better yet is writing coherent English. Your’s is completely INCOHERENT.

    Go play “Investigator” somewhere else.

I wonder if any of the Cincinnati investigators thought to go out and check out the driveway with the fence and silver car that was right where he landed. I would think that might be called a clue. And I wonder with the New info coming out how long will they stall dropping charges.I would imagine long enough for The Huff Post piece BLACKS AND THE WHITE PERCEPTION OF GIN

In other news a Cincinatti man has filed suit for the first walking discrimination . A unidentified man claims that he had to walk 22 steps from Sam Dubose’s car to the silver car 50 feet ahead . He claims that there is certified video that distinctly shows that a priviledge white cop only had to walk three steps . He also stated that he heard in the hood that the cop forced Sam to drive him there at gunpoint . The Da says he objects to charge . It was clearly 4 steps

I’d say Mr chickencrap got some “splaining to do”

Sharpshooter I did say I was have phone issues , I could not get post to edit and I was typing in a little 1/2 inch by 1/2 inch box ,That makes it rather difficult to see and proofread. I was trying to get the emphasis on the question of whether the car was moving by emphasizing that we needed to get visual clues , not while he was moving but from the point , he was dropped off . In that situation you have much wider view to determine landmarks . The most obvious was the silver car . I called Cincy PD on Thurs Night ?wed? . He poo pood it, but I notice they were already in damage control , they officially cleared other officers Saturday ,so they would not have did that so soon, with all the fuss that has been made about that . I couldn’t have been the only person to notice that it was so obvious. Not upset or anything i knew it was a show . I have no internet availabilty in my area ( ever these days there are dark corners of the world ) . My phone is not even that relaible . One of the last landline babies This my work comp got to go

I believe the linked video demonstrates that Tensing acted reasonably and faced an imminent threat of grave injury.

The video shows:
[1] The car was stopped.
[2] Tensing’s arm was inside the car.
[3] The driver accelerated for approximately 1 second prior to being shot.
[4] In the span of 2 seconds the car accelerated and dragged Tensing approximately 15 feet down the street.

Critically, the car was accelerating and could have dragged Tensing at a far greater speed had he hesitated for even a second. News reports say that the driver’s car was a 1998 Honda Accord. This model of car is capable of accelerating from 0 to 60 mph in under 8 seconds. Given that the driver was physically resisting the officer and could have dragged the officer at high speed, it seems to me that Tensing faced a severe, imminent threat and acted reasonably.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB8k3XVjZPw&feature=youtu.be

    Lt.Anger34 in reply to nebel. | August 5, 2015 at 6:32 pm

    Cops have a motto.That says “id rather be judged by 12,then carried by 6..Everything mr duboise did would make me nervous.He reaches in his glove compartment seemingly to get his i.d.Then to me it literally looks like he was looking for his gun/.I dont know cause as with typical american blacks they dont speak english.

    Duboise bio
    1) 12 kids / 4 are still in dispute

    2)is on welfare/of course

    3)convicted crack dealer

    4)been convicted of gun charges twice

    Shooting was totally justified if you look when he tries to grab his keys between the steering wheel theres a gap where his hand got stuck when he started to flee.

    Before he could officer tensing in which is great cop work left brain and fro matter all over his car matching what gang hes in the bloods.He died of natural causes,natural causes of what kind of work he was in,to quote no country for old men.

    Il keep you in my prayers p/o tensing this will all be over soon,your innocent/

I think he was going for the guardrail to brush him off the car that is why he he was on the the left hand side . Tensings a better man than me I would popped him sooner ,next time ,he should say this car is going way to fast and if he doesn’t say something smart aleky Like we ain’t went yet bro, then just pop him

I wonder if body cams have gps tracker?

I wonder if you can take your amateurish CSI bullshite somewhere else, dmi60ex

Look at the video .The silver car is 50 feet up the hill.When Tensing stands up and turns around it is right there .He takes about 6 steps as soon as he runs he passes car .That is irrefutable fact evidence that he had to be dragged. Cincy PD I notified Thur.Evidence of damage control.They dropped investigation of other cops and not one Activist on cnn screaming about it.I was being facetious in previous post

Now we know why DuBose chose to scoot: two pounds of marijuana found in his car — http://m.wlwt.com/news/source-2-bags-of-marijuana-in-duboses-car-at-time-of-fatal-shooting/34533640.

    Char Char Binks in reply to Skookum. | August 5, 2015 at 4:47 pm

    That doesn’t matter. He had air freshener that some racist people thought was alcohol, so he was unjustly stopped.

I think it doesn’t matter if the car moved or didn’t moved and it doesn’t matter if the driver was black or white. There was no deathly threat to the police officer. To me, the core of this issue is the general excessiveness of police officer’s reaction: we’re talking about a shot in the head of someone (maybe) trying to flee.

    Lt.Anger34 in reply to johnPt. | August 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm

    It does’nt matter whether his hand was caught in the steering wheel and was about to be dragged to his death.Ok where off to see the wizared,the wonderfull wizard of oz !!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend