your on the wrong thread... this thread is about a drunk driver that didn't have a drivers license, that couldn't follow the police orders...

Since when did " non compliance" become a American thing? Try it in ANY country on the earth and see what happens.

Your quite right.
No system is perfect. Our cops do the best that they can with who they HAVE to deal with.

I'm gonna call this, a case of
'Natural Selection'.

This "tragic" chain of events started,
when the non-victim, got behind the
wheel of a car, after drinking, and
with no drivers license.
... Being black, doesn't excuse anyone
from obeying laws that exist for
everyone.

The chain of events, continued when the
non-victim, drove erratically enough,
to attract the attention of law
enforcement.

The chain of events, continued, when
the law enforcement officer, spotted
The partial bottle of booze (open
container).
Being black, doesn't excuse anyone from
obeying laws that apply to everyone.

The chain of events, continued, when
the non-victim willfully refused to
obey the lawful commands, of the law
enforcement officer.
Being black, doesn't excuse anyone,
from obeying the laws that apply to
everyone.

The chain of events drew to a
conclusion, when the non-victim,
willfully tried to flee.
Again, being black, doesn't excuse
anyone from obeying laws made for
everyone.

When the non-victim, got behind the
wheel of a car after drinking, he knew
The risks he was taking.

When the non-victim, willfully refused
to obey commands given by the cop, he
knew the risks he was taking.

When the non-victim willfully decided
to flee, he knew he was playing Russian
Roulette. The non-victim lost.

Natural Selection.


Being black, isn't an excuse.

That pretty well sums it up.

yes it does,,
thank you rock,,couldnt have said it better!!

It is not an excuse, it's a cause.
I saw more of the video today including the fake 'Hey buddy how ya doin' from tensing.

I couldn't see anything in the car and have not heard about a liquor bottle or suspicion of drunkenness. What I did notice was Dubose' natural reaction, not violent, of GENTLY pulling the door closed. All speech before this point by both parties was normal volume and inflection. I remember a Set of laws called the Miranda laws that apply to everyone in the U.S. Tensing after the visible slight natural muscular reaction of anyone in fear of their safety then for NO REASON yells STOP STOP! Bang. THEN the car moves. Dubose didn't even put his hands up or attempt to duck or weave away from the gun he likely never saw. The last motion before the shot by Dubose was away from the ignition area because he was asked to remove his seatbelt. He might have actually run over someone if he had removed his seatbelt and been taken out of the car. Atno time during what was showed of the video(s) was he asked to take the car out of gear, turn off the engine, or whether he was drinking or had any weapons. He might have been intoxicated, he might have just had an empty container in the car which is very easy to plant.
Driving without a license on your person might be a moving violation, no front license plate, moving violation, both minor. Tensing did go to the ground on his butt but if he drew and fired his sidearm which we all know he did that takes at the least one hand. If his other hand was on the door handle all he had to do was let go.
Last time I checked door handles don't run people over.
I'd like to see forensic analysis of car and the gun to see if it was inside or outside the window when the solitary fatal shot was fired.
I wonder why tensing or his partner did not attempt to blow out the tires with additional rounds if 'he almost ran him over'? Could it be because they both knew that he was already dead?

again, wrong post... do you guys not read either?

um, actually

this thread was about a man who wrecked because he had a stroke, and police tased and maced him IMMMEDIATELY after they gave an instruction that he didnt 'comply' with

non compliance,, is all thats needed for such tactics,, even when it only means you didnt comply fast enough,,,and I think thats BS

jmho


the 'if you only listen' philosophy makes little sense unless people refuse to actually use logic to match the consequence with the action

I may tell my son he has to take out the trash,, but the fact that he didnt 'listen' would be no excuse for me to shoot him,,,


seriously,,,

Mea Culpa I was


That man should not have been tazed or pepper sprayed in harmonys video, I feel sorry for the situation, he wasn't in control of himself suffering from a stroke. How can you prevent this from happening? he's driving recklessly and then can't seem to obey an order to exit the car.
Things escalated quickly, i agree, cop went into thug busting mode.

seriously, the cop thought he was drunk, and it never said when the stroke happened...
your not a cop either, your life is never in danger... bad example, you know your son doesn't want to kill you, cops don't have that luxury... and no one was shot in that video...

better training, this wasnt a case of someone being combative, this was someone BARELY moving,, the potential that they are HURT, should cross someones mind,,,

No, actually I read quite well. This thread is about 'non-compliance' and where in the realm of illegality it should be categorized. There are long standing legal definitions of murder, attempted murder, assault, and resisting arrest that are still questioned in certain cases. This is why we have an appeals process, State and Federal Supreme Courts. Sam Dubose' gently inching his door secure is allegedly non-compliance since the officer gave him an order that did not match with the action of the officer. He was told to remove his seat belt. He was not told to step out of his car. Since Dubose' reaction technically opposed that of the officer even though it was not warranted announced or ordered that he would be arrested, given a sobriety test, or leave a car unattended in gear with himself the officer and who knows what else at risk, it is logical and relevant to reference this incident in this thread.

when it happened doesnt matter, this man was BARELY moving when the cop got there, he was NON RESPONSIVE to anything, verbally or physically,

the cop was to the SIDE of the car which was blocked in,, what was the DANGER?



a cop that feels in danger that easily should probably not be a cop

I am not a cop, for good reason

but he is,, and shouldnt be

get it

R.I.P. Eric Garner. Also barely moving and pleading for his life.

It all comes down to fear, they're scared to death, they're angry and use excessive force because they're scared out of their wits. you can tell in that video, no amount of training will remove that in every situation, it's a complicated thing and it's spiraling.

it's not easy this fear against fear.

perhaps it wont spiral too far before it is addressed,,,

What fear exactly (big picture)? Eric Garner? Tamir Rice? Sandra Bland? Sam Dubose?
Selling single cigarettes surrounded by how many officers including the one who held an illegal choke hold on him while he begged for his life? A child in a playground with a toy gun? A woman who forgot to signal a lane change and was upset about the level of force used against her? A father of ten with no FRONT license plate who didn't have his drivers license on him?
Michael Brown was 'combative' but still an unarmed TEENAGER.
All 5 of them were unarmed as was the man in Baltimore who's name escapes me at the moment. Forgive me Maryland. (now I remember, Freddie Gray)
There are many many more such cases but in such rapid succession all over America.
Police, all police, have sidearms LOADED, tazers, stun guns, clubs, pepper spray AND a radio that can call in anything from K-9 units. backup, helicopters, armored personel carries with riot squads tear gas water cannons and possibly even the National Guard. THESE people were unarmed.
I'm not saying that all were completly innocent, some had committed actual crimes. That's why the police carry radios dashcams handcuffs and non lethal protection IF NECESSARY. One of the 7 cases mentioned required escalation to non lethal force. ONE.
So with all the protection and reinforcements the police have what is there to fear in the 6 non escalatory cases mentioned above? Who is going to come to an unknown location and shoot it out with the police?
NO ONE. Civilians don't even have the means to gather organize and meet the force and firepower the police have at any given moment as someone is being beaten, dragged, mauled, tazed, maced, clubbed, shot, or whatever the officer decides to do to their pray.
All police are not bad, and I have been in situations where I could have used lethal force when I didn't even understand the language of the people. If the police are lacking that much confidence that they have to kill unarmed compliant suspects they need to turn over their badges and guns and do something else. I could have said worse but the point I'm trying to make is these are HUMAN BEINGS that were MURDERED. They had families. They had futures, maybe not Presidential or Papal but they deserved to live. They deserved due process and if necessary a trial or traffic violation, a ticket, a warning. They did not deserve to die.

The fear is deep rooted IMO, behind every street sign there's a probable chance of some crack dealer/thug that's just as heavily armed having no problem punching a few holes in anyone, especially cops.

Your argument is valid 1981, no one deserves to get shot by mistake but consider the daily dangers that lurk in the shadows of the innocent, blending into the population like insurgents... they have a tough job mentally, don't discount that, mistakes are going to happen if people don't comply with peace officers or soldiers in the field.
Some are just so focused (no names mentioned) on racism being the only factor in these unfortunate accidents that it distorts proper discussions.

It doesn't matter, both cases involve white kops Black person, same premise.