OH. cop indicted for murder in the shooting of Samuel Dubose

@sophia89:

The man was driving without a license on him, this is a minor offense. He then flees. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very apparent in Tennesse V. Garner (1985) that "Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

A man driving away at low speeds does not constitute a reasonable significant threat to anyone there. Shooting a man is not justified by the law in such an occasion.

Furthermore if he was trying to avoid people getting hurt how does shooting the man make any sense? Because he was shot in the head and instantly killed the victim slumped forward and hit the gas causing the car to accelerate uncontrollably until it jumped the sidewalk. This was an easily foreseeable consequence of shooting him. The officer CREATED a more dangerous situation and thank God there was no one in the vehicle's path. This officer was unbelievably inept and showed complete disregard for human life.

If the prosecution does their job right, this individual should be found guilty of second degree murder.

Actually watched a few more times and a couple things are made clear.

1. The cop blatantly broke with procedure by trying to open the mans door and reaching in his car. This is against all police training I have ever seen. What is more he was an aggressor and never properly explained what was going on he just started opening the guys door. It is not surprising the victim percieved this as threatening. Completely unprofessional.

2. The car did not move until after the officer drew his gun.

3. He was NOT dragged like he claimed.

@pooty:

"If the cop can prove he feared for his life then it's not murder"

Does this bother anyone else? All a cop has to do is prove he was scared in order for him/her to get away with killing you? Could you imagine how dangerous the world would be if that logic extended to every citizen?

@sog7dc: It's already happened. That was all it took for Trayvon Martin's killer to get away with murder.

That's not the law. The law is that the cop has to prove he had a reasonable fear for his life. That's why George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson got off, the evidence showed they'd been attacked.

@sog7dc: The cop can't kill because he was scared. He has to prove his life was in danger. But that is true of ANY citizen. Not just cops

@pooty:

I'm confused, then. What did you mean by this:

"A cop only has to BELIEVE that the person poses a threat. The cop doesn't have to KNOW that the suspect is a threat. He only has to BELIEVE it. "

@sophia89:

“A drunk driver is a danger to others, and the cop had gotten a bottle of gin from the driver.”

Police officers have never had permission to cap someone for driving drunk.

“The driver tried to escape a cop, may have been DUI, had no DL nor anything to proof ownership of the car.”

None of this refutes Lunacyde’s point that the suspect offered no significant threat.

“The cop had no guarantee that the driver was going to go 5 MPH or 70 MPH. All he knew is the car began accelerating.”

The cop had no guarantee that the man wasn’t carrying a biochemical plague. Perhaps he should have set fire to the car just to be on the safe side.

“He already started moving before the cop fired.”

This is true.

“Cars only accelerate if you apply pressure on the gas pedal, unless the cop placed the driver's foot on the gas pedal before firing the driver was already applying pressure.”

It is possible that his foot could have fallen on the accelerator after being shot or he could have hit it through involuntary spasms, but if you watch the video, it is quite clear he accelerates before the shot.

“And as you saw the driver had already started the car and started moving before the cop fired.”

Yep.

“The driver is the one that created the situation. Why did he flee from the cop?

“The cop wasn't being aggressive there was no reason to flee.”

The shooting victim was clearly in the wrong for fleeing, but since he did not pose any threat to the cop’s life, the killing is not justified.

“And had he done nothing he would still be called inept.”

That’s true, but there are things he could have done, specifically, pursuing and calling in backup, which would have been reasonable. It’s not like the only option was shoot or let him get away.

The standard for justifiable homicide isn't fearing for your life. (if that were the standard, then a paranoid schizophrenic would have carte blanche to kill anyone) The standard is having a credible threat upon your life. If the officer had a legitimate reason to think his life was endangered, then he could use lethal force, and that same standard should apply to everyone, but the victim in this case did nothing to indicate violent intent, so the officer is in the wrong.

Having someone beating your head against the ground is a credible threat.

I came out saying that cop is in the wrong, and I stand by that, but after watching the video several times, it is clear the cop was taken ten to fifteen feet down the road by the car.

Look at the car in front of the suspect's video before it accelerates and look at it again when the cop gets up off the ground. The cop was way closer after the shot.

It seems that the cop was trying to hold on to the vehicle though, so I don't think it counted as a threat to his life. He wasn't being dragged against his will. He appeared to be holding on, and he chose to let go as soon as he fired the shot though it's hard to tell.

absolutely disagree, its kinda sad we have to appease criminals. they should find him guilty/non-guilty based on nothing but the law. if found non-guilty they should bring in the national guard and tell them there is only one warning. enough with these riots, my friends go to college in downtown cinci and one was almost mugged, there are robberies all the time commited by the locals.

If a cop is chasing a suspect who just shot someone. While in pursuit the suspect pulls something out of his coat. The cop shoots him believing the suspect is gonna shoot him. The cop finds out the suspect was grabbing the gun to throw away the evidence. Did the cop have a right to shoot him?

I agree with RPG. If it were my father, son, brother etc. I wouldn't want him to be found guilty to appease society. Find him guilty based on facts not a cities reaction.

Oh okay I see what you mean, now.

@sophia89:

George Zimmermman is now homeless terrified of going in public areas and is badly in debt. Despite him being found not guilty.

Last I heard of Darren Wilson someone posted his address and threats to kill him and he had to take his wife and run away.

Zimmerman is an idiot. He got in trouble with the law a few times after the Trayvon case. Darren Wilson still has his wife. They may have been forced to move but it's still better then being found guilty of murder and spending the rest of your life in jail. If the people in Cincinnati want to destroy their own community let them.

@sophia89: The black community will attack the town? Okay.

Also, I am not completely sure...if you understand the point of the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

Tell me, what are your thoughts on racial issues?

@sophia89: Oh yeah, I forgot. Me and my friends pretty much tore this place up when Trayvon died (I live in Florida). I mean, that's what we're known for, I guess.....along with being lazy, dumb, crime, etc. I guess cops, especially the white ones, are blithering racists, too.

And I don't get that quote....

Any issue. Anything regarding black people. I ask because it's like you don't hold black people with much regard in any thread.

I just don't understand why people hate when others generalize white people and cops, but generalizing blacks is fair game. It's literally astonishing.

I mean, this is literally the stuff you would hear on Fox, soph.

@sophia89: so you would rather be labeled a racist murderer and going to jail for life rather then having lawyer fees and having to relocate?

As much as I hate cops, the media is picking complete BS stories of police abuse. This is sad, because there are PLENTY of stories of true police abuse for them to choose from. But they are more interested in race baiting than they are in stopping police abuse. Its hard to find good police abuse stories that only involve white cops and black citizens. And if they started reporting all the police abuse cases that happened to Asians, Whites, or Latinos, then they couldn't pander to black people and play the "blacks have it so hard" card every chance they get.

This looks like its self defense. One thing I learned in driving class, cars ARE considered lethal weapons. If the cop was dragged by the car, it would be the exact same as if the cop was being shot at. Police can use lethal force against someone using a car as a weapon.

@sophia89

Your entire post missed my point. Blaming the black community of the area as if it is expected is pretty much saying that destruction should be expected from us as a race. You don't need to say "every single black person ever", especially for it to come off as racist (not saying you are, just to be clear, because i dont know you). If that's the case, should I isolate myself from white people for fear of racism and bigotry (that was rhetorical)?

I mean, it just gets hard for me to trust white people because, in my experience, many white people hold similar views that you do and, because of it, never really take the chance to know me. I am not sure whether discrimination is in human nature or if this is just some cultural thing that I cannot change...but I digress. That is not really my or your concern. My point was just real concern over your perception of the black community, as if we are just savages.

Does that mean that there weren't dumb riots over the past few years? No, but implying that it is expected for the black community in the area will cause havoc and destruction has obvious implications.

It's like a feminist from tumblr implying that rape should be cautioned/expected from men and, when I object (as I naturally do), then they reply: "Oh, so most rapist's aren't male and most victims women???"

And believe me, I've met idiots like that. Hopefully, you understand what I am trying to say in all of this.

---------------------

EDIT: Oh yeah, and no, not a single black person that I even know rioted here in Florida. That doesn't mean that there wasnt a riot somewhere , but....you know. My community (and every surrounding community, which are predominantly black) did not riot. Hardly anyone did. People were upset, but no destruction. Just saying that the vast majority of Floridians didn't riot the same way that the vast majority of sports fans don't riot, especially the black communiyy. But this, again, is not really the main point.)

@sophia89:

3. This one is def wrong, you can use the car in front and in the back of him(Before the incident)as a measure to see if he was dragged or not.

The cop was never dragged. He claimed his arm was stuck in the steering wheel and he was dragged. This is plainly not true and proven false by the video. At the point where he fired the gun his non-gun arm was holding the victim by the shirt (not stuck in the steering wheel as he claimed). If he fired upon the victim because he was "being dragged" how could he have a gun in one hand and clearly be holding onto the victim's shirt in the chest area with the other hand? What is he being "dragged" by?

This one is a bit questionable, it looks like the car was moving or beginning to move as the cop drew his gun.

Cop hasn't drawn his gun yet, you can see from the window that their is a car in the drive way.

Cop draws his gun and you can see the car in the drive way.

Cop hadn't fired his gun yet BTW, and as you can see the car was moving.

Next use the car that was parked ahead of them as a measuring tool to see if the cop was dragged or not.

The guy panicked when he saw the cop going for his gun and that is when he actually starts moving forward. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for the officer to pull his gun in that situation. He clearly was not being dragged at that point and the man was no danger to others.

A drunk driver is a danger to others, and the cop had gotten a bottle of gin from the driver.

The driver tried to escape a cop, may have been DUI, had no DL nor anything to proof ownership of the car.

There was ZERO evidence to suggest he was a drunk driver. He was not showing any signs of intoxication which police are trained to spot. The bottle of gin was clearly unopened. An unopened bottle of gin is neither a crime, nor probable cause to believe someone who is exhibiting no signs of intoxication is drunk. Furthermore the victim told the cop his name and told him to run his name. I have personally been caught driving without a license on me and after I gave the cop my personal information all he said was that I would have to bring my license by the station within a week or I would be fined. The way the cop handled this stop was inexcusable.

The cop had no guarantee that the driver was going to go 5 MPH or 70 MPH. All he knew is the car began accelerating.

So logically he shot the driver in the head causing the car to accelerate out of control. That seems like a solid strategy. The victim didn't peel out or slam on the accelerator, and he didn't even start driving away (at an extremely low speed) until the officer became aggressive and pulled a gun on him. In no way was the officer right in what he did.

He already started moving before the cop fired.

He started moving when the cop became aggressive suddenly and then pulled a gun out on him. The cop was not caught as the video shows, he could have gotten away at any time and did not need to shoot the victim directly to the back of the head.

Cars only accelerate if you apply pressure on the gas pedal, unless the cop placed the driver's foot on the gas pedal before firing the driver was already applying pressure.

And as you saw the driver had already started the car and started moving before the cop fired.

This doesn't matter, it still doesn't justify him shooting a man at point blank range. It doesn't justify the one sided escalation of the situation of the cop where the man never intended to harm him. The man was clearly in fear of the cop. He turned on the ignition and put it in drive at which point the cop pulled his gun on the man and the man panicked and started moving forward slowly. At this point the officer reaches in grabs the victim by the shirt, shoots him in the back of the head, and then falls backwards. The dead mans weight pushes onto the gas pedal harder as his body slumps forward causing the car to accelerate after the gunshot. No matter how you try to spin it the cop was not justified in taking the man's life.

The driver is the one that created the situation. Why did he flee from the cop?

The cop wasn't being aggressive there was no reason to flee.

Because the cop was unprofessional and the victim was afraid. The cop created the situation by his poor conduct. The victim could have handled it better sure, but nothing he did was worthy of the kind of execution he received from this cop. The cop was being aggressive. Standard procedure is to ask the person to get out of their vehicle. Instead he makes a sudden move for the door and then instead of de-escalating the situation he reaches in the man's car and grabs him while drawing his firearm. And I must say this again for emphasis because you seem to have comprehension problems, a fleeing suspect does not automatically give the police the authority to use lethal force, especially when the only probable cause was for a minor traffic violation.

And had he done nothing he would still be called inept.

If he had done nothing this wouldn't be a news story, and none of us would have ever heard of it. Besides you act like murdering someone and being called inept is somehow equal to not murdering someone and being called inept. I'll err on the side of not murdering someone any day.

@lunacyde: As usual, amazing post, mate. :)

This was not self-defense by any stretch of the imagination. You must have no clue what the legal definition of self-defense is.

I agree with you mostly. If you watch the video in slow motion you will see the officer grab the victim's shirt with one hand while holding his gun in the other immediately before he fires the weapon. If his arm was caught as he said this would be impossible.

I'm happy that the court of public opinion doesn't mean much. I don't fully trust the legal system. I don't trust public opinion at all. Some people are so sick of police brutality that they are ready to condemn this cop before all the evidence is presented. Some are so sick of people screaming "police brutality" that they automatically assume the cop is right and the suspect is guilty.

It doesn't matter if the car was moving before he fired. The cop had no justification to shoot him in the head and then lied about it.

Yes two people made mistakes. i haven't disputed that. The victim's mistake wasn't worth his life though./

There's a video of what happened. It should be evident he isn't innocent.

More video may become available with different angles. Witnesses may come forward. This is why I'm happy the court of public opinion doesn't count for much.

It's already clear that he lied in his testimony from the video already presented. The video shows enough to convict him, further evidence is not needed, though i do welcome any evidence brought forth in the case.

Wonder if this is gonna spark a repeat of the 2001 Cincinnati riots.

Now i'm even MORE HAPPY that the court of public opinion means little.

I edited because I realize that gave the wrong impression. I would love for all possible evidence to come forward in this case. That said there is absolutely nothing that can erase what is shown in the video already presented.

@lunacyde: That said there is absolutely nothing that can erase what is shown in the video already presented.

more evidence never erases. but it may clarify some things and provide more insight

@pooty: You're right, but I can't see anything clarifying what is shown to the point it changes the facts of the case. I guess we will see.

Being suspected of a race crime is bad as a rape.

Some of y'all white folks are so sensitive. It's always "the police hurt white people also" or "we get stereotyped as racist". The thing is I only hear those statements when its in an argument against a black person. Where's all the angst for police brutality on whites a daily basis or the stereotypes. It's only when blacks have an issue than someone now brings up their problems.

I don't even know why y'all bother to argue with @sophia89

It's not self-defense. Why can't you comprehend this? There are a dozen reasons this case doesn't qualify as self-defense. The fact you think he was justified in this killing by invoking self-defense is asinine.

Here is the Ohio Self- Defense Statute.

"To establish self-defense, the following elements must be shown: (1) the slayer was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) the slayer has a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was the use of such force; and (3) the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger."

1. Self-defense is meant to repel an attack. The victim was not attacking he was fleeing. The defendant must prove he reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to defend himself against the imminent use of unlawful force.

2. He was not caught or dragged. He was leaning in the car actively holding onto the victim with one hand while holding a gun in the other. he could have extricated himself from the perceived danger at any point simply by letting go and moving back away from the vehicle (exactly as he did after he shot the man in the head). In Ohio there is a duty to retreat meaning that the person using self-defense must prove that they had absolutely no way of escaping the danger without resorting to deadly force.

3. Self-defense needs to mitigate the danger presented. Please tell me how shooting the man in the head and causing him to accelerate out of control mitigated the danger. It didn't, it made the situation more dangerous for the officer and any bystanders nearby. He was not acting in self-defense he was putting himself and everyone else in that area at greater risk.

It wasn't random aiming. What proof do you have of that? The cop held the guys shirt in one hand and aimed his gun with the other striking the man in the back of the head. You're an absolute idiot if you think firing upon someone from point blank range while aiming in their direction doesn't carry a very real possibility of death. You don't have to be an ace shot to hit someone at that range, you're delusional.

After having just watched that camera footage that the officer was wearing, there is no way that was self-defense. At all. The victim did try to flee but the officer immediately pulled the gun and let a round loose while aiming at Samuel's head. You hold a person by the shirt while firing at them to ensure that they cannot dodge.