Sam Dubose

Post Reply New Topic

That is what the prosecutor contents.

The defense attorney says Mr. Dubose put the car into full acceleration and the officer would be been dragged much further if Mr. Dubose had not been killed.

I have a hard time believing the prosecutor that Mr. Dubose accelerated after he was dead because his "dead weight" foot pressed harder on the accelerator. Is that even possible? The accelerator is a hard pedal. Dead weight of a foot does not seem like it would do it.

I think it's very possible, in that case, that Dubose, though mortally wounded by a bullet to the brain, had had enough gray matter working that he tried to flee after being shot.

The problem I have with that is that:

-you hear revving after the initial automatic car startup rev; just before the yelling and shot (within seconds, but in that order)
-generally, after taking a bullet to the brain, you lose muscle control; perhaps a last nervous system reflex after the shot could have done it, but it's hard to see past how the car was revved on purpose prior to the shot
-a limp foot probably doesn't have enough weight to press the peddle in a sitting position
-auto cars slowly move when in drive, albeit not fast enough to move the several yards shown when the officer recovers; if the initial rev pushed the car several yards within a second, then that's enough to keep it going down the road

Too much reasonable doubt for me, simply because of the order of events.

If I didn't hear that rev prior to the shot, I would have said muscle reflex and it all happened almost instantly after the shooting (it appears the officer is being physically moved somehow before the shot, so I'd need to see why that's happening).

The problems I have with it overall:

-the speed of the order of events when it goes South. The officer had no time to think entirely rational, so training is what would have kicked in as soon as he felt emotion (whether fear or anger depending on your point of view); unless you think this was premeditation, but you have to prove that with character references, past history and whatnot
-we can't see what put the officer on the ground; lateral movement of the car pushing him over?
-we can't see how the officer was moving with the car
-we can't see if the officer was initially caught up with his left arm; it's out of frame until the time of the shot and the car is potentially moving; it's hard to tell if the officer could have initially withdrawn

Things like this are what the prosecution [and defense] will argue.

But is the body going to go limp with absolutely every brain injury? There have been people who have survived gunshots to the head - not many, but some. If that's the case, is it so outside the realm of possibility that Dubose had lived long enough to accelerate the car?

Possible. You'd need to see where the shot was placed before coming to a conclusion.

As it appears in the grainy video, through the side of the head tends to be instantly lights out, as both sides of the brain are taken out by the shot. It tends to be forehead hits above one eye or the other [with a pistol] that might be survivable with prompt medical care, as one side of the brain might be recoverable.

This is with my rather small amount of reading up on the forensic pathology of gunshots (one textbook on it), so whatever that's worth.

I'd say possible, as the brain could have told the foot to press harder as soon as the pistol was witnessed, and as the shot was taken, the process was already in motion and the foot had its innovation.

Plenty of doubt either way, though.

Kraichgauer wrote :-

Having watched the video frame by frame, it seemed to me that he had a tonic seizure after he was shot in the head, they're not uncommon with severe brain trauma. In a tonic seizure the arms and legs stiffen which in this case would have depressed the pedal.

If so, that would explain a lot.

They should have dash cam video and that would resolve the dragging question.

Apparently, they don't ?

It's a non-issue, he wasn't dragged, he fell down after he shot the guy and the corpse and vehicle began to move off.

But the important thing to realize is that shooting a driver in the head does not protect you from being dragged, what protects you from being dragged is stepping back and away from the vehicle. In the opinion of the retired NYPD officer with whom I discussed the tape, the situation officers fear is when they are physically pulled into the car as it pulls away. In that case, you might shoot the driver to get him to let go.

That was clearly not the case in this instance. This officer had no reason to shoot.

He may not have been dragged, but he is way down the road when he gets up. So to suggest he just fell down near the original location of the car is clearly wrong.

Yes

He was several yards down the road when he got back up; you can't fall that far.

I think he fell due to the car pushing him over after running with it for the two seconds the whole thing went down; the car was pulling out onto the road.

I can't say the car wasn't moving prior to the shot without someone doing professional evaluation of the footage.

it seems this thread has bifurcated into a sub-thread of those who are grasping at excuses for the ex-officer's behavior, versus a sub-thread of everybody else, each talking past the other.

No excusing from me.

I'm analyzing the video as I see it, combined with the murder and voluntary manslaughter charges.

These things are very procedural.

By all means provide your own analysis if you find fault (which is how a reasonable opinion can come about from people arguing it).

Bloody hell, I've only just found out about this. this unarmed guy got wasted on a traffic stop?? I thank god our police ( or scumbag pig filth as some affectionately call them)in the UK don't carry firearms (yet) .
Some of them should not under any circumstances be in a position of authority.
Whichever way you look at it, the maxim "innocent until proven guilty" must ALWAYS apply in a civilised legal system. That cop appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. Verdict- he's crazier than I am.

Now, breakdown the video and tell me what you see.