Sam Dubose

Post Reply New Topic

The officer had plenty of suspicion regarding any wrongdoing by Sam; refusal to hand over the license, the bottle of Gin (not everyone knows it's clear), plus the actions and intent to flee. So, he had more than enough suspicion to at least lean in and try and stop the car (is it stolen? Is the driver drunk and on a suspended license?).

You're mincing words, however.

I never said someone can use lethal force simply because they're fleeing. They also need to be shown to pose potential lethal danger to someone, whether the officer/s or public.

The precedent for this is already set.

I can see that there's potential lethal danger to the officer during the "struggle", especially considering the proximity of the officer to the driver's door (with his arm in the window; that has potential to mean you're run over by the rear wheels if the driver is pulling out onto the road), and the eventual outcome we see with the officer ending up several yards down the road and knocked over, all within a couple of seconds. That's real danger we see, and it's inflicted on Tensing by Sam's direct actions and refusal to follow lawful orders. Reasonable doubt.

It's not much different than if you shoot someone for refusing to drop a firearm from your lawful order, even though they haven't shot you.

I can't argue that it's murder. I'd have to be lying. Manslaughter? Perhaps, but I'd need to be shown that there's no case for self-defense.

(When I have more time I'll show why you can't argue for murder.)

He said he didn't have his license on him. That's not an offense in Ohio. All the officer had to do was ask the dispatcher to run his name.

The bottle of gin was sealed.

You seem certain and you shouldn't be.

Did you think Zimmerman was guilty before he was found not guilty?
What about OJ Simpson?

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 01 Aug 2015, 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

if there is no smoke to this fire, then why did this man's bosses let him twist in the wind?

to prevent a riot

which they may still get

that is a downright corporate twist to this tale. sheesh, are there no heroes here?

The cop was trying to start something.

He was escalating rather than being professional.

Watch the slow-mo version and tell me you see his hand go anywhere near the steering wheel, and whether the car moves before the gun appears:

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/ ... ose-video/

I agree with you up until he tried to flee; they were just "flags" until then. I'm sure he needs to check his details before he can let him go, though.

Those things then add to the suspicion when he's trying to flee (why flee? No license? Gin? What else?). Perhaps if he said, "my wife is having a child at the hospital! No time to get my wallet! See you there!" Then you have doubt into the suspicion.

Anyway, for murder as I mentioned:

Most English speaking places define the overall term the same, with local differences here and there added to define the severity of punishment.

You need to prove the (1) intent [to murder] and that (2) someone was killed due to direct conduct

(2) Someone was killed in the video due to direct action. That's easy to show.

1/2 down.

(1) was there intent to murder (unlawfully kill) Sam in the video?

You can show (1) if there is no reasonable claim to self-defense by the officer, and said claim is shown to be something the reasonable person can agree with. You need to show beyond all reasonable doubt that there's no way the actions of Sam operating the "deadly weapon" can possibly inflict life threatening or grievous (serious) injuries if the self-defense claim is made.

Motive is also a part of (1), and it can push it further to one side (you don't rely on it, because it can be easily disproved if you have something like a video). This is where you look at how the officer was behaving all the way up until the killing and any past history that could point to the malice needed to murder someone for no lawful reason.

This is where you run into problems. Some people can't see a claim to self-defense, but some people can (from my viewings of various opinions around the 'net; many would be "reasonable people" on both sides), and you need to persuade the jury one way or the other, as you need a unanimous consensus for criminal trials.

They weren't even flags.

Not having your license on you isn't a crime in Ohio, nor does it give an officer probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a search. Cop should have asked the dispatcher to run the name. He's wearing a radio - what's the holdup?

Possessing gin in a sealed bottle is not a crime, nor does it give an officer probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a search. He should have given the gin back. He didn't have any reason to keep it.

Why did he ask him to take off his seat belt? For what purpose? Based on what suspicion?



Actually ohio law is much clearer.

The cop has been charged with Murder 2, which has a simple definition. You can read it here:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.02

but it's so short I'll just paste it:

Sorry, I thought you meant something else.

Hopefully, I'm wrong about the less-than-clear-cut-nature of this case and I'm somehow being biased to what I'm seeing, and I'm overthinking the defense (I tend to jump into the "innocent till you can show me a 99% chance of guilt" box more than not; if anything, that's my bias).

hopefully that applies to all besides the cops as well whose luck may have run out on a given day.

Appears to be ...

§ 4507.35. Duty to display license or furnish satisfactory proof of license.

(A) The operator of a motor vehicle shall display the operator's driver's license, or furnish satisfactory proof that the operator has a driver's license, upon demand of any peace officer or of any person damaged or injured in any collision in which the licensee may be involved. When a demand is properly made and the operator has the operator's driver's license on or about the operator's person, the operator shall not refuse to display the license. A person's failure to furnish satisfactory evidence that the person is licensed under this chapter when the person does not have the person's license on or about the person's person shall be prima-facie evidence of the person's not having obtained a driver's license.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree

http://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2006/o ... -e9c3.html

See fines here ...
https://www.ghmc.org/duschart_frontpage.pdf

The officer suspected Mr. Dubose's license was suspended. He says so in the video.

And it was true, Mr. Dubose was driving on a suspended license.

Pretty much the same thing. Purposely killing; you have intent and the act there.

As before, you have to show that Sam's death wasn't provoked in some way.

Depending on the provocation or lack of one, you have:

manslaughter; Sam was killed in a struggle that likely wouldn't have killed the officer/the use of force was too much
murder; Sam wasn't doing anything that could be seen as a provocation
exoneration; Sam was killed in a struggle that potentially could have killed the officer

(Provocation comes from self-defense, which is a lawful means of committing homicide.)

Manslaughter looks possible to me. Murder looks like too much.

Of course, self-defense need not be brought up. Could be an "accidental" shooting. Or, he could confess to the murder.

Last edited by Dillogic on 01 Aug 2015, 3:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

The officer will likely argue:

1. He got tangled up when he reached into the car.
2. He thought the car was going to run over his feet/body once he got free.
3. He yelled, "Stop" two times.
4. Mr. Dubose wouldn't obey, so he shot him once.

The evidence may not support this though.