[–] sactostar 1 points 172 points (+173|-1) ago 

All police everywhere need to wear body cams and be held accountable. I hope this becomes standard in all police departments in the United State.

[–] lbruiser 3 points 58 points (+61|-3) ago 

I agree with this statement. I mean how many times have people suicide by cop? This would not only protect the civilian, but protect the good officers. If a video shows the officer did everything right, but still had to kill the person. There was a video a bit back about a guy that keep walking towards a cop with a knife and would stop when the officer said to multiple times. The office finally had to open fire (for their safety) and because they had a camera on, they were shown innocent. Found the video NSFL/NSFW.

[–] ObiWannaBlowMe 3 points 29 points (+32|-3) ago 

Or we can even commend the best of them for being the bravest and most upstanding of us.

I don't like cops. And I hate their use of force more than most. But I would've killed that man.

[–] [deleted] 7 points 3 points (+10|-7) ago 


[–] Lag-wagon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Why not shoot in the leg or arm?

[–] Hipsterrr 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

He was clearly intoxicated.

[–] Cid 1 points 45 points (+46|-1) ago 

Not just that, but there should be a 3rd party that handles all photoage giving law enforcement zero control over it.

[–] boltsand 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

I fully agree, you need someone to watch the watchmen.

[–] One_Wing_Angel 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Or, just limit police immunity so that if they don't have their camera on then they get treated like any other citizen. That'll motivate them, and then we won't have to waste time or money with 3rd party oversight.

[–] Vvswiftvv17 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I don't know how I feel about that. Then how long before people start abusing the information? I see privacy concerns. For example, if the data can be organized in an accessible fashion how long before employers seek services to run reports on employees with law enforcement interaction to use against them? I'm not talking about instances of law breaking, just general interaction. How about insurance companies tracking video so even if you just get a warning they are notified and rates increase? Or how about just basic privacy? If you and your wife have an argument loud enough for the police to respond, do you really want that video public for just anyone to see?

[–] jenidaninja 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

and the footage should not be readily available to officers but uploaded to some kind of secure vault to avoid tampering. Officers should also be cited when they purposefully move suspect away from camera view.

[–] sactostar 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I completely agree. I find it interesting that people are surprised when the footage shows an officer did not tell the truth or something was not as the officer claimed when the footage is viewed. I don't attribute it to the officer always deliberately lying, but something that many humans do which is remember events in a way that makes them look good/innocent/heroic, and not as they truly happened. I feel that this will bring up that issue more as it is used commonly in the future. And if what you proposed about officers not having access to the footage. It will force them to be completely honest with themselves about what happens in a situation, which will weed out the bad cops and hot heads. I hope to see it in my life time. Edit: also the individuals being interacted with will be held more responsible. The guy in the video could have started his car and taken off, instead of this news story he would just be another criminal behind bars and we wouldn't be feeling sorry for him, what kind of idiot runs because he has no physical license and is missing his front plate?

[–] notawhitesupremacist 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

For the safety and sanity of both sides, body cams should be the norm.

[–] sactostar 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I completely agree.

[–] EatMoreCheese 2 points 77 points (+79|-2) ago  (edited ago)

The worst part is, this stuff has been happening for years with no video evidence.

[–] butthole_farty_pants 0 points 31 points (+31|-0) ago 

I would say the "worst part" is that it's been happening for years WITH video evidence at this point and absolutely jack shit is being done about it. The problem has never been exclusively lack of evidence. A tremendous part of the problem is the extraordinarily corrupt culture of law enforcement in this country along with the completely fucked up system of accountability that enables it.

[–] GreatHate 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Slow mo view of the murder. You can tell the 'suspect' was just trying to start the car and drive away, then a pistol is immediately brandished and fired.


[–] [deleted] 2 points 52 points (+54|-2) ago 


[–] cgsur 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The speed of that shoot seems to indicate he tried to open that door with the gun out.

I have one question, what should be the reaction if somebody becoming extremely agitated tries to open your car door with a gun pulled out? In hindsight we can come out with many answers, but in the heat of the moment freaking out and trying to get away seems plausible reaction for anybody, specially if you know how easy it is to die.

It would seem the police officer freaked out because omg! a black guy!!! but he is supposed to be a professional.

[–] 30GoingOn13 1 points 38 points (+39|-1) ago 

So the officer tries to open the man's car while telling him to take his seatbelt off, but not once does he ask him to step out of the vehicle. The video gets shaky during the scuffle but it didn't appear that the man once reached for something or made threatening gestures - it just seemed like he was trying to prevent the officer from opening the car door and (presumably, considering the direction the interaction was headed) pulling him out to cuff/search him. And that's enough to warrant him being shot in the head??

If the officer was just trying to determine if the license was suspended, as he stated, he should have gone back to his car's computer and looked up the man's information. If he had fled, it would have been caught on the dashcam. It doesn't seem that the officer handled any of this correctly. The effects of that one action are astounding: the man lost his life, his wife and 10 kids have had their lives irrevocably changed by losing him, this "officer" will go to prison, and his family will have their lives irrevocably changed by losing him.

[–] Biohazard 2 points 32 points (+34|-2) ago 

10 kids?

[–] MrWhy 36 points 4 points (+40|-36) ago 

And probably 10 Baby Mama's too -_-

[–] Typo 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

if the license was suspended, as he stated, he should have gone back to his car's computer and looked up the man's information.

That is what I was thinking the entire time. What was this guy thinking? Why stand there and argue. Ask for the persons name, run the plate and see what comes up. If anything, let him roll away, attempt to follow or just go and pick him up at home. I get that it is extra work for a cop but it seems like it is the easiest way to get out of arguing and escalating things.

[–] 30GoingOn13 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Exactly! If the main concern was for safety (his, the suspects, and civilians) then standing there escalating the situation and drawing your gun don't seem like the smartest decisions to make.

The man explained the plate was on him (granted, not displayed properly), he voluntarily handed the officer the unopened bottle of alcohol, and he did look for his license when asked if he had it on him. Just go back to your cruiser and check the records!

[–] machina70 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Because cops learned that some people say they don't have ID so that they can try to drive off or they give a fake name.

[–] ejrado 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

If he goes back to his squad car, the driver can flee. This may cause additional 'collateral' damage to others or property while trying to chase the driver.

Secure the driver, then discover what's actually going on.


[–] praguepride 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Hence the strong language from the prosecutor. The cop went looking for trouble...

Especially the part where he didn't even ask the motorist to step out of the car but just started trying to lay hands on him immediately.

[–] Servohahn 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It sounded like Dubose was confused. It might've been drugs, but it might've been low blood sugar or some kind of mental illness, too. That liquor bottle looked full, so I don't think he was drunk. It seemed like the cop was trying to figure out what was going on and was being pretty rational about it until... what? The cop just snapped or something. He was acting pretty calm... why did he even have his hand on his gun? I don't get it. Usually in police shootings, they shout and get all jumpy before they shoot someone.

[–] Shoggoth 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Saying he just snapped makes it sound like his actions were completely spontaneous. It by no means justifies the shooting, but the cop was reacting to Dubose starting his car after being told to unbuckle.

[–] Mrpixel 12 points 32 points (+44|-12) ago 

Why in the world was he put on administrative leave WITH PAY. You're investigating him for Murder and you're going to pay him while you do it?

[–] KurayaminoKai 2 points 140 points (+142|-2) ago 

Innocent until proven guilty.

They may not treat YOU that way, but another officer? They'll treat him as innocent right until the gavel comes down.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 39 points (+39|-0) ago 


[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 


[–] MaleGoddess 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Police unions made it this way. There's teachers unions that have the agreement that teachers will still get paid while they're facing sexual assault charges. Get into a union, it's not just police who have unions.

[–] HoneyNutStallmans 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

gavel comes down.

Then they'll just transfer him and put him into an "office job", if they haven't already.

[–] Zednix 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

He is innocent until proven guilty. That's how it should work for everyone but only cops seem to get suspended with pay. The rest of us get fired.

[–] aFrenchGuy 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well, from my perspective (from France), it seems like cops in USA follows "innocent until proven guilty, if you are innocent, you'll be guilty after i shot you".

EDIT, cause bad english

[–] TalkingAnimal 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

See, I disagree. I think rather than saying he shouldn't get that, I think more people should. We need to stop having this crab mentality. If someone brings a bogus complaint against us in the workplace, we shouldn't have to worry about whether or not we can pay our bills until they figure out if we were guilty or not. Hell, in private work forces, too often it's just "You're fired!" without an investigation.

A friend of mine is a teacher. A boy who didn't like him accused him of molestation. My friend was put on paid leave for three days while they looked into it. Security cameras showed they weren't both in the same room when the child said this occurred. Also, the boys friends came forward and told the administration he was making it up. Is it bad that my friend was put on paid leave? I'd argue that it certainly was not.

I think it's sad that only unions have these protections. Instead of bitching about them, I think we should argue that we should get them too.

[–] Mrpixel 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I agree and disagree, but I can't seam to convey my reasons into words at the moment. Poorly and simply put. (Agree) We should all get paid until found guilty. (Disagree) It feels wrong to pay someone with tax dollars who is being investigated for a terrible offense. My feelings don't necessarily coincide with logic on the subject I guess.

[–] FlintRockBone 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I agree, I only wish that there was a method to claw back those payments if the person is fired because of the event that lead to the paid leave. That way we could protect the process without impacting the innocent.

[–] the_gamer_rises 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

this wasnt a baseless claim, he is filmed executing someone at a traffic stop.

[–] chakan2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Don't worry, he will get a 20 year to life vacation with benifits and pension as well.

[–] Kelspa 5 points 29 points (+34|-5) ago 

So many cop apologists. Even with video showing a murder some people still like to be groupies.

[–] the_gamer_rises 3 points 17 points (+20|-3) ago 

its like they see different footage to the rest of the world. maybe their eyes are crusted over with police mans semen?

[–] HoneyNutStallmans 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

crusted over with police mans semen?

This gives a new meaning to "negligent discharge".

[–] MaleGoddess 5 points 0 points (+5|-5) ago 

The cop said that the driver started to pull the car away from him while he was standing there. A car can be a deadly weapon. If his foot depressed on the gas pedal after he was killed, that means his car was in gear with his foot on the gas pedal when he was shot. You don't die, put your car in gear, remove your foot from the brakes, and then put your foot on the gas pedal.

I'm not pretending to know all the facts in this case, but don't pass judgement on the officer until all the facts are out in the open.

[–] TKO81 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I am not supporting the cop in any way just wondering if he had the right to make him get out of his car, that's a normal cop thing to ask right? I am a middle aged white male and I have been asked to get out of my car before on a normal traffic stop.

[–] Biohazard 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Yes. The Supreme Court has ruled an officer can make you exit the car on a traffic stop.

[–] daskapitalist 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

The officer could ask him to step out of the vehicle. But the officer never did.

Legally it's the difference between an officer knocking on your door and asking you to step out to speak with them, and an officer jumping through your window with gun drawn because they took Intelligence as their dump stat.

[–] HoneyNutStallmans 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I am not supporting the cop in any way just wondering if he had the right to make him get out of his car, that's a normal cop thing to ask right?

A traffic stop is a detainment. You are not free to go and they can tell you where to go.

[–] namealreadytaken 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yes but as a middle aged middle class white man you odds of having anything bad happen to you is several orders of magnitude smaller than if you were a black man.

[–] i208khonsu 6 points -1 points (+5|-6) ago 

/r/ProtectAndServe is a pretty level headed place, but of course is bias towards cops and usually is calling "good shot" on most of these "White Cop Kills Black Man" stories.

That said in this instance every comment I can see there on this story is calling it a bad shot. https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/3f1vfa/university_of_cincinnati_police_officer_charged/

[–] butthole_farty_pants 3 points 15 points (+18|-3) ago 

/r/ProtectAndServe is a pretty level headed place


[–] [deleted] 3 points 10 points (+13|-3) ago 


[–] [deleted] 3 points 18 points (+21|-3) ago 


[–] zquad 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 


[–] Megacrazy 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

You should see what happens if you forget to pay your taxes.

[–] HoneyNutStallmans 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[–] g-j-a 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago 

Fucking unreal. This cop should do the max. Life w/o the possibility of parole. I hope he suffers long and hard and spend the rest of his days miserable and knowing what he did was the worst thing a person can do.

[–] Typo 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Not sure if it applies to cops or not but I know people who are specialized in certain thing, will get extra time for committing certain crimes. Ex: A locksmith who is convicted of breaking into a place will get extra time because they were trained to break locked. It probably falls under an aggravating circumstance.

[–] g-j-a 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It absolutely DOES apply and rightfully so.

It is a betrayal of trust and a direct abuse of authority. Police like to point out their motto "Protect and serve".

When the very people charged with keeping the order and safety become the threat there needs to be a punishment that speaks to this criminal abuse. And that needs to be in the form of simply draconian sentences for LEO who commit murder.

load more comments ▼ (58 remaining)