The Sam Dubose Scandal.

On Tuesday (28/7/15) authorities in Texas released security camera footage of Sandra Bland in jail. The video shows Ms Bland arriving in her street clothes and changing into her orange, jail issue clothes. It then shows her undergoing to medical assessment to confirm that her altered mental state is the result of her marijuana use rather then, say, a concussion. It also shows her mugshot being taken. In short the video blows all of the conspiracy theories surrounding the case out of the water.

Unperturbed though the Black Lives Movement (BLM) already had another story waiting in the wings to sustain their outrage in the form of the Sam Dubose case. This centres around the death of a black man in Cincinnati, Ohio on July 19th (19/7/15) during a traffic stop. If you're really that interested you can watch the police bodycam video of the incident here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FicsKuLfpiw

However it shows the car that Mr Dubose is driving being stopped because it is not displaying a front license plate. This is one of those minor, niggly traffic offences that irritates everyone. However if a vehicle is not displaying registration marking's it is impossible to identify it if it is involved in a crime, flees the scene of an accident or if it has been stolen and the police are simply trying to return it to its owner.

From the tone of the initial conversation the white officers seems to only want to inform Mr Dubose that his vehicle is un-roadworthy rather then arrest him, issue him with a ticket or even a written warning. As standard one of the first questions the officer asks is whether Mr Dubose owns the car. Mr Dubose claims that he does prompting the officer to point out that the car is registered to a woman. As Mr Dubose is clearly not a woman this creates a reasonable suspicion that the car has been stolen.

What the officer should have done at this point is remove Mr Dubose from the car and handcuff him for both his safety, the safety of the officer and the safety of the general public. However the officer instead takes the laid back approach of asking him for his driving license and vehicle registration. The officer even allows Mr Dubose time to search around his person and the vehicle to search for these documents when most other officers would be concerned about Mr Dubose reaching for a weapon.

While this is going on the officers spots a bottle of alcohol - either Gin or Whisky - in the drivers footwell. This creates a reasonable suspicion that Mr Dubose was Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Again at this point the officer really should have removed Mr Dubose from the car and handcuffed him. Instead though the officer simply inspects the bottle, sees that it is unopened and places it on the roof of the car.

Being unable to produce his driving documents Mr Dubose then chooses to escalate the situation by adopting a hostile tone and telling the officer that he doesn't need to produce a driving license because his name can simply be checked against the police computer. This entirely false because without a photo ID or a biometric scan there is no way to tell that the name Mr Dubose intends to give is actually his name.

The officer then finally instructs Mr Dubose to exit the vehicle. This is an entirely lawful instruction that neither Mr Dubose nor Ms Bland had any right to refuse. This is particularly true when there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. In fact in the paperwork that US motorists have to sign in applying for a driving license there is a specific clause in which they agree to comply with such an instruction by a police officer. By refusing the instruction Mr Dubose commits the further offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice by obstructing an investigation.

In the course of his multiple refusals to exit the vehicle Mr Dubose snatches the car door from the officer's hand and closes it. This is certainly a further offence of obstruction and by certain juries on certain days could be considered an offence of assault. After shutting the car door Mr Dubose switches on the vehicle ignition in an effort to drive away committing the further offences of obstruction and reckless endangerment.

The officer reaches into the car through the window in an effort to switch off the vehicle ignition and seize the keys. Mr Dubose resists this by raising his hands in an effort to fight off the officer. In doing this Mr Dubose both commits an offence of assault and signals his intention to injure the officer in an attempt to obstruct justice. As the vehicle is pulling away Mr Dubose is shot once in the head and killed. The officer is knocked off balance and the car crashes a few yards down the road.

With the video demonstrating beyond all doubt that Mr Dubose was killed in self-defence whilst endangering the life of another you would expect that no further action would be taken in the case. The State Prosecutor may though have chosen to hold a press conference to explain to the public their legal rights and responsibilities during a traffic stop in an effort to prevent such an incident occurring again.

Unfortunately as with Baltimore Cincinnati is a Democrat town and the party leader - Barack Obama - really needs a distraction at the moment. So instead the State Prosecutor opted to abuse the law to indict the officer. This first part of this involved rushing the case to Grand Jury yesterday (29/7/15) - just 7 working days after the incident. This is nowhere near enough time for the accused to appoint a lawyer, that lawyer to request the prosecution to disclose evidence, the prosecution actually disclose the evidence and for the lawyer to review that evidence in order to prepare a defence. A gap of several months is usually more typical.

Although I cannot account for what was said to the Grand Jury from his press conference it appears the State Prosecutor then decided to misdirect the Grand Jury on points of law. For example he incorrectly gives the impression that the initial traffic stop was unlawful and equally incorrectly that Mr Dubose's conduct was lawful. It is not clear whether the State Prosecutor has done this in a willful attempt to pervert the course of justice or whether he is simply incompetent. However one assumes that the State Prosecutor has passed the state bar exam.

Also I should point out that during both the Ferguson and Baltimore race riots it was claimed that these were the worst race riots in the US since the 1992 Los Angeles race riots. This is untrue. In fact they were the worst race riots since the 2001 Cincinnati race riots. Since the incident occurred there have been open and oft repeated threats that those 4 days of rioting will be repeated if vengeance is not taken against the white officer.

Therefore this seems to be yet another clear case of a group using violence to intimidate local government into disregarding the law. In short - terrorism.


It also serves to highlight just how little thought went into Obama's support for Turkey. The domestic terrorists that Turkey is claiming to fight are labelled terrorists due to rioting and attacks on police officers. By saying that Turkey has a right to use air-strikes and heavy artillery to defend itself against such people Obama is also saying that Americans have a right to use violence to protect themselves from BLM. As such it is impossible for the Charleston shooter to have committed a crime.

So much like everything else he does I don't Obama put any level of thought into the issue whatsoever.

12:20 on 30/7/15 (UK date).