Posted on 07/31/2015 7:03:21 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
A synced-up video of body camera footage from three University of Cincinnati police officers – Ray Tensing, Phillip Kidd and David Lindenschimdt – reveals the dramatic aftermath of the police shooting of a 43-year-old unarmed black man.
It shows that both officers were behind Tensing at the time he shot DuBose, but both backed claims the officer had been 'dragged'. These claims were used to justify the shooting, but were later dismissed as false by the county prosecutor who charged Tensing with murder. Kidd and Lindenschimdt have also been placed on leave
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
The police officer already had his gun drawn in a situation that did not warrant deadly force. There's your premeditation right there. Before the police officer fired the shot he drew his weapon and by unholstering his weapon he made a statement of an intent to use deadly force.
The teacher I had for my CCW class comes back to me: "Don't draw your weapon unless you plan on using it and don't fire your weapon unless you plan on killing someone."
The same rules apply to cops.
That may be the same one I have in mind. Car drove past him, he fired after the car passed him? Driver and girlfriend, IIRC.
-- So far I cannot see anything that justifies the shooting. --
From what I've read of the DA, and what I know of this shooting, Tensing will either take a plea bargain, or be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The angle you raise, "unintentional discharge" cuts in favor of reducing the charge to involuntary manslaughter or less, something along the lines of negligence.
And that's not the end of Tensing's trouble. He'll get a trip through the civil courts too, on a wrongful death claim.
“Cops can and do place themselves in front of fleeing vehicle or in contact with them and courts routinely side with them when they fire away.”
There was a case where one did this, and he killed the driver, and self defense was denied.
“But what a cop CANNOT do is to “go get in his car and chase the guy down”. Too many fleeing suspects have plowed into minivans filled with children and courts have outlawed hot pursuit chases.”
Yes, they can, police pursue fleeing suspect all the time.
That's not enough or even the right kind of premeditation, especially not for a police officer who may routinely draw as a matter of precaution.
We civilians are in pretty much the spot your CCW instructor said. Brandishing is (usually) asking for trouble.
-- The same rules apply to cops. --
No, not quite, not when it comes to brandishing, and not even when it comes to using deadly force.
See cop who drew leather in the pool party incident. Caught a bunch of crap for it, but no brandishing charge. If you did that, you'd be hit with a brandishing charge.
The one I am thinking of happened a number of years ago, I remember seeing it on the news, but I am not successful in being able to find it.
What I remember of it was a vehicle was in the drive thru lane of some restaurant or otherwise in some parking lot facing toward a larger street.
A cop then stood in front of the vehicle with his weapon out and pointed at the driver and ordered him out of the car. The car continued to move toward the street and in the direction of the officer as well, who was only a few feet in front of the car.
The cop then opened fire on the driver at which the driver stepped on it and took off out into the street with the cop jumping out of the way. The vehicle made a left turn on the street and drove about two blocks before the driver expired.
The cop then claimed he had to shoot because the driver was going to run him over, but it was later found that the cop placed himself in danger by standing in front of the car.
I am almost positive this led to the ruling that a cop can’t purposely place himself in the kill zone of a car and the claim self defense in a shooting, but I can’t find this incident or the video, so it’s pretty frustrating, and I could be wrong about this.
I also recall a drive through case with a shooting, something about a dog leash or something else being mistaken for a weapon? At any rate, each case is going to be fact intensive, too many variations to try to plan out which side wins. In the one you describe, it's a pretty easy call, I think. Depends on if the cop is in uniform, the speed of the resisting driver (might be creeping ahead in a game of "dare you to shoot", vs. burning rubber), and no doubt myriad other unpredictable variables.
The cop didn’t know he wasn’t armed, did he? That’s the dilemma of being a cop dealing with, I’m sorry to say, inner city blacks who cause murder and mayhem all over this country.
Then what you’re saying is part of the problem. If police are above the law then they’re going to act like it, aren’t they?
Don’t be surprised if you one day come face to face with one of these people who decides that you’re not properly debasing yourself in the presence of their authority. I hope you survive the encounter to tell us about it.
Oh, please. You can’t see the gun in his hand when he opened the door. You’re making that up. Please, Megan, feel free to drive off when pulled over for a minor traffic violation. It’s your revolutionary right.
You statist! I wonder how many arguments have been won by motorists after being stopped.
Obviously. But, one of my points was on the more general proposition of brandishing, where the rules are different, and I don't think in a way that people are bothered by - at least the rule difference is okay.
-- Don't be surprised if you one day come face to face with one of these people who decides that you're not properly debasing yourself in the presence of their authority. --
I won't be (surprised), although most interactions I've had with LEO have been pretty low key and predictable. I see LEO as a threat, and I always treat threats with care. Especially untrustworthy lying threats that have the power of the state behind them.
Oh I imagine they've had ample time to learn that. What's amazing is even when partners, riding around in the same cruiser, fill out their reports, they often conflict substantially.
yeah, the cop in the case I am thinking of was uniformed, and the vehicle did not move quickly toward the cop, it was moving very slowly until the cop opened fire, and then the driver stepped on it. He had apparently been shot multiple times by that point though.
It bugs me that I can’t find anything on it though. I guess it was too long ago to show up in any searches.
But I definitely agree that each case is different. I don’t know how this case is going to turn out. I suppose it is going to hinge on whether or not the officer can established that he feared for his life to such an extent that he had no choice but to shoot.
I don’t see how he can make that case, but stranger things have happened. This will be interesting to follow I think.
Personally though, if I was the cop here, I wouldn’t have pulled my gun unless I intended to shoot. I know cops have more freedom to brandish than a civilian does, but as soon as a gun is pulled out, unintended things can and do happen.
No, but he didn't have any evidence that he was.
That’s the dilemma of being a cop dealing with, I’m sorry to say, inner city blacks who cause murder and mayhem all over this country.
The maybe he should never have been a police officer to begin with if he's too scared and nervous to do his job properly. Or should police approach every contact involving...certain citizenry with their guns drawn and fingers on the trigger?
There’s no evidence that he was too scared and nervous. He sounded completely calm on the video. What you are reacting to is my statement that these cops have a problem on their hands with these people. They are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If this guy had hit and killed a mom and child, everyone would be up in arms as to why he wasn’t in jail years ago. Having lived on the edge of inner cities most of my adult life, perhaps I have more sympathy towards cops than most people here.
Right up to the point where he shot him.
What you are reacting to is my statement that these cops have a problem on their hands with these people.
Those people have rights too.
If this guy had hit and killed a mom and child, everyone would be up in arms as to why he wasn’t in jail years ago.
But he didn't, did he? He hadn't in the past and there is no reason to assume he was hell-bent to run over a mom and child in the future. He just a man with a less-than-savory past who did something dumb like try and drive away. That does not justify shooting him for it. Whatever happened to the concept that deadly force should be the last resort, not the first? That it should be used only when the officer or bystanders is in danger of serious injury or death, not just because the officer was startled? There was no justification in this, and one has to assume the officers on the scene knew there wasn't. Otherwise why would they falsify their reports and cook up the story about him being dragged by the car? Why do you want to make the officer out to be the innocent party here? And DuBose the guilty party?
Having lived on the edge of inner cities most of my adult life, perhaps I have more sympathy towards cops than most people here.
I know a lot of police officers. I live in a rural county and have played in church softball leagues with probably half of them. They're all great guys who all do a difficult job for not a whole lot of money, and they do it well. They do a job that I freely admit would not be a good candidate for. That job comes with a lot of authority, but also a lot of responsibility. The responsibility not to abuse that authority. The responsibility to follow proper procedures. This officer abused his position. He shot a man. He violated every procedure for the use of deadly force in the book. And afterwards he and his friends tried to lie their way out of it. They are not the typical cops out there doing a good job, day after day. They are instead an insult to those cops and are not fit to be placed in the same category as the good ones. And if you cannot see that, if you cannot see that there is difference between what is right and what is wrong that needs to apply even to police officers, then I honestly don't know what kind of world you want to live in.
Now, you’re annoying me. He had an open bottle on the floor near his leg. This guy was a disaster waiting to happen. 70 - 75 offenses but, I guess, you think he learned how to drive properly while drunk, without license or plates. In fact, the more practice he had, the better he drove!
In the video he opens the door with his left hand and his right hand is out of view. The next time you see his right hand there’s a pistol in it.
Logically, he either had his right hand on the pistol or the pistol was drawn and in his right hand by his side.
Another poster already verified that it wasn’t gin in that bottle. That brand of gin is clear and the fluid in the bottle is yellow.
It may be urine.
Then my work here is done.
He had an open bottle on the floor near his leg. This guy was a disaster waiting to happen. 70 - 75 offenses but, I guess, you think he learned how to drive properly while drunk, without license or plates. In fact, the more practice he had, the better he drove!
I was not aware that the penalty for poor driving was summary execution. Laws must be a whole lot more strict in Ohio.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.