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 ...
Deters is a legit law and order conservative with unimpeachable ethics.
This is not Baltimore.
And, Deters has never lost a case. Never.
Seems he's pretty confident in the Murder 1 charge.
If my failure to not instantly comply with a police officer means that police officer is entitled to kill me then we’re overdue for a revolution.
And I saw nothing unusual with the officer’s requests up to the point he unlocked the car door. Given how fast he came up with his pistol it seems to me he had his hand on it as he opened the door.
In which case the driver had justifiable cause to fear for his life, didn’t he?
I'm not saying the officer wasn't a nice guy; he certainly appeared to be. And I'm not saying that DuBose was a pillar of the community; he certainly was not. But for whatever reason the officer chose to take his pistol and shoot a suspect under circumstances where deadly force was not justified. DuBose wasn't armed. He wasn't a threat to the officer or others. Shooting him was not justified. And nice guy or not, there are consequences for killing someone and it's proprer that the officer be treated like anyone else in this.
If that's the attitude of most cops, do not be surprised if they increasingly come under attack.
There are 100's of thousands in this country that won't put up with that sh!t.
I’m not moving any goalposts. I’m just using your argument as I continue to say - the shooting was valid.
“Facts be damned”?
Those four facts I posted in 65 cannot be damned. Or do YOU deny and dispute them?
haha. Probably just thought the rest of his department and the prosecutor would back him up in his lies.I think that says something in and of itself.
Nonsense.
That BS carried weight before Body Cameras. NO longer.
Now the jurors will see for themselves and this cop WILL be convicted of Murder in the First Degree.
OK, that's a good argument, but...
Others have pointed out - and the police report backs it up - that Tensing had his arm caught between the steering wheel and the ignition as he was attempting to turn off a moving car with his left hand while pointing a Sig Sauer at some fool's head with the other.
The facts you posted in 65 do not justify the use of deadly force. Starting the ignition and putting it into gear does not create an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm for the officer (who was, at the time, positioned next to the car, and had not yet even reached into the car - he did that only AFTER the car was turned on).
Why would he reach into a moving car (or at least a car that was on and in gear) while pointing a Sig Sauer at some fool's head? Seems to be amazingly poor tactics, at the very least. If anything put Tensing in danger here, it was Tensing himself.
Sometimes, of course, there is no need for a lie, and I am not saying that all shootings by cops are unjustified (have to get that out of the way, because sure as hell, somebody will claim that I am saying all cop shootings are unjustified).
Anyway, the justifications come in several flavors, one of which is "I was in fear for my safety with serious injury or death being the consequence of inaction." That's the line this cop and his buddies tried, and that's the line that is easily falsified by body cam, which puts this cop and maybe his buddies into hot legal water.
There is no way this is a murder one case. If the DA persists in that, the cop walks. That may be the intention, for all I know. There is a premeditation element to murder 1 that is absent from the facts n this case.
If anything put Tensing in danger here, it was Tensing himself.
_____________________________________
By God, I think you’re starting to get it.
Tensing was in danger. See? That wasn’t hard to admit, now was it?
Of course, you’re wrong to think Tensing was the one who was attempting to flee and Tensing was the one who was using his vehicle as an assault weapon.
But for you to admit Tensing was in danger shows you’re making some progress.
The July 29 indictment levels two charges, "Murder" and "Voluntary Manslaughter."
If his arm was caught, how did he fall free of the car?
Also, why would he pull his gun out and point it at the man if he intended to do something other than shoot the man?
The purpose of a gun is to fire bullets at a target.
Because he pointed his Sig Sauer at some fool’s head, that fool is dead, because that is what Sig Sauers do, and now that cop is looking at life in prison.
If his intent was to reach in and turn off the car, seems like that would have been easier to do with his right hand as opposed to his left hand.
A cop cannot place purposely place himself in the kill zone of a car and then claim self defense. All he had to do was step away and go get in his car and chase the guy down, as many other cops have done when their suspect flees.
Now there is some validity to the argument that the guy endangered his own life by disobeying and running. That is true, and he obviously should have obeyed the cop, however, his disobeying the cop does not justify the cop shooting him.
As you can see by now, Responsibility2nd has no intention of conducting a good faith, honest discussion. Enjoy the flame war!
Sure they can. As long as the justification for placing in danger zone is to effect a stop, the state will generally find for the cop. Tensing's difficulty is more along of the lines of not being in a kill zone.
If the case goes to trial, Tensing will claim self defense, and the jury will decide whether or not a person in his spot is reasonably (that means the jury decides, not the defendant) in fear of death or serious injury.
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.
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.
Responsibility2nd has no intention of conducting a good faith, honest discussion. Enjoy the flame war!
________________________________________
You’re right. Absolutely right.
It was a dirty underhanded trick I used to get C of a C to admit Tensing was in danger.
I should get the zot, right?
No zot for you, sorry. But your style of argument is transparently dishonest.
There was a case a while back of a cop who attempted to stop a vehicle from feeling by standing in front of it with his pistol out, and when the vehicle did not stop, the cop shot the driver and claimed self defense, and I am pretty sure that claim was denied. And if I am not mistaken, and I may be, that is the case that led to the a cop cannot purposely place himself in the kill zone of a vehicle and then claim self defense.
However, in this case, yes, Tensing did not appear to be in the kill zone of the car, and still claimed self defense anyway. So yeah that is going to be up to the jury to decide, and it will be interesting to see what they decide.
So far I cannot see anything that justifies the shooting. I still think it was an accidental discharge somehow, because it just looks like he pulled his gun out and immediately shot the man in the head, which really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
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.