Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles
Title: Video: Ohio cop indicted on murder charge in shooting Officer has said he was dragged by suspect's car and was forced to shoot
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 30, 2015
Author: By Lisa Cornwell Associated Press
Post Date: 2015-07-30 10:39:43 by GrandIsland
Keywords: None
Views: 40160
Comments: 189
CINCINNATI — A University of Cincinnati officer who shot a motorist during a traffic stop over a missing front license plate was indicted Wednesday on a murder charge, with a prosecutor saying the officer "purposely killed him" and "should never have been a police officer." Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters announced the grand jury indictment at a news conference to discuss developments in the investigation into the July 19 shooting of 43-year-old motorist Samuel DuBose by Officer Ray Tensing. Authorities have said Tensing spotted a car driven by DuBose and missing the front license plate, which is required by Ohio law. They say Tensing stopped the car and a struggle ensued after DuBose refused to provide a driver's license and get out of the car. Tensing, 25, has said he was dragged by the car and forced to shoot at DuBose. He fired once, striking DuBose in the head. But Deters dismissed Tensing's claim that he was dragged by the car and suggested that he shouldn't have pulled DuBose over to begin with. "He fell backward after he shot (DuBose) in the head," Deters said, adding that it was a "chicken crap" traffic stop. On footage released from the body-camera video Wednesday, the officer could be heard asking for DuBose's driver's license several times with DuBose at one point saying he had one. Later, DuBose said, "But I don't think I have it on me." Tensing asks DuBose to unbuckle his seat belt. About that time Tensing pulls on the door handle, and DuBose puts his hand on the door to keep it closed. Then the video becomes shaky, but a gunshot can be heard and DuBose appears to be slumped in the seat before the car rolls away, coming to stop at a nearby corner. The University of Cincinnati said it fired Tensing after his indictment. Tensing turned himself in Wednesday afternoon at the Hamilton County Justice Center and was processed on charges of murder and voluntary manslaughter. Tensing's attorney, Stewart Mathews, didn't return phone messages seeking comment after the indictment announcement. Mathews said earlier Wednesday that he thought an indictment was likely "given the political climate" and comments made by city officials. But Mathews said given the evidence he's seen, he doesn't believe there should be an indictment. DuBose's death comes amid months of national scrutiny of police dealings with African-Americans, especially those killed by officers. DuBose was black. Tensing is white. Authorities haven't indicated whether race was a part of the investigation. Body-camera video of the shooting was also released Wednesday. DuBose's family had been pressing for its release, and news organizations including The Associated Press had sued Deters to get it released under Ohio open records law, but Deters released it before any ruling had been made. Deters called the shooting "senseless" and "asinine." "He purposely killed him," Deters said. "He should never have been a police officer." The prosecutor also said he thought it was time to reconsider the UC police department's role. "I don't think a university should be in the policing business," Deters said. A message for comment was left Wednesday with the police department. The university said earlier this week it plans an independent review of its police department's policies. The UC officer made the traffic stop near the university's main campus, and UC police have said the intersection was within the campus police's jurisdiction. The University of Cincinnati on Wednesday closed its main campus in anticipation of grand jury action in the case. Mark O'Mara, attorney for DuBose's family, called for a "peaceful and nonaggressive" response from the community after the officer's indictment. O'Mara said the family wanted a peaceful reaction because "Sam was a peaceful person." Tensing has more than five years of experience in law enforcement and has worked as a University of Cincinnati police officer since April 2014, said Jason Goodrich, UC police chief. His annual performance review this April noted that he was extremely strong in the traffic area and maintains control of his weapons and of "situations he is involved in." Tensing formerly worked as an officer in the small Cincinnati suburban village of Greenhills. Deters said when he saw the video of the shooting, he was shocked. "I feel so sorry for this family and what they lost," Deters said. "And I feel sorry for the community, too." If convicted, Tensing could face up to life in prison. Poster Comment: Deckard is losing his mind. He spends time posting garbage by Free Thought Project, where most of the shit he posts has to be written in such a bias way to give the appearance of police misconduct, AND HERE IS A CLEAR CASE OF A BAD OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING... and Deckard doesn't post it. Well I will. This officer should be wood chipped. Hopefully someone here can post the VIDEO... you'll cringe watching it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: GrandIsland (#0)
Maybe the murder victim was afraid for his life at the hands of a rogue mall cop.
If you read the article, you'd know he should have been... Doh! I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Blow it out your ass, queer-bait. You don't have the stones to ping me directly? Piss off. Oh - one more thing, proud holder of a GED. Try learning to make paragraphs. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Yeah, I was going to post a thread, thinking the same thing. You suppose FreeThoughtProject is going to feature this story? I think it will fall into a dusty corner of their newsroom and never be heard from again.
Well, he was obviously done with the traffic stop before the cop was. When asked to remove his seat belt, he started the car and took off. The officer claims his hand was trapped in the car. Hard to tell, even with a body cam. If so, then he had every right to shoot. Immediately afterwards his body cam records him telling another cop his hand was trapped. The other officer responded, "Yeah. I saw that."
A CLEAR CASE? I don't think it's clear at all.
Here's the full video. Listen to the exchange at 4:20 (just three minutes after the shooting) -- "He was dragging me. Yeah, I saw that." Another officer's body cam shows him (at :55) knocked to the ground: The truth? I don't know. But there's enough just in the video for reasonable doubt. If he gets a fair trial with an impartial jury. But white-cop-black-victim? I agree with his attorney. Everyone is throwing him under the bus.
What a couple of idiots! BREAKING: Ohio Cop Indicted for Murder, Body Cam Just Released Shows Him Kill Unarmed Man In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Ooooeeee! He bees a vision in red. Reminds me of Kramer:
Pimpin' ain't easy!
Another officer's body cam shows him (at :55) knocked to the ground: It shows him getting up off the ground. "Knocked to the ground" it does not show. At least in this video. He may have simply lost his balance in the scuffle and in firing his weapon. The window seems to be wide open. How then, did he managed to be dragged? Further, at the instant of shooting, it seems the camera was to the front left of the driver. If he was already being dragged at that point, I'd expect the camera angle to reflect that. As it is, it appears he fired before the car even started moving, and certainly before any dragging, if any, occurred. As for his being "thrown under the bus", due to the national politics surrounding white on black police shootings, that's very possible. Though the opposite bias has also occurred quite frequently, where police killings are exonerated out of probably legal reasons of avoiding or reducing the risk of civil payouts. But indicted does not mean guilty. Just means there will be a trial to closely examine everything. When there is doubt as to someone's innocence, what is wrong with that?
Perhaps. But it is consistent with his story. I'm sure the jurors will discuss that. "How then, did he managed to be dragged?" Don't know. Caught in the steering wheel? Perhaps the driver grabbed his arm? "As it is, it appears he fired before the car even started moving, and certainly before any dragging, if any, occurred." That's the main problem with body cams. Suddenly they're the final word and common sense goes out the window. Because he's so close to the car, the camera is only focused on the car. If he's being dragged, he and the camera and the car are all moving together at the same speed. That's what the camera shows. He fires, then frees himself of the car. On the video I posted he tells the other cop he was dragged. The other cop says, "Yeah. I saw that." You're saying we should ignore that exchange?
In the past, nothing. But as we saw with recent cases, indicted means guilty ... and retribution is due. Indicted means rumors and speculation and false stories. Indicted means the all focus is now shifted from the "victim" to the defendant. Indicted means we only hear the victim's side of the story until the trial. Indicted means the defendant loses their job and their life is changed forever, even if they're found not guilty. That's what's wrong. Meaning, we should be very careful who we indict.
I'm the proud holder of an iPhone... and I only use a phone to use the Internet... and a phone is much more difficult than the huge keyboard you pound on in mommies basement. I don't need to "ping" you... you follow my posts like my past subordinates followed my orders. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
FTP is only interested in making every LE related story "look" bad to achieve their pro drug agenda.... If it was posting the truth (or the norm) they'd have posted this story. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
He shot the guy while reaching in the car with one hand... the guy was unarmed and even if the shitbird was trying to flee, Tennessee Vs Garner states the officer isn't authorized to shoot just because a suspect flees. The officer wasn't being "dragged" and he was quickly terminated. It was a bad shoot. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Correct. But Tennessee Vs Garner isn't applicable here. If the officer is being dragged by car driven by a fleeing suspect, he's allowed to use deadly force. The officer wasn't being "dragged" How do you know that? You don't. I even posted a video where the other officer said he saw him being dragged. What, your armchair speculation trumps his eyewitness account?
Correct... but that's not what happened. Big difference in being dragged by the car and REACHING IN WILLINGLY, and trying to hold onto the shitbird. He wasn't dragged... The chest cam shows he reached in with his left hand and upholstered, simultaneously, with his right hand. The jury will see that this officer shot the shitbird because the shitbird was gonna drive away. This is why it's sometimes smart, when you notice one of your communities finist, behind the wheel of your traffic stop, to instruct the douche bag to turn the vehicle off. Even if that upsets Deckard. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The engine was turned off. You can see (and hear) in the video that Mr. Douchbag started the car. The traffic stop was over as far as HE was concerned. "and REACHING IN WILLINGLY" It could be that he was reaching in to shut off the car. Now if you want to say he shouldn't have done that, I agree. But it doesn't change anything. The guy drove away with the cop's arm in the car, and the cop says he was dragged. And another cop confirmed that. The prosecutor is a gutless chickenshit dickwad. He doesn't want another Ferguson. Or another Trayvon. So he's going for murder ... or voluntary manslaughter ... or whatever charge he can get a jury to agree on.
I view the video different. Post the video from the dash cam that shows him being dragged even an inch. All I saw was the officer reach with the left hand, pull back as he shot the perp in the head with his strong hand... and fell backwards from pulling back. Then the car, rolled on its own down the street.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Dash cam? Oh, that's so 2014. Everyone demanded body cams, remember? THAT was the ultimate answer to all our problems. So police departments got body cams. Now you want the dash cam back. Hey, I know. Lets have a dash cam, a body cam and a drone overhead. All that plus your support of bystanders getting in the way recording the event should do it, right? Or should they wait and call CNN, too? Let's force everyone to do their jobs with this kind of coverage and see how they like it.
... with the officer's left arm. Bottom line? There's enough here to cause at least one juror to have reasonable doubt. Especially if they go for murder.
Did you or did you not say another officers in car cam shows this officer getting dragged? I wanna see it. The body cam doesn't support that. The body cam shows him shooting the douche in the head and falling backwards. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Murder is a stretch... but I think he shit himself and shot him... that's manslaughter. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
It was another officer's body cam showing him on the ground after he extricated himself from the car. And there's a video which has yet another cop saying he saw him being dragged. See my post #7.
If I'm ever in a situation where I shit myself, I hope I have enough in me to pull my weapon and put one to the head like he did.
I saw your post 7. I did not show the videos you claim. Post 7 is worthless towards innocence or guilt. I'll go by his body cam... it doesn't look good for the officer. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Seems to me you won't be satisfied until you see the IMAX version of the event with multiple cameras and surround sound. How in the hell did we figure things out before there were cameras?
I have a problem understanding your mental processes. You wouldn't care to help me out with that, would you?
Seems to me you won't be satisfied until you see the IMAX version of the event with multiple cameras and surround sound. How in the hell did we figure things out before there were cameras? That's the problem right there. Before body cams, I'd have believed the officer when he said he was dragged. Without anything other than the word of the officer and the word of s shitbird, I'll almost always side with the officer... But now the body cam doesn't show (IMHO) what the officer claims gave him justification to use DPF... so yes, I WANT IMAX if you are claiming your opinion is swayed by video other then this. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Oh, you mean the cop lied? Imagine my surprise. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Which means he should stick with it. It is, IMO, quite disingenuous for a cop to place himself in a dangerous situation, and then use that situation to justify killing someone to get him out of the dangerous situation he put himself into. What would he reasonably hope to accomplish by sticking his arm into the car, especially when dealing with only a traffic violation? Common sense went out the window long before body cams came around. It's just that with body & dash cams, people are less likely to simply accept the officer's word on what happened, as it should be. This is not saying they should ignore the cop's version of events. It just shouldn't be presumed to be gospel. At the moment of shooting, the camera is quite obviously higher than the top of the door. If this is a chest cam, it's apparent then that the cop's chest is also above the level of the door. If he was literally being "dragged" that by definition means the cop was not standing on his feet, in which case the camera would have been below the top of the door, and would not have caught footage of the shooting as it did. Ergo, I think it's plain to see that he could not have been in the process of being dragged at the time of the shooting. Perhaps he was briefly after the shooting, but not before and not at the time of shooting. No way. No, don't ignore it. But the cop is not even stating what he saw in his own words, and 2) As at least an associate of the cop in question, personal bias exists tainting his agreement. In such situations, there's the temptation to play CYA (Cover Your Ass) and making such comments when recorded is a great way to start doing that, both for you and your friends.
If someone is actually being dragged by a car, you don't have to ask them. You'll notice that this alibi cop is now nowhere to be found. Meaning that someone made him back off the alibi. So that means he was just agreeing to collude in an alibi for a bad shooting or the powers-that-be (local police chief, prosecutor) have threatened him to perjure himself and go along with throwing the shooter cop to the wolves. Which doesn't sound all that likely to me. The exchange between the shooter cop and the alibi cop sounds more like colluding on an alibi after shooting someone in the head over a missing front plate. His first thought after only a few seconds was an alibi for himself. It may not prove consciousness of guilt but it certainly makes the cop sound more suspicious, not less. Exactly how was this cop being dragged while at arm's length from the driver's door? Was his wristwatch hooked over the door lock post? Did he get a hangnail caught in the door handle? What?
There are two videos which support his statement that he was dragged and now two eyewitness cops who agree. Now, the word "dragged" may not be the best word to describe what happened. I believe his left arm was in the car and that it got jammed on something when the driver started to pull away. Fearing he may be dragged, he fired then extricated himself. Some people have examined the video and claim (according to his lawyer) that he was on the ground 20 feet away from the initial stop. If that's true was he justified in shooting?
Sure. I deal in facts, not feelings.
You mean like getting up in the morning and going to work? "What would he reasonably hope to accomplish by sticking his arm into the car, especially when dealing with only a traffic violation?" I don't know. My guess is that he was reaching in to shut off the car. Why did the driver try to flee the scene if this was "only a traffic violation"? "If he was literally being "dragged" that by definition means the cop was not standing on his feet, in which case the camera would have been below the top of the door, and would not have caught footage of the shooting as it did." "Dragged" is probably not the best word. As the car started to pull away, I think his arm may have jammed on the steering wheel and he thought he was going to be dragged. He could have shuffled alongside in this short period. People who have examined the video say he was on the ground 20 feet away from the initial stop. That's not far, but still. "But the cop is not even stating what he saw in his own words, and 2) As at least an associate of the cop in question, personal bias exists tainting his agreement. In such situations, there's the temptation to play CYA (Cover Your Ass) and making such comments when recorded is a great way to start doing that, both for you and your friends." Translation: HE didn't say that and anyways he lied. To cover up for a campus cop. He could have said, "That may be true but that's not what I saw." Or he could have kept his mouth shut. He didn't. And according to his lawyer, there are now two cops who support that statement. He's being railroaded by a prosecutor making inflammatory comments in public statements.
He didn't. He told him what happened and the cop said, "Yeah. I saw that." "So that means he was just agreeing to collude in an alibi for a bad shooting" Really? Jeopardizing his career for a campus cop? He didn't have to say anything. "after shooting someone in the head over a missing front plate." That's why he was shot? For a missing front plate? I thought that's why he was pulled over.
What did he do, thread his arm through (and around) the steering wheel or the headrest or stick his hands down the driver's pants or something? You're just making stuff up now.
Are you suggesting the cop would have shot him anyway just for driving past? Of course not. And, yes, he did get shot as a direct result of being stopped for a missing front plate. If there was an outstanding warrant for a serious crime, maybe that would have justified shooting him when he attempted to flee, like an armed robbery or murder warrant. But the crime would have to be serious to allow for such a shooting of a driver for whom the cop/executioner had no actual ID to search for warrants on.
He reached in to try and grab the driver with his left hand/arm... drew his service weapon with his right hand... and as the driver was going to drive off... in that quick instant and excitement, he shot the fucker in the head... and fell backwards after firing the gun... with the driver dead and slumped to the passenger side, the car rolled forward until it struck a pole on the corner (low speed collision) That's what his chest cam shows. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You would not believe how many cars I see on a daily basis in Ohio that don't have a front license plate, I counted over 30 on my way home from work yesterday.
Comments (42 - 189) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Pericles (#1)
Maybe the murder victim was afraid for his life at the hands of a rogue mall cop.
#3. To: GrandIsland (#0)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#4. To: GrandIsland (#0)
AND HERE IS A CLEAR CASE OF A BAD OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING... and Deckard doesn't post it.
#5. To: Pericles (#1)
"Maybe the murder victim was afraid for his life at the hands of a rogue mall cop."
#6. To: GrandIsland (#0)
"AND HERE IS A CLEAR CASE OF A BAD OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING."
#7. To: TooConservative (#4)
#8. To: TooConservative, GrandColon (#4)
You suppose FreeThoughtProject is going to feature this story? I think it will fall into a dusty corner of their newsroom and never be heard from again.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#9. To: TooConservative (#4)
#10. To: misterwhite (#9)
(Edited)
#11. To: misterwhite (#7)
#12. To: Pinguinite (#11)
"It shows him getting up off the ground. "Knocked to the ground" it does not show. At least in this video. He may have simply lost his balance in the scuffle and in firing his weapon."
#13. To: Pinguinite (#11)
"But indicted does not mean guilty. Just means there will be a trial to closely examine everything. When there is doubt as to someone's innocence, what is wrong with that?"
#14. To: Deckard (#3)
Try learning to make paragraphs.
#15. To: TooConservative (#4)
You suppose FreeThoughtProject is going to feature this story? I think it will fall into a dusty corner of their newsroom and never be heard from again.
#16. To: misterwhite (#7)
#17. To: GrandIsland (#16)
"Tennessee Vs Garner states the officer isn't authorized to shoot just because a suspect flees."
#18. To: misterwhite (#17)
Correct. But Tennessee Vs Garner isn't applicable here. If the officer is being dragged by car driven by a fleeing suspect, he's allowed to use deadly forcd.
#19. To: GrandIsland (#18)
"to instruct the douche bag to turn the vehicle off."
#20. To: misterwhite (#19)
#21. To: GrandIsland (#20)
"Post the video from the dash cam"
#22. To: GrandIsland (#18)
(Edited)
"The jury will see that this officer shot the shitbird because the shitbird was gonna drive away ..."
#23. To: misterwhite (#21)
Dash cam? Oh, that's so 2014.
#24. To: misterwhite (#22)
Bottom line? There's enough here to cause at least one juror to have reasonable doubt. Especially if they go for murder.
#25. To: GrandIsland (#23)
"Did you or did you not say another officers in car cam shows this officer getting dragged?"
#26. To: GrandIsland (#24)
"but I think he shit himself and shot him..."
#27. To: misterwhite (#25)
See my post #7.
#28. To: GrandIsland (#27)
"I saw your post 7. I did not show the videos you claim."
#29. To: misterwhite (#28)
#30. To: misterwhite (#28)
#31. To: GrandIsland (#30)
But now the body cam doesn't show (IMHO) what the officer claims gave him justification to use DPF.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#32. To: misterwhite (#12)
Perhaps. But it is consistent with his story.
Caught in the steering wheel? Perhaps the driver grabbed his arm?
That's the main problem with body cams. Suddenly they're the final word and common sense goes out the window.
Because he's so close to the car, the camera is only focused on the car. If he's being dragged, he and the camera and the car are all moving together at the same speed. That's what the camera shows. He fires, then frees himself of the car.
On the video I posted he tells the other cop he was dragged. The other cop says, "Yeah. I saw that." You're saying we should ignore that exchange?
#33. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite, GrandIsland (#32)
On the video I posted he tells the other cop he was dragged. The other cop says, "Yeah. I saw that."
#34. To: GrandIsland (#30)
"Without anything other than the word of the officer and the word of s shitbird"
#35. To: Don (#29)
"I have a problem understanding your mental processes. You wouldn't care to help me out with that, would you?"
#36. To: Pinguinite (#32)
"It is, IMO, quite disingenuous for a cop to place himself in a dangerous situation, and then use that situation to justify killing someone to get him out of the dangerous situation he put himself into."
#37. To: TooConservative (#33)
"If someone is actually being dragged by a car, you don't have to ask them."
#38. To: misterwhite (#34)
Now, the word "dragged" may not be the best word to describe what happened. I believe his left arm was in the car and that it got jammed on something when the driver started to pull away. Fearing he may be dragged, he fired then extricated himself.
#39. To: misterwhite (#37)
That's why he was shot? For a missing front plate? I thought that's why he was pulled over.
#40. To: TooConservative (#38)
What did he do, thread his arm through (and around) the steering wheel or the headrest or stick his hands down the driver's pants or something?
#41. To: TooConservative (#39)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]