[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In 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: 40127 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 164. #4. To: GrandIsland (#0) AND HERE IS A CLEAR CASE OF A BAD OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING... and Deckard doesn't post it. 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. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-30   11:24:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: TooConservative (#4) 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. misterwhite  posted on  2015-07-30   11:48:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: misterwhite (#7) 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. GrandIsland  posted on  2015-07-30   14:40:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: GrandIsland (#16) "Tennessee Vs Garner states the officer isn't authorized to shoot just because a suspect flees." 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? misterwhite  posted on  2015-07-30   15:05:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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. GrandIsland  posted on  2015-07-30   15:24:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: GrandIsland (#18) "to instruct the douche bag to turn the vehicle off." 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. misterwhite  posted on  2015-07-30   16:42:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: misterwhite (#19) 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. GrandIsland  posted on  2015-07-30   16:59:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: GrandIsland (#20) "Post the video from the dash cam" 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. misterwhite  posted on  2015-07-30   17:17:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: misterwhite (#21) Dash cam? Oh, that's so 2014. 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. GrandIsland  posted on  2015-07-30   18:01:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: GrandIsland (#23) "Did you or did you not say another officers in car cam shows this officer getting dragged?" 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. misterwhite  posted on  2015-07-30   18:16:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: misterwhite (#25) See my post #7. 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. GrandIsland  posted on  2015-07-30   18:34:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: GrandIsland (#27) "I saw your post 7. I did not show the videos you claim." 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? misterwhite  posted on  2015-07-30   18:48:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: misterwhite (#28) 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. GrandIsland  posted on  2015-07-30   19:08:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: GrandIsland (#30) "Without anything other than the word of the officer and the word of s shitbird" 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? misterwhite  posted on  2015-07-31   12:22:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-31   13:31:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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? 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. GrandIsland  posted on  2015-07-31   14:01:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: GrandIsland (#40) "He reached in to try and grab the driver with his left hand/arm..." He had just asked the driver to remove his seat belt. The driver refused. It's possible he was reaching for the seat belt release, not the driver. "in that quick instant and excitement, he shot the fucker in the head... and fell backwards after firing the gun..." So he should have fallen where he stood, correct? Not 20 feet further down the street? "That's what his chest cam shows." More like what you see in the video recorded by the chest cam. misterwhite  posted on  2015-07-31   15:06:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: misterwhite (#47) He had just asked the driver to remove his seat belt. The driver refused. It's possible he was reaching for the seat belt release, not the driver. It is bad procedure to start manhandling someone sitting their car. The police should order them out of the car, not try to start scuffling with a driver behind the wheel. Or maybe you're happier if they just put a bullet in their head for not having a front plate and fleeing the fuzz? In a country as monumentally lawless as America has become in the Obola era and you want to enforce minor traffic laws to support taxfeeders to the extent of capital punishment for a missing plate? Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-31   17:46:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: TooConservative (#53) "It is bad procedure to start manhandling someone sitting their car." Be that as it may, we've seen other videos where the individual was dragged from the car by the police. Usually accompanied by a post from you decrying police brutality. "Or maybe you're happier if they just put a bullet in their head for not having a front plate and fleeing the fuzz?" I note you've now added "and fleeing the fuzz". When you add "and dragging a cop" I'll answer your question in the affirmative. misterwhite  posted on  2015-07-31   20:23:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: misterwhite (#60) Be that as it may, we've seen other videos where the individual was dragged from the car by the police. Usually accompanied by a post from you decrying police brutality. You're just making stuff up because you're trying to defend the indefensible. What, you've sunk to licking the jackboots of a mere college mall cop? Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-31   21:28:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: TooConservative (#66) I answered your question. Are you going to answer mine? misterwhite  posted on  2015-07-31   22:09:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: misterwhite (#71) I answered your question. Are you going to answer mine? What was the question? Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-31   22:20:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: TooConservative (#73) "What was the question?" Actually there were two: 1) Assuming the cop's arm was caught in the moving car and the cop feared he might be dragged to death, was he justified in shooting the driver? 2) Why did he flee the police for a mere license plate violation? misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-01   10:36:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: misterwhite (#76) 1) Assuming the cop's arm was caught in the moving car and the cop feared he might be dragged to death, was he justified in shooting the driver? Judging by the video, that was less than a half-second before he was clear of the vehicle on the video. You are asking for an answer to a question that is bootless in this situation. You're saying that, from the time the victim put his car in gear, the cop was making a decision about being dragged and having the time to decide he was in danger and pull the gun and aim and fire. I see nothing in this video to suggest that your scenario applies. 2) Why did he flee the police for a mere license plate violation? I think it doesn't matter. I note that you are suggesting that it is somehow fine for police to shoot anyone who flees from them. Fleeing police is not a capital offense, subject to summary execution on the streets. You don't seem to understand that. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-01   12:49:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: TooConservative (#81) You are asking for an answer to a question that is bootless in this situation. Bootless? It was his statement backed up by two eyewitnesses and multiple videos. Nothing contradicts any of that (other than your personal interpretation). Yet I answered your "bootless" question which omitted all of that factual evidence. "Why did he flee the police for a mere license plate violation?" "I think it doesn't matter." I see. NOW it doesn't matter. It mattered when you brought it up. It mattered when is was a mere license plate infraction. But then the driver turns a warning into a felony and to you it doesn't matter why. "Fleeing police is not a capital offense, subject to summary execution on the streets. You don't seem to understand that." You asked me that question before, I answered it, and you didn't read it? Then why should I bother? misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-01   14:28:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: misterwhite (#86) Bootless? It was his statement backed up by two eyewitnesses and multiple videos. It is not. I don't think the other Kampus Kop will help alibi him. His statement sounds very confused, like someone caught in a lie. The other eyewitness, according to the D.A., is going to testify it was a murder. And you keep harping on how this guy's arm was caught yet you never provide any credible explanation as to how he got his arm caught or what his arm was caught on so that he feared being dragged. Since he didn't get dragged and the car moved away, in what way did shooting this helpless (now-dead) driver help him to get his arm free so he would stop being dragged? In short, you're an idiot. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-01   19:42:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #96. To: TooConservative (#95) "I don't think the other Kampus Kop will help alibi him. His statement sounds very confused, like someone caught in a lie." It was made only minutes after the shooting. He didn't have time to sit down and compose it. "The other eyewitness, according to the D.A., is going to testify it was a murder." So he's changing his official story after talking to the DA. The defense will have a field day with that. "And you keep harping on how this guy's arm was caught yet you never provide any credible explanation as to how he got his arm caught or what his arm was caught on so that he feared being dragged." WTF? How should I know? He SAID his arm was stuck. Two eyewitnesses said his arm was stuck. Two videos don't show anything contrary. He ended up on the ground 20 feet from the initial stop. Now, was he dragged, heels scraping the ground, dangling by one arm? No. Nobody claims that, so stop asking for proof of it. misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-02   8:53:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #101. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland, A K A Stone (#96) Now, was he dragged, heels scraping the ground, dangling by one arm? No. Nobody claims that, so stop asking for proof of it. Grabbing onto something inside a car and refusing to let go is not being dragged. And if he wasn't being dragged, then this was murder. And a jury will convict him in minutes, not days. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-02   9:25:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #108. To: TooConservative (#101) "And if he wasn't being dragged, then this was murder." I agree. And will you agree that if his arm was trapped by the driver's arm and the driver was accelerating, the shooting was justified? misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-02   11:01:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #109. To: misterwhite (#108) And will you agree that if his arm was trapped by the driver's arm and the driver was accelerating, the shooting was justified? What I see is the cop grabbing the perp's left arm and not letting go and, as the car starts to accelerate away, the cop has his gun half out of the holster already (indicating he was already drawing on the driver for not having exited the vehicle after he had opened the door and then closed it again). Then he shot him in the head, the dying driver's foot remaining pressed on the accelerator and keeping the car moving down the street. You aren't fooling anyone with that 1:56 photo. And Tensing's attorney won't fool any jury either. All he had to do was let go of the victim's arm. And not shoot a plate-violator in the head for fleeing. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-02   11:06:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #111. To: TooConservative (#109) "What I see is the cop grabbing the perp's left arm and not letting go" So you're saying he wanted to be dragged down the street? "You aren't fooling anyone with that 1:56 photo." What?? Fool anyone?? I posted a f**king screen shot. It is what it is. To me, it appears to support Officer Tensing's statement AND Officer Lindenschmidt's statement AND Officer Kidd's statement that his left arm was trapped and he was being dragged. misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-02   11:32:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #113. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland (#111) To me, it appears to support Officer Tensing's statement AND Officer Lindenschmidt's statement AND Officer Kidd's statement that his left arm was trapped and he was being dragged. Aren't both Lindenschmidt and Kidd suspended from duty right now? I sure wouldn't count on them for alibis for Tensing. More likely, they will face charges (or being fired) too. They may be prosecuted for filing false police reports. Lindenschmidt seems really shaky and confused. An veteran police interrogator would make quick work of his alibi story (and probably already has). Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-02   11:36:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #115. To: TooConservative (#113) "Aren't both Lindenschmidt and Kidd suspended from duty right now?" Where did you read that? Or are you just making it up? "I sure wouldn't count on them for alibis for Tensing." Oops. Too late. "More likely, they will face charges (or being fired) too." You mean if they don't change their statements. Probably. misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-02   11:52:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #119. To: misterwhite (#115) Where did you read that? Or are you just making it up? Dumbkopf. It's at the end of the video you posted (Megan Kelly at 09:17). Don't you even watch the vids you post to try to prove your point? Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-02   12:12:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #122. To: TooConservative (#119) She said "paid administrative leave" not "suspended. Dumbkopf. misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-02   12:29:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #124. To: misterwhite (#122) She said "paid administrative leave" not "suspended. They are suspended. So what if they are still drawing a paycheck? You'll notice that Tensing was fired immediately. I wouldn't be surprised if the same happens to his two alibi witnesses. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-02   12:36:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #130. To: TooConservative (#124) They are suspended. So what if they are still drawing a paycheck? Paid suspension is standard and contractual. It has nothing to do with their guilt or innocence. It's kinda like the level of due process we get, criminally. He shouldn't receive punitive damage until AFTER he's found guilty. A constitutional Ideal that the agenda posters hate. GrandIsland  posted on  2015-08-02   12:49:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #136. To: GrandIsland (#130) Paid suspension is standard and contractual. It has nothing to do with their guilt or innocence. It's kinda like the level of due process we get, criminally. He shouldn't receive punitive damage until AFTER he's found guilty. A constitutional Ideal that the agenda posters hate. The shooter was fired immediately. Which means his own superiors have zero backing for him and his actions. And the two witnessing cops are both suspended. Normally, just witnessing a shooting will not result in a cop being suspended from duty. Something is wrong with these two alibi Kampus Kops. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspended from their official duties and taken off the duty roster. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-02   13:27:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #140. To: TooConservative (#136) "The shooter was fired immediately. Which means his own superiors have zero backing for him and his actions." He was fired after he was indicted. misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-02   14:20:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #163. To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#140) [TooConservative #136] The shooter was fired immediately. [misterwhite #140] He was fired after he was indicted. It appears that Tensing was fired, but unlawfully. A government employee is considered to have a property right in his employment and cannot be lawfuly fired without observance of due process, including fair notice and a hearing. IMHO, the university will be paying him. It does not matter how guilty he may appear or what the crime is. The University should have suspended him and placed him on paid administrative leave until they could comply with required due process. Government failure to follow due process gets many, many of their administrative actions overturned. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/31/tensing-union-demands-uc-job-back/30932331/ Tensing, through union, demands his UC job back Anne Saker, asaker@enquirer.com Cincinnati.com 3:43 p.m. EDT July 31, 2015 The union representing the University of Cincinnati police force has filed a grievance on behalf of Raymond Tensing demanding that he get his job back as an officer because the university fired him this week without due process, a union official said Friday. Thomas Fehr, representative of the Fraternal Order of Police-Ohio Labor Council, said the union filed the grievance Thursday, the same day Tensing was arraigned on murder charges in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. Tensing is accused of killing motorist Sam DuBose July 19 in Mount Auburn. Tensing had stopped DuBose because his car did not have a front license plate. As DuBose turns his ignition key, starting the car, Tensing pulled out his service weapon and fired. Tensing was wearing a body camera that captured the exchange. On Wednesday, Tensing was indicted on murder charges, and the university fired him from the police force. The FOP represents the members of the force, and Fehr said the university did not abide by its three-year contract with the union in dismissing Tensing. “We filed the grievance, No. 1 because there was no just cause, and No. 2 because he was not afforded his due process rights under the contract,” Fehr said. Friday, university spokeswoman Michele Ralston said: "The university stands by its decision to terminate Officer Ray Tensing." The grievance said, "Officer Tensing was terminated on 7/29/2015 without just cause for an on-duty fatal shooting. While Officer Tensing was indicted on a charge of murder, the indictment is not a conviction. Officer Tensing was also denied his due process rights of a pre-disciplinary hearing under the contract." The grievance asked for Tensing to be reinstated immediately and "is to be made whole for all back pay and benefits including but not limited to sick time, vacation time, holidays, shift differential, pension contributions etc. afforded under the current contract." Under the contract, the university has seven calendar days – or until Aug. 6 – to hold a hearing. Fehr said that at the hearing, the university could either restore Tensing in his job or decline, then the case would go to arbitration. That process could take four to six months to conduct. “The contract language says that if you’re going to discipline an employee for anything that involves loss of pay, suspension, demotion or termination, the university is required to have a pre-disciplinary conference with the employee. That was not done,” Fehr said. “They are also required to give the employee a copy of the formal charges, and that was not done. They just fired him and didn’t follow due process.” Fehr said that Tensing was notified that the union was filing the grievance on his behalf. “He wanted it done,” Fehr said. nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-03   3:23:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #164. To: nolu chan, misterwhite (#163) It appears that Tensing was fired, but unlawfully. A government employee is considered to have a property right in his employment and cannot be lawfuly fired without observance of due process, including fair notice and a hearing. IMHO, the university will be paying him. It does not matter how guilty he may appear or what the crime is. The University should have suspended him and placed him on paid administrative leave until they could comply with required due process. Union law and contracts can vary by state or locality. But even if the university ends up having to pay him, they have disavowed his actions publicly in advance. This was probably their purpose. So what if they have to cut some checks to him later, knowing all along that that was the likely outcome? In the meantime, no mob will be showing up to hound the regents or the Kampus Kops offices. It may be the university has legal cause to fire him. We don't know all the specifics of the local contract. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-03   8:29:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 164. #178. To: TooConservative, misterwhite (#164) It may be the university has legal cause to fire him. We don't know all the specifics of the local contract. They may have cause but I have never seen such a CBA that contains a waiver of the otherwise mandatory due process. Here is the relevant excerpt of the University of Cincinnati and Police CBA on DISCIPLINE. The link goes to the full CBA. If/when management loses the grievance on the dismissal absent due process, the dismissal becomes null and void. They then have to go through the proper process to effect a dismissal. They might have legally gotten him off the payroll in a few weeks. Bypassing due process can leave them paying back pay until they accomplish due process. They could drag out the grievance process to step three and even wind up in court. Every day they drag it out without providing due process may become one more day due and payable. https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/hr/labor_and_employee_relations/collective_bargaining/lrpd_fop_cba_lawenforcement.pdf COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT Between The University of Cincinnati University Law Enforcement Officers And The Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. [...] ARTICLE 9 DISCIPLINE Section 9.1. The following language on Discipline is the sole source of rights and obligations of the parties to this contract in these matters. Section 9.2. A. An employee may receive discipline for just cause. B. The University may take disciplinary action against any employee for actions occurring while the employee is on duty, or off duty actions that negatively impact the employee's ability to function in the community, or working under the colors of the University, or where the employee's conduct violates his/her oath of office. C. Employees shall have the right to Union representation at all hearings to determine discipline and conferences that may result in corrective action, or may choose to present their own case. 12 - - - - - D. Discipline shall be taken according to the seriousness of the offense and the basic purpose of such action is corrective and not punitive. The University shall administer progressive discipline that provides the employee the opportunity to understand a problem and the steps necessary to improve identifiable deficiencies. E. Discipline may be in the form of, but not necessarily start at, written reprimands, suspensions up to thirty (30) calendar days, demotion and/or discharge. F. Employees subject to all written discipline (up to and including dismissal) shall receive notification of the actions in writing. G. Employees who are subject to discipline (except for failure to qualify at the end of their initial probationary period) that immediately results in a suspension, demotion or dismissal shall have a pre-disciplinary conference conducted by a hearing officer prior to the imposition of said action. All charges against the employee shall be in writing (charge letter) and specifically state in detail the alleged infraction and the anticipated discipline. If facts arise during investigation that cause the anticipated discipline to be revised, nothing shall prohibit such revision. The employee against whom charges are issued, or the University, shall have the right to one continuance of the scheduled conference. Such continuance must be requested at least one (1) working day in advance of the scheduled conference. Such continuance shall not exceed fourteen (14) calendar days unless another time is mutually agreed to. The employee must choose to: (1) appear at the disciplinary conference and present an oral or written statement in his/her defense; (2) appear at the disciplinary conference and have one (1) chosen representative present an oral or written statement in his/her defense; or (3) elect in writing to waive his/her opportunity to have a disciplinary conference. Failure of the employee to elect and pursue one (1) of these three (3) options will be deemed a waiver of the employee's right to the disciplinary conference. At the disciplinary conference, the employee may present any testimony, witness, or documents which explain whether or not the alleged misconduct occurred. Discipline involving suspension, demotion, or dismissal shall be imposed by the hearing officer only after issuing the findings and decision. The hearing officer may impose warning letters in place of suspensions. Such warning letters will carry the same weight as the suspension they replace and will be so evaluated in determining 13 - - - - - its appropriateness and in the assessment of any subsequent action. The Hearing Officer shall issue a written report within ten (10) calendar days of the conclusion of the conference. Should an employee decide to file a grievance over action taken as the result of a pre-disciplinary conference, such grievance shall be initiated at Step Two (2) of the grievance procedure. H. An employee charged with or under indictment for a felony, or any crime which results in a weapons disability, may be placed on a paid leave of absence or assigned to an administrative function in an un-armed status until resolution of the court proceedings. Upon a resolution of the proceedings, the employee may be subject to discipline by the University under Section C of this Article. I. The University reserves the right to terminate employment for the following reasons: 1. Voluntary resignation; 2. Discharge for just cause as set forth in this Article, Section 2, A. 3. Failure to return from a leave of absence within seven (7) calendar days of the issuance of a certified letter from the University or other mutually agreed to time frame. 4. Failure to return from a layoff within fourteen (14) calendar days of the issuance of a certified letter from the University. J. After twenty-four (24) months from date of issue, loss of pay discipline shall not be considered in any subsequent determination of discipline unless there has been discipline in the intervening period, and the force and effect period for reprimands shall be twelve (12) months. K. In all cases of dismissal, the employee is entitled to payment of all wages due. L. Employees who have been notified of an upcoming administrative hearing may meet with their steward during working hours with no loss of pay or benefits to prepare for the hearing; such meetings shall be for a reasonable period of time. 14 - - - - - M. Employees have the right to appeal discipline through the grievance procedure, however, reprimands may not be taken past Step 2. Section 9.3. Whenever the Employer or designee(s) interviews, questions, or interrogates bargaining unit members in reference to alleged or suspected misconduct, either in preliminary investigations or in disciplinary hearings, the following conditions shall apply: A. Employees being questioned as witnesses shall be so informed. B. When an employee who is suspected of misconduct is interviewed, questioned, or interrogated regarding such misconduct, he/she shall be apprised of the nature of the suspected misconduct as it is known at that time and his/her right to have the opportunity to have a FOP representative present to advise him/her during the questioning. C. Prior to questioning, employees (including witnesses) shall be informed that failure to respond or failure to respond truthfully may result in disciplinary action for insubordination or dishonesty. Employees shall also be informed of their Garrity and Piper warnings at this time, if the employer decides to utilize the warnings. D. Preliminary investigations and disciplinary hearings shall be held either during an employee's scheduled working hours or at a time in reasonable proximity to his/her shift. E. Questioning sessions shall be for reasonable periods and shall allow for personal necessities and rest period. F. No employee shall be subjected to abusive language during questioning. No promise of reward shall be made as an inducement to answer questions. G. The Police Chief may require an employee to take a polygraph examination, voice stress analysis, or similar technology. The employee shall be entitled to union representation pursuant to Section 2.C. of this Article. H. Any employee required by the Employer to attend an investigatory interview or disciplinary hearing outside of his/her scheduled working hours shall be paid for all such time. Section 9.4. Anonymous complaints with no corroborative evidence shall not be cause for disciplinary action. When an anonymous complaint is made against a 15 - - - - - bargaining unit member, and there is no corroborative evidence of any kind, the complaint shall be classified as unfounded. Section 9.5. Disciplinary action must be instituted within thirty (30) days of when the employer became aware of the employee's alleged misconduct. The thirty (30) day period may be extended if the employer has a legitimate business reason. Section 9.6. Employees shall be given a written disposition of any internal investigation or non-disciplinary complaint filed by an officer within thirty (30) days of the filing. [...] 16 - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-03 16:30:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 164. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com