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: 40013
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.
That's what his chest cam shows. That's my take too. But the chest cam is jumpy, leaving room for some doubts. I didn't download the clip directly so I could step through it frame by frame. Even a chest-cam only helps so much in a fluid situation. The investigators will be looking at things more in-depth. There are always intangible human elements. Still, it looks like a bad shooting based on what we've seen and read so far.
In most states, not having a front plate is an invitation for a cop to stop you.
Only a rear license plate is required in my state of Kentucky. Edit: And I've never been stopped while driving in many other states.
Don't know. Is that important? Or will it suffice simply to say his arm was stuck and he thought he was going to be dragged to his death?
Then I can say he got shot as a direct result of getting out of bed that morning. You're as bad as Deckard with your "he was shot because he had a missing front plate". "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." Is the crime of "dragging an officer to his death" serious enough?
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.
And here I thought they were going to be the be-all, end-all solution. A dash cam would have been better.
Given that none of Ohio's border states requires a front license plate, it could very well be that those cars were from a neighboring state.
There is case law that allows an out of state vehicle, properly registered with one plate to be able to drive in another state that requires two. In my 20 years, I never stopped an out of state vehicle for having one plate. However, for many many reasons, I feel its better to require a front and rear plate. I think all states should require it... and I now live in a one plate state. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Then those prison workers would have to work twice as hard if there was a two plate requirement. I've lived in places that required two plates. One plate makes sense to me. It made sense to the dead guy in Cincinnati too.
It seems like a relevant detail and, if there was evidence to support the claim, then his attorney should have been poisoning the jury pool as much as possible with such a claim. Yet no evidence or claim is made. You have a serious problem defending this guy, much as his attorney will, because all the evidence points toward him and nothing that exonorates him or justifies this shooting has surfaced, despite multiple video cams. And a black man is dead after trying to flee a ticket on a missing plate violation. Do you think it is justified to shoot a black man for not having a license plate, misterwhite, even if they try to flee the cop?
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?
You can be. LegalMatch.com: License Plate Laws No. 31 states require both front and rear license plates, while the remaining 19 only require rear license plates. Automobile manufacturers are prohibited by law from distributing cars with only one license plate in states that require both. The 19 states that require only the rear license plate are: Therefore if your state requires both front and rear plates, you should make sure that both are displayed and your registration is current. It's likely that most used cars end up in the same state they were sold in originally and, if not, they are still fairly likely to end up in a state with similar plate laws. I assume this is one of those full-faith-and-credit cases where states are required to legally honor the recognized and lawful plating practices of other states. So if you take your licensed rear-plate-only vehicle to a two-plate state, they can't stop and ticket you for violating their state law because your vehicle is registered lawfully in your home state. A consequence of states' rights. You have a "right" to have your lawfully licensed vehicle and its single plate on the roads of other states. And it is not probable cause to stop you for not having a front plate.
That makes sense. Was Samuel DuBose driving an out of state vehicle?
I have no clue. I'm not investigating his death. I'm happily retired. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Since the cop approached from behind the car, he would have observed the plate's state designation. It seems unlikely he would be trying to enforce the proper licensure of a vehicle from another two-plate state. So we can assume 1) he saw it was an in-state rear plate and 2) that it was missing the required front plate. Otherwise, nothing he said to the victim would have made any sense and he wouldn't have had any kind of probable cause for a stop. It seems very unlikely he wouldn't have tried to give a ticket for a car being improperly plated from another state. He said nothing about it being an expired rear plate either. May as well flag Gatlin, maybe he's ready to return to LF.
Nothing so far contradicts his story beyond a reasonable doubt. "You have a serious problem defending this guy" A first-year law student could successfully defend this guy ... assuming he gets a fair trial and an impartial jury -- both of which seem unlikely. "Do you think it is justified to shoot a black man for not having a license plate, misterwhite, even if they try to flee the cop?" No I don't. 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? Why did he flee the police for a mere license plate violation? By doing that, he turned a simple warning into a felony.
It appears he had two plates, but only one on the car. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/30/winburn-dump-front-license-plates/30900975/ http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/29/publish/30830777/ [...] [Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe] Deters said Tensing's actions during the traffic stop show that "he never should have been a police officer." He said UC could not have known if Tensing was a bad officer when he was hired, but he also suggested the university should get out of the law enforcement business. Deters, a UC graduate, said the city of Cincinnati should take over campus patrols and the UC police force should be disbanded. "They're not cops," he said of UC police. "Being a police officer shouldn't be the role of this university."
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.
Oh. I thought maybe you brought up that point because it was relevant. My bad.
Did he have one in the glove box or did he SAY he had one in the glove box? Keep in mind he SAID he had a driver's license.
All but 2 had Ohio plates on the back of the car and most of them didn't even have a place to mount a front plate. I've had a Dallas Stars plate over the front license plate on my Olds for the last 9-10 years and have never been told by the cops to get rid of it. Interesting the victim had the other plate in the glove box. An actual mall cop. : )
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
Assuming you live in Texas, it's an open invitation for any cop to stop you at any time. Automatic reasonable suspicion. You might get away with a tail light being out for ten years in some jurisdictions. But you are still a moving target for any cop that feels like writing a ticket or looking into you and your affairs much more closely.
I did from 89-00, have been back home in Ohio ever since. Personally I don't really think the cops here worry about the single plate that much unless the have another reason for stopping you... But they can stop you at any time for that one violation. Maybe they need a higher ticket count. Maybe they just don't like your mug. You've opened the door to a ticket and a fine. Automatic cause for a stop, any time they want.
And Mr. Deters is pretending to be a County Prosecutor. He'd better watch his mouth or he's going to end up being disbarred like Mr. Nifong.
I answered your question. Are you going to answer mine?
I saw him on the tube. He's no Nifong. He's going to get a quick conviction, no fuss.
What was the question?
The two story authors SAID his second plate was in the glove box. [Sharon Coolidge and Jessie Balmert, scoolidge@enquirer.com and jbalmert@enquirer.com]
Oh. I thought maybe you brought up that point because it was relevant. My bad. Might be relevant to the stop... has nothing to do with his death... so I personally don't give a shit or want to waste a moment of time on it. I don't think anyone disputes the legality of the stop... except maybe Deckard. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
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?
Do you think a license plate would fit in a glove box?
A bit ... outspoken, wouldn't you say? Unprofessional? Unethical, perhaps? Certainly improper. Yet you mock the UC cop.
"DuBose has been charged with driving without a license more than 13 times between 1995 and 2009, according to court records obtained by Cincinnati’s Fox 19. He has also been charged with driving while suspended eight times from 2005 and 2011 and with failure to display a proper a proper license plate on his vehicle four times between 1995 and 2009." Dubose had more than 75 offenses charged to him over his lifetime. Including drug charges. Pillar of the community.
In one of the newly released videos, (Officer) Lindenschmidt appears to corroborate Tensing's original story that he was dragged by DuBose's car when talking to other officers arriving on scene. "They had a traffic stop, the guy took off on him, the officer got caught in his arm, cause the guy reached for something he thought, so he grabbed on the car, that officer went down when he got tangled in the car, and fired," Lindenschmidt says. Officer Kidd, whose body cam video shows him running over to the shooting scene, also said he saw Tensing being dragged by DuBose. "He was dragging me," Tensing said to Kidd. "Yeah I saw that," Kidd responded. In the official incident report on the shooting, Officer Eric Wiebel writes that Kidd said he saw DuBose's car drag Tensing. "Officer Kidd told me that he witnessed the Honda Accord drag Officer Tensing, and that he witnessed Officer Tensing fire a single shot," Wiebel wrote. Reasonable doubt?
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. 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.
Reasonable doubt? No. If he was actually being dragged, there should be scuff marks on his shoes and even on the pavement. There should be other supporting evidence. It's clear from the vagueness of this testimony that the other cop never saw the actual events up close. He clearly does not have a coherent eyewitness account. He sounds like his story varies considerably in just a few sentences. The prosecutor will take him apart, probably make clear how serious perjuring himself in court will be if he gives false testimony and the D.A. has evidence to prove he is lying. I think this alibi cop will fall apart and recant before the trial, under pressure from the prosecutor. There's a good reason why the county decided to prosecute this murder. The perp Kampus Kop is not credible, nor is his alibi witness. And they have evidence and another witness to contradict the duet of the Kampus Kops.
You are demonstrating an overwhelming bias in favor of the cop. Looking at the chest cam again, I notice we can clearly see in one of the frames the cops left arm immediately prior to the shot being fired, and it's extended to the man's chest/seatbelt, which I think rules out any suggestion that his arm might have been caught in the steering wheel. That in conjunction with the fact that the chest cam was above the level of the top of the door of this small car (not an SUV) makes it reasonably apparent that his left arm was likely NOT in any way entangled, and therefore the cop was not in any way being dragged at the instant of the shooting. That he fell to the ground after the shooting is obvious, and not in dispute. That the cop might have been trying to prevent the man from escaping is also not in dispute. That shooting a man solely for attempting to drive away from a traffic stop is an act not legally defensible is also not in dispute (at least with anyone else). The only question is, did the cop have reasonable cause fear to fear for his life or safety at the instant of the shooting? I think the video evidence says "no". I'm sure you will continue your defense of the cop as often as this issue comes up, which is fine. Good luck with that, as you'll need it.
Before body cams, absoloutly.... problem is, the video footage doesn't support him being "dragged". The best video would be from a dash cam, behind the traffic stop. That would show the officer being dragged... the body cam doesn't. It supports him shooting the driver in the head and falling backwards... as the car rolls forwards at 1 mph. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
"DuBose has been charged with driving without a license more than 13 times between 1995 and 2009, according to court records obtained by Cincinnati’s Fox 19. He has also been charged with driving while suspended eight times from 2005 and 2011 and with failure to display a proper a proper license plate on his vehicle four times between 1995 and 2009." Dubose had more than 75 offenses charged to him over his lifetime. Including drug charges. Pillar of the community. Oh, believe me, I weep not a tear or feel the least bit of sorrow for this pile of shit... but the officer used DPF when he wasn't justified by necessity. I believe the shitbird was going to try and drive off... because he's a Criminal piece of shit.... but I believe the officer did perceive that and shot the driver in the head to keep him from evading. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
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 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?
I posted visual evidence and eyewitness testimony. That's bias? Bias would be your interpretation of a video in favor of the victim. "rules out any suggestion that his arm might have been caught in the steering wheel." I have no idea where his arm was caught. Even before viewing his chest cam, he said his arm was caught. The chest cam later confirmed that (or, worst case, did not disprove it). Two eyewitnesses confirmed it. Others have examined the video and said that he fell 20 feet from the location of the traffic stop. But your bias says that we should ignore all that because one frame from his chest cam appears to show his left arm.
Let's forget about trying to define "drag". If the officer's arm was caught in the car and the driver started to accelerate, was the officer justified in shooting?
Was the officer justified in touching/grabbing the victim? I say no.
In favor of the what?
Wouldn't it depend on the size of the glove box?
It was a Honda Accord. Whatever size that is. Moot point. I think he lied.
That's a different question, isn't it. MY question is, "If the officer's arm was caught in the car and the driver started to accelerate, was the officer justified in shooting?" Don't feel bad ignoring it. Not one person on this forum will answer it.
Bias would be your interpretation of a video in favor of the alleged victim.
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.
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.
He wasn't dragged. If he was I'm sure you can tell us from the video from what minute-second did the dragging start and when did it end? You can't.
You mean heels-scraping-the-pavement, screaming, dangling by one arm from the rapidly moving car? I agree. He wasn't "dragged".
So you can't tell me the time frame when he was dragged or if it is now his arm was stuck somewhere. Whatever it was that made his actions reasonable. What time frame in the video did it happen in. You've already dodged once.
Your "alibi" cop is pretty much what I was thinking. One officer sees that another made a serious mistake. So he chimes in with an alibi.
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.
Maybe maybe not.
Per above post: Grabbing onto something inside the car and refusing to let go is not being "dragged". And it isn't cause to murder a fleeing suspect by shooting him point-blank in the head. Let's keep in mind that these are Kampus Kops, not real cops.
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. Spot on... This officer, in the heat of the moment and excitement, made a poor split decision. He should have left his service weapon in his holster, let go of the driver AND GAVE CHASE WITH THE PATROL CAR. Stone is right tho, a jury may give the officer benefit of the doubt and not convict him... and we'll have another wonderful riot. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
At the 1:56 screen grab, it appears as though the officer's left arm is trapped in the crook of the drivers left arm. There's a good, non-biased discussion here if you're interested.
That's not what he said. Christ, I hope you're not on the jury. He said, "the officer got caught in his arm". Look at my post #105, screen shot at 1:56.
I saw the prosecutor, very calm and deliberate. He charged both murder and involuntary manslaughter. It's a very easy bet he has enough evidence and eyewitness support to secure at least one conviction. Tensing is going down. It will be a fairly brief trial too. I still don't get why Kampus Kops are stopping someone for a plate violation. Maybe the laws are different there. In places I've lived, campus police stay on the actual campus and don't get involved in things like statutory vehicle infractions like plates or inspection stickers. And campus police never shoot people, outside of some armed nutjob like the UVa shooter. A campus cop is so worried about a missing plate infraction that the (non-student) driver ends up dead? Of course, this story merely tends to confirm my own bias against campus police. I prefer to see regular police and sheriffs' departments used in almost any instance. So I guess I'm fairly unfriendly to the entire idea of a campus police unit. The real problem is lack of training and recruitment, it seems. When things get gritty like a mass shooting, campus police are ineffective. It seems to me a diversion of funding from legitimate local police agencies.
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?
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.
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.
That video hurts your case. They take a shot at the prosecutor, that he is talking too much. It seems a long stretch for them to compare his statements to what Mosely did in Baltimore which was egregious prosecutorial misconduct, in the Nifong range. Notice that both attorneys are agreeing that he will be convicted. It is possible, as suggested, that the murder charge is intended to force a guilty plea to the involuntary manslaughter charge. There are a few peculiarities of Ohio criminal law to consider as well. Like it or not, every state has its own criminal statutes with a considerable amount of variety among them.
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).
I doubt much will happen to the two witness officers. It's hard to prove that somebody didn't see something of did see something. All they have to do is say on the stand, " I thought I saw him being dragged... I'm not 100% sure... about 99% sure I saw him dragged".
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
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.
True. But keep in mind, these independent statements were made within three minutes of the shooting -- not after they saw the video, got together and agreed what the story was. In my opinion, it raises reasonable doubt that this was a murder.
We shall all see. The job of a cop ain't easy... I'm glad I'm retired with a clean file. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I posted the video to dispute your claim that the prosecutor is some kind of calm and deliberate official. "Despite the good will his prosecution of the Tensing case will likely bring, questions of Deters’ professional ethics continue to hound him. In 2000, for example, the Cincinnati Enquirer found that the Ohio Supreme Court has criticized the Hamilton County Prosecutor Office for making improper courtroom statements to secure 14 death penalty cases from 1988 to 2000. These statements — meant to solicit an emotional response from juries or to paint the defense in a poor light — is frown upon during capital offense cases, where facts are meant to be the exclusive determining factor in guilt." "Deters’ ethics were further tested when, in 2004, Matt Borges, a former chief of staff and fundraiser for Deter, plead guilty in a “pay-to-play” scandal. Borges gave 10 brokers that contributed to Deters’ campaign fund preferential treatment in securing state Treasurer’s Office contracts. Borges’ conviction was joined by a guilty plea by Eric Sagun, who also raised money for Deters. Sagun solicited $50,000 from convicted Cleveland-area broker Frank Gruttadauria in 2001 with the understanding the funds will make it to Deters’ campaign fund." "While Deters was not convicted in regards to any of these scandals, they continue to cast a dark shadow against his reputation. One situation in which his ethics are being called into question is the retrial of suspended Hamilton County Juvenile Court Judge Tracie Hunter on the dismissed charge of misusing a county credit card. Many in Cincinnati’s black community allege that Deters has a personal vendetta against Hunter, who was convicted in 2014 on a single count of misusing her authority as a judge to provide documentation to her brother before a disciplinary hearing." (http://heavy.com/news/2015/07/joe-deters-ray-tensing-samuel-dubose-prosecutor- cincinnati-hamilton-county-ohio-police-shooting/)
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?
An earlier 2014 traffic stop by Tensing: A video posted in May 2014 shows University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing involved in a contentious traffic stop a year before he shot Sam Dubose. New video reveals moment campus cop accused of killing unarmed Samuel DuBose was involved in ANOTHER heated and aggressive traffic stop in 2014 Ray Tensing, 25, was filmed pulling over two men in May last year Asks to see passenger's ID, who refuses, sparking argument Tensing refuses to answer questions and is called 'incompetent' in stop After supervisor intervenes, the two men are allowed to go Tensing shot and killed unarmed driver Samuel DuBose this week in Cincinnati, Ohio - and is now facing murder charges This is the moment Cincinnati campus cop Ray Tensing was caught up in a heated traffic stop a year before he allegedly murdered a driver he had pulled over. Tensing, 25, is seen arguing with two men in a he car pulled over last May. They accuse him of harassing them, breaching their rights and being generally 'incompetent'. The officer, who worked for the University of Cincinnati campus force, argues with the men over IDs and whether he has the right to detain them, before a supervisor intervenes and lets the men go. Footage of the stoppage, taken by passenger Demetrius Pace, gives an insight into the policing style of Tensing, who rose to notoriety this week after shooting unarmed Samuel DuBose in the head during another traffic stop. Tensing has since been indicted for murder over the stop, which shows him speaking with DuBose, 43, after pulling him over about a license plate. Not long into the encounter, the two argue over a driver's license, which DuBose says he does not have with him. He later gets agitated and turns the ignition key in his car. After a struggle over the vehicle's door, Tensing draws his weapon, reaches in and shoots DuBose once in the head, killing him. The campus police department fired him as soon as the charges were filed, prompting Tensing to immediately demand his job back. The older footage, which Pace uploaded to YouTube, shows Tensing stopping him and his friend Sexton Henley over a dragging bumper plate. It devolves into bickering after Tensing asks Pace to identify himself, and he refuses. Under Ohio law, people only have to identify themselves to police if the officer suspects them of a criminal offense or thinks they witnesses a felony - neither of which apply in a traffic stop. During the exchange, Pace tells Tensing: 'I’m just trying to go to the ATM to get some money out and y’all just pulled me over for some bulls**t.' When asked to explain himself, Tensing does not answer the pair, who instead ask him to call his supervisor. He also doesn't tell them his name when asked, and will only say the pair are 'being detained'. At one point in the video, Henley tells Tensing: 'Don’t hold me against my own will for nothing!' After his supervisor arrives, Tensing stops speaking. The stop ends after the senior officer says that their vehicle doesn't match any recently-recorded accidents, and lets the pair go. Pace later told local news station WCPO: 'I felt like through the whole encounter, I shouldn't have even been questioned. He should have dealt specifically with the driver'. Tensing has pleaded not guilty to the murder charge and another of voluntary manslaughter for this week's killing. He paid a $100,000 bond and was allowed out of jail on Thursday. Two other officers who came to the scene of the shooting were interviewed but not indicted over the killing. The Hamilton County coroner's office on Friday released preliminary autopsy findings for DuBose, which found that he died from a single gunshot wound to his left temple. No bullet was recovered.
DuBose had marijuana in the car and about $2,600 cash. Explains why he tried to flee. He was going to jail.
She said "paid administrative leave" not "suspended. Dumbkopf.
Not sufficient cause. No judge is going to allow that to be presented to the jury. DuBose was not under suspicion for drugs or DWI when he was stopped.
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.
You are not even worth responding to any more.
Given the track record of prosecuting police, such as when one doesn't even get a trial after killing someone for an illegal chokehold, anything is possible. I would not bet too much money in favor of a conviction.
That's pretty obvious... he was a shitbird and he was gonna flee... but we can't shoot people for just being fleeing shitbirds. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
If you choose to ignore the facts, your response is worthless anyways.
I agree. But if the officer's arm was caught in the car and the driver started to accelerate, was the officer justified in shooting?
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. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You do a lot of that. Making up your own definitions for words.
Paid administrative leave.
Sure.... "But"... If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle... and that shit only happens in Sneaky Petes family. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
"Paid suspension is standard and contractual." Paid administrative leave. Same shit, different day. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I would. Any false testimony would need to be pretty blatant. As GI said, it's hard to prove someone lied when they say what they think they saw. I agree with that. Any punishment dealt out to other police over this incident, simply because they were on the scene, strikes me as political, intended to pacify the public and prevent widespread protests. IOW, they are scapegoats, and the ones being thrown under the bus. If I'm right on that, then it could expose political bias on the part of the state doing the prosecution and may compromise the case a little bit against Tensing. Again, statements must be objectively provable lies for any punishment to stand.
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.
Once the experts get done with reassembling and dejittering the video and play the chest-cam videos from the three officers in sync for a jury, I think their initial statements will be totally discredited. And that is why they are suspended. If it's going to emerge in the court case that they are known to have filed false police reports and/or are utterly unreliable witnesses, they can't be used by any police force to enforce the laws.
Unless there is reasonable suspicion they will do grave harm to others. Like armed bank robbers fleeing. Or a known violent felon trying to flee a lawful arrest warrant. This victim was a shitbird but he should be in jail, not a grave.
OR if it's going to emerge in the court case that they are terrorists, they'll never get a job. Both are equally likely.
He was fired after he was indicted.
It's like you aren't even a worm of a man, it's like a worm made you his bitch.
Then they aren't "just" fleeing shitbirds. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
No, they aren't. I know you think you're making an argument but you aren't.
I was just affirming that police sometimes make a stop and are justified to shoot a fleeing violent felon. Most people would say it is their duty to arrest them or shoot them. But a Kampus Kop shooting some skeezy guy over a plate violation? No one wants that. I noticed in one of these accounts that they still haven't found the bullet. Interesting, you'd think they would have located it.
You have to be a little careful, not sure about this states training standards, but campus police in NYS attend the same police academy as any other police officer and must satisfy NYS DCJS standards. State college campus police attend the same academy as NYS Police. Most campus officers are very well trained... in fact, they usually receive more in-service training, once qualified because they have huge budgets and very limited call volumes I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
What I notice is that in circumstances like the UVa shooter, nothing happens until real police show up. Real police with real detectives and real SWAT teams and real dogs and real armored vehicles, etc. With the Boston bombers (Tsarnaev's), they encountered a Kampus Kop and he only ended up in the body count. Perhaps you can provide an example or two of heroic Kampus Kops if you know of any. I would be surprised if any Kampus Kop organization can ever match the local regular PDs in their areas, even with lower workloads and less serious crime on their beat. As I said, I prefer to see colleges use real police, police that are trained and ready for a full range of law enforcement. And this guy's inservice training couldn't have helped much in that 2014 stop where he was humiliated by the two smart black yout's who knew the law on when and who has to provide ID to an officer during a stop. He didn't look too well-trained in that vid. [I did post it above; Tensing was pretty pathetic.]
That's because they are well trained in class, with hardly any real patrol experience. Campus police normally rely on city police tactical units, by policy since most large colleges are situated in large urban settings, and response times for an agency assist are fast. Campus police normally don't have the officer numbers to make tactical teams on their own. Plain and simple, campus officers have trained 3 times as much to deal with a nut case but deal with them 95% less than city, state and county police, as just one example. Campus police deal with larcenies of cell phones, drunk students, stalking and domestic issues... and as they get bored with their small jurisdiction and limited types of calls, they venture off campus, tho keeping close, and stop vehicles for excitement. This officer probably never had a high speed pursuit in his career... and gosh damn it, he wasn't gonna that day either. He shot him instead. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You mean ... like Tensing? He was a real officer with the Greenhills Police Department starting in 2011.
That's it? You pop up into the thread at post #141 like a Whack-A-Mole and that's all you you have to add to the discussion? You're a pathetic piece of shit. Let your mom have her computer back.
This officer probably never had a high speed pursuit in his career... and gosh damn it, he wasn't gonna that day either. He shot him instead. lol What, we have to give up even our most precious white privileges? : ) You actually have described my own perception of this case pretty accurately. This is why real PDs pair up inexperienced cops with veterans. Experience makes a huge difference.
Do you have any basis upon which you speculate, "If it's going to emerge in the court case that they are known to have filed false police reports and/or are utterly unreliable witnesses"? Any at all? Any reason to make a statement like this? You have none. Neither, of course, do I. Meaning my statement is just as relevant as yours.
Just that he sounds like a dissembling liar who can't get his contradictory alibi straght in his own head. Other than that, no.
Maybe it lodged in the marijuana he was carrying. Or in the $2600 in cash he was carrying.
So then you're fine with a cop that shoots anyone in the head who has pot or some cash in their car? That's where you set the bar for summary execution by a Kampus Kop on the streets of America?
Who? Tensing, Kidd or Lindenschmidt? Or all three? Yeah, all three are dissembling liars, right?
Can I borrow that for a tag line sometime? It seems very effective. : )
No. I said that's where the bullet might be.
Lindenschmidt in particular. Finally, you've begun to admit the truth.
Why waste time arguing with a complete sack like yourself? You are a liar. You are dishonest. You make normal people's skin crawl. In short, you suck at life in every way.
Can I borrow that for a tag line sometime? It seems very effective. : ) Lol, it's yours.... Was easy to come up with given that's exactly how I think of whitey.
I think their colleague, Special Officer Doofy, was involved too.
An image at #7 shows Tensing with a black watch band on his left arm, as does the image at 1:59 at #105. At #105 is an image at 1:56 and the comment, “At the 1:56 screen grab, it appears as though the officer's left arm is trapped in the crook of the drivers left arm.” This appears to be impossible due to the position of the watch band. It appears the background behind the crook of DuBose’s left arm is out of focus. Tensing’s right arm is well above the crook of DuBose’s left arm. It appears to be around the height of DuBose’s head, rather than the crook of his left arm. Not far in front of the watch band is the butt of the gun, out of focus.
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/ Anne Saker, asaker@enquirer.com 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.
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.
The image at #7 is of the other cop (either Kidd or Lindenschmidt) with a black watch band on his left wrist. The image at 1:59 at #105 shows the watch on Tensing's right wrist. As does the the image at 1:56 at #105. In the lower left corner of 1:56, you can see Tensing's (white) left arm behind the driver's (black) left arm and Tensing appears to be grabbing the shoulder strap of the seat belt. That photo is the moment the driver was shot, so it's intentionally blurred. Take away the blurring and you'll see Tensing's arm was trapped. And the prosecutor knows this. Given that Tensing's arm was trapped while the driver accelerated, it gave him reason to believe his life was in danger. Yer honor, the defense rests.
But ... but then the angry black people might have rioted on our pretty campus!! Much better to rush to judgement, proclaim him guilty, fire him, and if that means we have to give him back pay, what the f**k. There was a shooting by another UC cop some years ago. I'll have to find it to see what happened there.
What a silly explanation. Tensing grabs a seat belt and won't let go and then shoots the guy, saying he was being dragged? And the jury returns a conviction in two hours or less with most deliberation going to the choice between a murder charge or involuntary manslaughter. I'm thinking this is most likely to end in a plea bargain, not a jury trial. Not a bad bed when only a few percent of criminal prosecutions end up in a jury trial, the rest taking plea bargains after being deliberately overcharged by the prosecutor.
He did? I said it appears he did. Maybe he didn't. Maybe his hand was caught between the seat belt and the driver. Maybe he did grab it when thrown off balance by the accelerating car. I don't know. We'll all know more when we see the unblurred photo. But whatever his hand is doing, his arm is trapped under the driver's arm. Lindenschmidt saw that and said he saw it. Oh, wait. He lied. Or was confused or something.
Weren't you specifically told by a certain someone to not define drag? Someone here doesn't even want that word brought up. Gee, who could that be?
I've never heard of anyone stupid enough to get their arm caught on a seat belt, let alone be in danger of being dragged by it. To believe this tissue of phony excuses, we have to accept that Tensing is a totally low-grade moron, someone who has to be told to let go of a hot stove that is burning him. It's bizarre the lengths you are going to to try to explain away this murder-by-cop as a self-defense shooting.
I found three other UC officer involved deaths. None of them had their jobs terminated.
Well, it was confusing. Apparently, he was not being dragged-dragged but was just kinda-dragged. Not really dragged kicking and screaming but just dragged enough to justify blowing a hole in the driver's head. Apparently, the Kampus Kops are trained extensively on knowing exactly how much dragging they have to tolerate before they just execute the citizen behind the wheel. It's all very professional.
You constantly misquote me. I said his HAND may have been trapped by the seat belt. I said his ARM may have been trapped by the drivers arm. "let alone be in danger of being dragged by it." He said he was dragged. Two other officers said he was dragged. Video evidence shows his arm trapped by the driver. Video evidence shows him getting up off the ground 20-30 feet away from the initial traffic stop. "It's bizarre the lengths you are going to to try to explain away this murder-by-cop as a self-defense shooting." What's really bizarre are your efforts to convict this guy while presenting zero evidence to back your case. You have offered nothing except your smarmy remarks about the evidence I produce. Who are you, Jon Stewart?
What's the minimum distance he must be dragged before he can defend himself? I'm assuming from your prior comments that he must also present evidence of dragging -- such as torn clothes and worn down heels, right? What about blood? Necessary or not? Is there a minimal standard of square inches of ripped-off skin before it's really dragging in your book?
So now you're saying that a sneaky seat belt conspired with some Negro's arm and that together they ambushed this poor Kampus Kop and tried to drag him to his death and forced him to shoot the driver to death? Have you no shame?
I'm not setting a minimum. I'm just saying that real dragging would leave some kind of evidence, assuming they had a local crime lab able to collect the evidence quickly.
You're right. Point conceded re arm.
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. 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: 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 - - - - -
On the basis of blurred photographic evidence, I can't determine what a court would find. There is a third possibility to a jury trial or plea bargain -- a bench trial (judge, no jury, at request of defendant only). Unless the photographic evidence is clear and compelling, I would not expect a plea bargain. I would roll the dice on reasonable doubt. I doubt the general statistic about plea bargains applies to cases of police officer involved shootings. I think the evidence will show that the officer shot while the car was barely moving, if not stationary. It appears to me, he pulled his gun to stop the guy from fleeing. A frame by frame analysis of unblurred frames may be definitive.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. The photographic evidence does not refute anyone's statements -- his left arm was tangled up and he fell on the ground 20-30 feet away from the initial stop. The ONLY thing the prosecution has is when he fired. But even if the car just started to roll, he could claim that he feared he was about to be dragged and, therefore, defended himself. Self defense is HIS state of mind at the time, not the prosecution's. I think there's enough there for reasonable doubt. Not guilty. Plea bargaining down to voluntary manslaughter results in a first degree felony carrying 3-11 yrs. in prison. With that felony, his life as a cop is over.
Correct. The quick-thinking cop tried to shoot the seatbelt to free himself, missed, and hit that poor Negro right in the haid.
What if his arm was caught and he ran alongside yelling "Stop! Stop!" , he fired, then fell to the ground? I'm not saying that's what happened, but wouldn't you say he was "dragged" along? No evidence there. As I said before, there's way too much emphasis and debate on the word "drag", rather than a discussion of what actually occurred. His arm was caught and he ended up 20-30 feet from the initial stop. He said that, the photos show it, and the eyewitnesses confirmed it. The ONLY thing the prosecution has is when he fired. But I say if the car started to move and if he truly believed he was about to be dragged -- really dragged by your definition -- he had the right to self defense.
Yep. He didn't have time to pull the gun after he started being "dragged". He was already pulling the gun.
That's your most credible explanation yet.
A frame by frame analysis (think Zapruder film) may tell if the car is moving and its precise velocity and acceleration. I'll have to wait for the investigation report. It seems very unlikely that the other officers could see that his left arm was tangled up as you describe. Perhaps they can testify that what they observed was consistent with that. If the photographic evidence does not show that, the officer might be required to testify to get that claim into evidence.
Examining the frames immediately (split seconds) prior to the shot being fired, at least one of them clearly shows the officer's entire left arm extending straight toward the drivers chest area, which to me clearly discounts any suggestion his arm could have been tangled in the steering wheel, or anything else. Also, as I pointed out and has not been refuted, since the camera, as a "chest cam", presumably attached to the officer's chest, was apparently above the height of the top of the door of this sedan at the time of the shot being fired, there seems to be no question that the officer was in no way being dragged at the instant of firing. The most reasonable conclusion is that the officer was propelling himself, on foot, along side the car as it moved, as he made some kind of effort to stop the driver from leaving, and the officer made a split second bad decision to shoot the guy as part of that effort. Whether he may have been dragged after the instant of firing, perhaps by hanging on to the door or anything else, or even somehow entangled his arm, is not relevant to an examination of his decision to shoot. That he fell to the ground afterwards some distance from where he was after the car started to move, is not in dispute, and also not relevant.
The prosecutor said he "fell backwards" when he fired. Not true. I saw an analysis that showed the location of the traffic stop and the location of Tensing on the ground. The distance is 20-30 feet in the direction of the car. But even that analysis is insuficient evidence. Some may claim that he shot DuBose then hung on for 20- 30 feet to make it appear he was dragged. (Hmmm. Why not 50 feet, dangle by one arm, scream, and drag his heels to make it look good?) DuBose intended to drive away with the cop right next to him. He would have had to turn to the left (into Tensing) to avoid the parked car in front of him. He started the car, put it in gear, and accelerated. The key question is, at what point in that sequence did Tensing fire and did he have a reasonable fear for his life at the time he fired?
True, but his (white) arm disappears behind the driver's (black) left arm then appears again in the blurred area. Assuming the drivers left hand was on the steering wheel, it means Tensing's arm was trapped -- not in the steering wheel but under the driver's left arm. This was witnessed by another officer. Within minutes of the shooting, Officer Lindenschmidt stated, "They had a traffic stop, the guy took off on him, the officer got caught in his (DuBose's) arm, cause the guy reached for something he thought, so he grabbed on the car, that officer went down when he got tangled in the car, and fired."
The most reasonable conclusion is that the officer was propelling himself, on foot, along side the car as it moved, as he made some kind of effort to extricate his arm, and the officer made a split second decision to shoot the guy as part of that effort. That's my conclusion.
#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...
#42. To: GrandIsland (#40)
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)
#43. To: CZ82 (#41)
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.
#44. To: TooConservative (#43)
(Edited)
#45. 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?"
#46. To: TooConservative (#39)
"And, yes, he did get shot as a direct result of being stopped for a missing front plate."
#47. To: GrandIsland (#40)
"He reached in to try and grab the driver with his left hand/arm..."
#48. To: TooConservative (#42)
"Even a chest-cam only helps so much in a fluid situation."
#49. To: CZ82, Too Conservative (#41)
"You would not believe how many cars I see on a daily basis in Ohio that don't have a front license plate"
#50. To: misterwhite (#49)
#51. To: GrandIsland (#50)
However, for many many reasons, I feel its better to require a front and rear plate.
#52. To: misterwhite (#45)
Don't know. Is that important? Or will it suffice simply to say his arm was stuck and he thought he was going to be dragged to his death?
#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.
#54. To: Fred Mertz (#44)
Edit: And I've never been stopped while driving in many other states.
Do All States Require Both Front and Rear License Plates?
#55. To: GrandIsland (#50)
"There is case law that allows an out of state vehicle, properly registered with one plate to be able to drive in another state that requires two."
#56. To: misterwhite (#55)
Was Samuel DuBose driving an out of state vehicle?
#57. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland, Gatlin (#55)
(Edited)
That makes sense. Was Samuel DuBose driving an out of state vehicle?
#58. To: TooConservative (#52)
"and nothing that exonorates him or justifies this shooting has surfaced, despite multiple video cams."
#59. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland (#55)
Was Samuel DuBose driving an out of state vehicle?
"DuBose had the front plate in his glove box and is seen on a video recording of the traffic asking the officer if it was illegal not to have one."
Although Tensing works for UC and the stop occurred about a half-mile from campus, the university's officers are permitted to patrol in areas where many students live off campus.
#60. To: TooConservative (#53)
"It is bad procedure to start manhandling someone sitting their car."
#61. To: GrandIsland (#56)
"Was Samuel DuBose driving an out of state vehicle?"
"I have no clue."
#62. To: nolu chan (#59)
"DuBose had the front plate in his glove box"
#63. To: misterwhite, Too Conservative (#49)
Given that none of Ohio's border states requires a front license plate, it could very well be that those cars were from a neighboring state.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#64. To: TooConservative (#43)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#65. To: nolu chan, GrandIsland (#59)
[Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe] Deters said Tensing's actions during the traffic stop show that "he never should have been a police officer." He said UC could not have known if Tensing was a bad officer when he was hired, but he also suggested the university should get out of the law enforcement business.
#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.
college mall cop?
#67. To: CZ82 (#64)
I've had a Dallas Stars plate over the front license plate on my Olds for the last 9-10 years and have never been told by the cops to get rid of it.
#68. To: TooConservative (#67)
Assuming you live in Texas
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#69. To: CZ82 (#68)
Personally I don't really think the cops here worry about the single plate that much unless the have another reason for stopping you...
#70. To: TooConservative (#65)
"An actual mall cop."
#71. To: TooConservative (#66)
#72. To: misterwhite (#70)
And Mr. Deters is pretending to be a County Prosecutor. He'd better watch his mouth or he's going to end up being disbarred like Mr. Nifong.
#73. To: misterwhite (#71)
I answered your question. Are you going to answer mine?
#74. To: misterwhite (#62)
Did he have one in the glove box or did he SAY he had one in the glove box?
#75. To: misterwhite (#61)
To: GrandIsland "Was Samuel DuBose driving an out of state vehicle?" "I have no clue."
#76. To: TooConservative (#73)
"What was the question?"
#77. To: nolu chan (#74)
"The two story authors SAID his second plate was in the glove box."
#78. To: TooConservative (#72)
"I saw him on the tube."
#79. To: GrandIsland (#0)
#80. To: TooConservative, Pinguinite, GrandIsland (#33)
"You'll notice that this alibi cop is now nowhere to be found."
#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?
2) Why did he flee the police for a mere license plate violation?
#82. To: misterwhite (#80)
"Officer Kidd told me that he witnessed the Honda Accord drag Officer Tensing, and that he witnessed Officer Tensing fire a single shot," Wiebel wrote.
#83. To: misterwhite (#80)
#84. To: misterwhite (#80)
Reasonable doubt?
#85. To: misterwhite (#79)
#86. To: TooConservative (#81)
You are asking for an answer to a question that is bootless in this situation.
"I think it doesn't matter."
#87. To: Pinguinite (#83)
"You are demonstrating an overwhelming bias in favor of the cop."
#88. To: GrandIsland (#85)
Oh, believe me, I weep not a tear or feel the least bit of sorrow for this pile of shit... but the officer used DPF when he wasn't justified by necessity.
#89. To: misterwhite (#88)
(Edited)
If the officer's arm was caught in the car and the driver started to accelerate, was the officer justified in shooting?
#90. To: misterwhite (#87)
Bias would be your interpretation of a video in favor of the victim.
#91. To: misterwhite (#77)
Do you think a license plate would fit in a glove box?
#92. To: nolu chan (#91)
Wouldn't it depend on the size of the glove box?
#93. To: Fred Mertz (#89)
"Was the officer justified in touching/grabbing the victim?"
#94. To: Pinguinite (#90)
"In favor of the what?"
#95. To: misterwhite (#86)
Bootless? It was his statement backed up by two eyewitnesses and multiple videos.
#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."
#97. To: misterwhite (#93)
#98. To: A K A Stone (#97)
"He wasn't dragged."
#99. To: misterwhite (#98)
#100. To: TooConservative (#95)
#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.
#102. To: TooConservative (#101)
And a jury will convict him in minutes, not days.
#103. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite, GrandIsland (#100)
One officer sees that another made a serious mistake. So he chimes in with an alibi.
"They had a traffic stop, the guy took off on him, the officer got caught in his arm, cause the guy reached for something he thought, so he grabbed on the car, that officer went down when he got tangled in the car, and fired," Lindenschmidt says.
#104. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#101)
(Edited)
#105. To: A K A Stone (#99)
#106. To: TooConservative (#103)
"Grabbing onto something inside the car and refusing to let go is not being "dragged".
#107. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite (#104)
Stone is right tho, a jury may give the officer benefit of the doubt and not convict him... and we'll have another wonderful riot.
#108. To: TooConservative (#101)
"And if he wasn't being dragged, then this was murder."
#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?
#110. To: TooConservative (#107)
"I saw the prosecutor, very calm and deliberate."
#111. To: TooConservative (#109)
"What I see is the cop grabbing the perp's left arm and not letting go"
#112. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland (#110)
#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.
#114. To: misterwhite (#110)
#115. To: TooConservative (#113)
"Aren't both Lindenschmidt and Kidd suspended from duty right now?"
#116. To: GrandIsland (#114)
"It's hard to prove that somebody didn't see something of did see something."
#117. To: misterwhite (#116)
(Edited)
In my opinion, it raises reasonable doubt that this was a murder.
#118. To: TooConservative (#112)
"That video hurts your case."
#119. To: misterwhite (#115)
Where did you read that? Or are you just making it up?
#120. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland, A K A Stone (#118)
Tensing clearly had no understanding of basic Ohio traffic procedure in this 2014 video. It seems Sexton and Pace were lucky to escape with their lives for having a dragging bumper plate and Driving While Black.
#121. To: TooConservative (#120)
#122. To: TooConservative (#119)
#123. To: misterwhite (#121)
DuBose had marijuana in the car and about $2,600 cash. Explains why he tried to flee. He was going to jail.
#124. To: misterwhite (#122)
She said "paid administrative leave" not "suspended.
#125. To: misterwhite (#87)
I posted visual evidence and eyewitness testimony. That's bias?
#126. To: TooConservative (#107)
Tensing is going down. It will be a fairly brief trial too.
#127. To: misterwhite (#121)
DuBose had marijuana in the car and about $2,600 cash. Explains why he tried to flee. He was going to jail.
#128. To: Pinguinite (#125)
"You are not even worth responding to any more."
#129. To: GrandIsland (#127)
"but we can't shoot people for just being fleeing shitbirds."
#130. To: TooConservative (#124)
They are suspended. So what if they are still drawing a paycheck?
#131. To: TooConservative (#124)
"They are suspended."
#132. To: GrandIsland (#130)
"Paid suspension is standard and contractual."
#133. To: misterwhite (#129)
But if the officer's arm was caught in the car and the driver started to accelerate, was the officer justified in shooting?
#134. To: misterwhite (#132)
#135. To: TooConservative (#124)
I wouldn't be surprised if the same happens to his two alibi witnesses.
#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.
#137. To: Pinguinite (#135)
Again, statements must be objectively provable lies for any punishment to stand.
#138. To: GrandIsland (#127)
... but we can't shoot people for just being fleeing shitbirds.
#139. To: TooConservative (#137)
"If it's going to emerge in the court case that they are known to have filed false police reports ..."
#140. To: TooConservative (#136)
"The shooter was fired immediately. Which means his own superiors have zero backing for him and his actions."
#141. To: misterwhite (#140)
#142. To: TooConservative (#138)
Unless there is reasonable suspicion they will do grave harm to others.
#143. To: misterwhite (#139)
Both are equally likely.
#144. To: GrandIsland (#142)
Then they aren't "just" fleeing shitbirds.
#145. To: TooConservative (#144)
(Edited)
But a Kampus Kop shooting some skeezy guy over a plate violation? No one wants that.
#146. To: GrandIsland (#145)
(Edited)
State college campus police attend the same academy as NYS Police.
#147. To: TooConservative (#146)
(Edited)
What I notice is that in circumstances like the UVa shooter, nothing happens until real police show up.
#148. To: TooConservative (#146)
"As I said, I prefer to see colleges use real police, police that are trained and ready for a full range of law enforcement."
#149. To: Dead Culture Watch (#141)
#150. To: GrandIsland (#147)
Campus police deal with larcenies of cell phones, drunk students, stalking and domestic issues... and as they get bored with their small jurisdiction and limited types of calls, they venture off campus, tho keeping close, and stop vehicles for excitement.
#151. To: TooConservative (#143)
"I know you think you're making an argument but you aren't."
#152. To: misterwhite (#151)
Any at all? Any reason to make a statement like this?
#153. To: TooConservative (#144)
"I noticed in one of these accounts that they still haven't found the bullet. Interesting, you'd think they would have located it."
#154. To: misterwhite, Liberator, Deckard (#153)
Maybe it lodged in the marijuana he was carrying. Or in the $2600 in cash he was carrying.
#155. To: TooConservative (#152)
"Just that he sounds like a dissembling liar who can't get his contradictory alibi straght in his own head."
#156. To: Dead Culture Watch (#141)
It's like you aren't even a worm of a man, it's like a worm made you his bitch.
#157. To: TooConservative (#154)
"So then you're fine with a cop that shoots anyone in the head who has pot or some cash in their car?"
#158. To: misterwhite (#155)
Who? Tensing, Kidd or Lindenschmidt? Or all three?
Yeah, all three are dissembling liars, right?
#159. To: misterwhite (#149)
have to add to the discussion?
#160. To: TooConservative, misterwhite, the worms bitch (#156)
It's like you aren't even a worm of a man, it's like a worm made you his bitch.
#161. To: misterwhite, DeadCultureWatch, GrandIsland (#155)
Who? Tensing, Kidd or Lindenschmidt? Or all three?
#162. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#105)
#163. To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#140)
[TooConservative #136] The shooter was fired immediately.
[misterwhite #140] He was fired after he was indicted.
Tensing, through union, demands his UC job back
Cincinnati.com
3:43 p.m. EDT July 31, 2015
#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.
#165. To: nolu chan (#162)
"An image at #7 shows Tensing with a black watch band on his left arm, as does the image at 1:59 at #105."
#166. To: nolu chan (#163)
"The University should have suspended him and placed him on paid administrative leave until they could comply with required due process."
#167. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#165)
In the lower left corner of 1:56, you can see Tensing's (white) left arm behind the driver's (black) left arm and Tensing appears to be grabbing the shoulder strap of the seat belt. That photo is the moment the driver was shot, so it's intentionally blurred. Take away the blurring and you'll see Tensing's arm was trapped. And the prosecutor knows this.
Yer honor, the defense rests.
#168. To: TooConservative (#167)
"Tensing grabs a seat belt ..."
#169. To: TooConservative (#167)
Tensing grabs a seat belt and won't let go and then shoots the guy, saying he was being dragged?
#170. To: misterwhite (#168)
He did? I said it appears he did. Maybe he didn't. Maybe his hand was caught between the seat belt and the driver. Maybe he did grab it when thrown off balance by the accelerating car.
#171. To: nolu chan (#163)
#172. To: Dead Culture Watch, misterwhite (#169)
Weren't you specifically told by a certain someone to not define drag?
#173. To: TooConservative (#170)
"I've never heard of anyone stupid enough to get their arm caught on a seat belt"
#174. To: TooConservative (#172)
"but just dragged enough to justify blowing a hole in the driver's head."
#175. To: misterwhite (#173)
You constantly misquote me. I said his HAND may have been trapped by the seat belt. I said his ARM may have been trapped by the drivers arm.
#176. To: misterwhite (#174)
I'm assuming from your prior comments that he must also present evidence of dragging -- such as torn clothes and worn down heels, right? What about blood? Necessary or not? Is there a minimal standard of square inches of ripped-off skin before it's really dragging in your book?
#177. To: misterwhite (#165)
Yer honor, the defense rests.
#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.
Between
The University of Cincinnati
University Law Enforcement Officers
And
The Fraternal Order of Police,
Ohio Labor Council, Inc.
DISCIPLINE 1. Voluntary resignation;
#179. To: TooConservative, misterwhite (#167)
I'm thinking this is most likely to end in a plea bargain, not a jury trial. Not a bad bed when only a few percent of criminal prosecutions end up in a jury trial, the rest taking plea bargains....
#180. To: nolu chan (#179)
(Edited)
"Unless the photographic evidence is clear and compelling"
#181. To: TooConservative (#175)
"So now you're saying that a sneaky seat belt conspired with some Negro's arm and that together they ambushed this poor Kampus Kop and tried to drag him to his death and forced him to shoot the driver to death?"
#182. To: TooConservative (#176)
"I'm just saying that real dragging would leave some kind of evidence"
#183. To: nolu chan (#179)
It appears to me, he pulled his gun to stop the guy from fleeing.
#184. To: misterwhite (#181)
Correct. The quick-thinking cop tried to shoot the seatbelt to free himself, missed, and hit that poor Negro right in the haid.
#185. To: misterwhite (#180)
The photographic evidence does not refute anyone's statements -- his left arm was tangled up and he fell on the ground 20-30 feet away from the initial stop.
#186. To: nolu chan (#185)
It seems very unlikely that the other officers could see that his left arm was tangled up as you describe
#187. To: nolu chan (#185)
"A frame by frame analysis (think Zapruder film) may tell if the car is moving and its precise velocity and acceleration. I'll have to wait for the investigation report."
#188. To: Pinguinite (#186)
(Edited)
"at least one of them clearly shows the officer's entire left arm extending straight toward the drivers chest area ..."
#189. To: Pinguinite (#186)
"The most reasonable conclusion is that the officer was propelling himself, on foot, along side the car as it moved, as he made some kind of effort to stop the driver from leaving, and the officer made a split second bad decision to shoot the guy as part of that effort."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]