Posted on 07/31/2015 7:03:21 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
A synced-up video of body camera footage from three University of Cincinnati police officers – Ray Tensing, Phillip Kidd and David Lindenschimdt – reveals the dramatic aftermath of the police shooting of a 43-year-old unarmed black man.
It shows that both officers were behind Tensing at the time he shot DuBose, but both backed claims the officer had been 'dragged'. These claims were used to justify the shooting, but were later dismissed as false by the county prosecutor who charged Tensing with murder. Kidd and Lindenschimdt have also been placed on leave
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
He had a car. Not unarmed.
IMAX?
I honestly can’t tell what is going on at the critical and following moments in that/those videos.
I hope this officer gets the quality of legal defense the Cleveland officers did.
I have a car. Can they shoot me just because I drive away from a traffic stop?
Tensing should get the death penalty.
So anytime a police officer shoots a man in a car he is justified?
But I believe that the body cam clearly shows that the officer was not dragged by the car. Regardless of what the three police officers say. If he wasn't being dragged then were is the threat that justified using deadly force?
This was a University of Cincinnati policeman. He had dropped out of the Ohio Highway Patrol after one day. The officer stopped the victim off campus for not having a front license plate. This was not his first incident off campus.
Joe Deters, the Hamilton County Prosecutor, is a very fair and conservative person. Mr. Deters is leading the prosecution himself because he claims the officer’s actions were despicable and pure and simple murder. Mr. Deters has a long history of being extremely tough on crime.
Hey, here’s a novel idea. Just do what the cop tells you and you won’t get shot.
This is another case in which the facts are not relevant. The video can be edited anyway either side wants in order to get the results they need.
There are four words that explain why the city/county will prosecute, convict and jail the former police officer. and probably fire the other tow cops who witnessed the incident.
From Wikipedia
Black Population forty five(44.8%)precedent.
I call it, “Collateral Damage in the interest of Public Safety”
It LOOKS like the cops did the typical CYA and were so stupid that they forgot that video now exists. People have gotten fed up with the cops lying about stuff for awhile and they have NO GOODWILL left. none.
Some are great but unfortunately there is a large minority that are watching too much “tough cop” shows on TV and movies, so that they have to be “kicking ass” when a lot of times a firm but calm mature person can defuse a situation. I’ve seen a cop show the most patience with a verbally abusive POS and basically gave the perp the choice to go to jail or behave, he chose jail and wasn’t shot but also wasn’t allowed to hurt anybody , because the cop had the presence of mind to have back up and handled the man as he said he would.
I’ve also seen where cops have to subdue someone and I’m glad I’m not a cop because I believe that I’d of lost my cool and hurt someone.
Can we just say that the two cops lied to protect their buddy and that the initial cop shot the man in the head for a traffic violation?
Yes. There are at least two ways for the state to do this and be excused. One is the rationale given in this case, which will be argued in court unless the cop cops a plea, which is basically to be in fear of serious personal injury or death. Although in a fact pattern like this, shooting the driver does not stop the car, so from a purely logical standpoint, the component of "did it to protect myself" is absent. No matter, the law is exceptionally adept at defying logic.
The other way is for the state to claim that it believed the person fleeing poses a threat to others. The belief can be false, that is no matter. The test of "belief" is one of good faith, and in this case, the argument is that people who drive cars missing a front license plate, who do not submit to orders, are believed to be a threat.
In hindsight, this cop (these cops, all of whom lied about "being dragged") would have been better off adopting the second argument.
What he needs is the quality of the prosecutor in the Cleveland case. In that case the prosecutor handed down an indictment guaranteed to result in an innocent verdict. I doubt that will be the case in this instance.
You're kidding right? But don't worry. They can't kill you more than once.
Yes, because the penalty for disrespecting a police officer is summary execution on the side of the road.
Nonsense. He was to one side of the car, in no danger of being run over, and was not dragged. THere was no threat to his safety.
The other way is for the state to claim that it believed the person fleeing poses a threat to others. The belief can be false, that is no matter. The test of "belief" is one of good faith, and in this case, the argument is that people who drive cars missing a front license plate, who do not submit to orders, are believed to be a threat.
Yes, go to court on that defense. See how well he does.
Yeah, right. Cause Black Lives Matter!
Once is enough. Apparently it's open season on citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.