View Full Version : Cincinnati LEO charged with murder in shooting.
Happens very fast. It almost seemed like a possible ND to me.
Hamilton Country Prosecutor Joseph T. Deters announced Wednesday afternoon that murder charges will be filed against University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing for the shooting death of Sam Dubose, an African-American man who was pulled over for a minor traffic violation.
Prosecutor Deters, himself a two-time graduate of the University of Cincinnati, said he was treating officer Tensing as "a murderer," calling his shooting "the most asinine thing" he'd ever seen on the job.
Dubose was shot directly in the head by Officer Tensing.
"He wasn't dealing with someone who was wanted for murder, he was dealing with someone who didn't have a license plate," Deters said. "If he's rolling away let him go, don't shoot him in the head. It was... a chicken-crap pull over [to begin with]"
The long-time prosecutor was unequivocal, "It's bad what he did and it shouldn't have happened." He went on to say Hamilton Country authorities would seek life in prison.
The initial police report by UC police said the officer was dragged by Dubose. The video shows that Tensing simply fell backwards after discharging his weapon at Dubose's head.
Vid:
http://www.alternet.org/breaking-prosecutors-release-video-sam-dubose-shooting-file-murder-charges-warning-graphic-video?sc=fb
I'm not able to get it to go slow enough to do individual frames, but it looked to me like the officer reached into the vehicle to prevent him from putting the car in gear and driving off - at one point on the video both of the officer's hands were in the picture frame, so it is apparent he didn't have his weapon out all the time.
We don't know when or why the officer drew his weapon.
The makeup of the human brain is extraordinary, we are capable of reacting quicker than rational thought. My take is that the officer registered alarm at the thought/perception of being pulled by the car and his brain quickly cycled through available options of what to do, seizing on shoot the driver as an appropriate action. (This response is accurately and artfully described by Sebastian Junger in his book WAR. I've include the excerpt at the end of this post so as not to detract.)
The missing piece for me is the quick weapon presentation, why did he have the weapon out, or did he merely have his hand on the holster and present it that fast?
In any event, from my perspective he is over-charged, he is responsible for his actions, but I would not be surprised if after expert testimony the charges drop to the Ohio crime which involves negligent death by accident.
Read Junger:
"Humans evolved in a world where nothing moved two thousand miles an hour, so there is no reason for the body to be able to counter that threat, but the brain still had to stay ahead of the game. Neurological processes in one of the most primitive parts of the brain, the amygdala, happen so fast that one could say they compete with the bullets. The amygdala can process an auditory signal in fifteen milliseconds - about the time it takes a bullet to go 30 feet. The amygdala is fast but very limited; all it can do is trigger a reflex and wait for the conscious mind to catch up. That reaction is called a startle, and it is composed of protective moves that would be a good idea in almost any situation. When something scary and unexpected happens, every person does the exactly the same thing: they blink, crouch, bend their arms, and clench their fists. The face also sets itself into what is known as a "fear grimace": the pupils dilate, the eyes widen, the brow goes up, and the mouth pulls back and down. Make that expression in front of a mirror and see not only how instantly recognizable it is, but also how it seems to actually produce a sense of fear. It's as if the neural pathways flow in both directions, so the expression triggers fear as well as being triggered by it.
The videotape I shot during the ambush in Alibad shows every man dropping into a crouch at the distant popping sound. They don't do this in response to a loud sound - which presumably is what evolution has taught us - but in response to the quieter snap of bullets going past. The amygdala requires only a single negative experience to decide that something is a threat, and after one firefight every man in the platoon would have learned to react to the snap of the bullets and to ignore the much louder sound of men near them returning fire. In Alibad the men crouched for a second or two and then straightened up and began shouting and taking cover. In the moments their higher brain functions decided that the threat required action rather than immobility and ramped everything up: pulse and blood pressure to heart attack levels, epinephrine and norepinephrine level through the roof, blood draining out of the organs and flooding the heart, brain, and the major muscle groups."
Unfortunately in this case, the officer's action, triggered by the amygdala, caused him to react before cognitive thought.
JM .02
I'm not able to get it to go slow enough to do individual frames, but it looked to me like the officer reached into the vehicle to prevent him from putting the car in gear and driving off - at one point on the video both of the officer's hands were in the picture frame, so it is apparent he didn't have his weapon out all the time.
We don't know when or why the officer drew his weapon.
The makeup of the human brain is extraordinary, we are capable of reacting quicker than rational thought. My take is that the officer registered alarm at the thought/perception of being pulled by the car and his brain quickly cycled through available options of what to do, seizing on shoot the driver as an appropriate action. (This response is accurately and artfully described by Sebastian Junger in his book WAR. I've include the excerpt at the end of this post so as not to detract.)
The missing piece for me is the quick weapon presentation, why did he have the weapon out, or did he merely have his hand on the holster and present it that fast?
In any event, from my perspective he is over-charged, he is responsible for his actions, but I would not be surprised if after expert testimony the charges drop to the Ohio crime which involves negligent death by accident.
Read Junger:
"Humans evolved in a world where nothing moved two thousand miles an hour, so there is no reason for the body to be able to counter that threat, but the brain still had to stay ahead of the game. Neurological processes in one of the most primitive parts of the brain, the amygdala, happen so fast that one could say they compete with the bullets. The amygdala can process an auditory signal in fifteen milliseconds - about the time it takes a bullet to go 30 feet. The amygdala is fast but very limited; all it can do is trigger a reflex and wait for the conscious mind to catch up. That reaction is called a startle, and it is composed of protective moves that would be a good idea in almost any situation. When something scary and unexpected happens, every person does the exactly the same thing: they blink, crouch, bend their arms, and clench their fists. The face also sets itself into what is known as a "fear grimace": the pupils dilate, the eyes widen, the brow goes up, and the mouth pulls back and down. Make that expression in front of a mirror and see not only how instantly recognizable it is, but also how it seems to actually produce a sense of fear. It's as if the neural pathways flow in both directions, so the expression triggers fear as well as being triggered by it.
The videotape I shot during the ambush in Alibad shows every man dropping into a crouch at the distant popping sound. They don't do this in response to a loud sound - which presumably is what evolution has taught us - but in response to the quieter snap of bullets going past. The amygdala requires only a single negative experience to decide that something is a threat, and after one firefight every man in the platoon would have learned to react to the snap of the bullets and to ignore the much louder sound of men near them returning fire. In Alibad the men crouched for a second or two and then straightened up and began shouting and taking cover. In the moments their higher brain functions decided that the threat required action rather than immobility and ramped everything up: pulse and blood pressure to heart attack levels, epinephrine and norepinephrine level through the roof, blood draining out of the organs and flooding the heart, brain, and the major muscle groups."
Unfortunately in this case, the officer's action, triggered by the amygdala, caused him to react before cognitive thought.
JM .02
That is definitely an interesting take on the actions of the officer and on human nature in general. I don't like to jump to conclusions, but this doesn't look good at all. There may be more to the story than what has been released.
Somehow the officer ended up much closer to the Impala then he started out. Sure looks like he had a grip on the seatbelt with his left hand, and could not let go fast enough. Gun came out when the car started to move. Then bang.
Averageman
07-29-15, 15:08
I'm not sure when the rule book changed, but clearly there are now two sets of rules. For those operating off of the new set of rules and don't want to get shot by a Cop,I offer these suggestions;
When the Cop asks you a question, answer his questions.
When stopped don't jack with the door.
When stopped don't attempt to put the car in gear and drive away.
When stopped if the Cop reaches in the window of your car for something, this is a bad thing, just lean back and let him have control of whatever he feels is putting him in danger.
When driving make sure you have your plates on the car where they are supposed to be.
When driving keep your license with you at all times.
Now I'm sure those operating on the new set of rules feel these things are unfair and you should be able to do just about anything you want when pulled over and not get shot. Well, maybe so, but for the most part the more of the above rules you break, the more likely something stupid like this will happen to you.
Voodoo_Man
07-29-15, 15:10
I have been in these situations, the issue becomes what are you going to use force on this person for? A license plate that is required to be on the front and a suspended license? So a Summary Offense (locally)? I've let people just drive away and got a warrant for them later if I have their info, if not then I just write tickets on the tag and when that person calls to complain or shows up to court and is not the person who was driving, they get interviewed and always give up the person driving the car.
I will reserve my judgement for when the court case goes live. I also want to see the other officer's camera video of the incident if it exists.
SomeOtherGuy
07-29-15, 15:12
I'm not able to get it to go slow enough to do individual frames, but it looked to me like the officer reached into the vehicle to prevent him from putting the car in gear and driving off - at one point on the video both of the officer's hands were in the picture frame, so it is apparent he didn't have his weapon out all the time.
We don't know when or why the officer drew his weapon.
Agree with this. I have to wonder if reaching inside a car in this instance is a very bad idea - not because the driver's actions were OK (they were definitely not), but because it puts the officer in a vulnerable position for very little benefit. It appears the officer had a partner or some other officer on scene - when it stopped being the world's smoothest traffic stop, why not put a "stop stick" or something under the tires so a driver who tries to flee doesn't get very far.
After reaching in with both hands the officer was in danger from being dragged, but it's a danger he put himself into.
Of course, the dead driver did lots of stupid things - I'm not defending him either. Can't tell if he was high, drunk or just not very bright to begin with. I can't see that the shooting would have happened if he had not tried to flee. The officer seemed very calm and reasonable prior to the attempt to flee.
I know nothing of approved procedure since I am not an LEO but reaching inside the car just seems like a horrible idea with the driver sitting right there. It puts the officers head right in front of the driver.
A few years ago, I was pulled over in my 01 Trans Am. Since the car had a roll bar in it, a light weight race seat, 5 point harness and was loud, she assumed that my inspection sticker was fake. Instead of asking me to step out, she reached inside to peal it off. Mind you, this isn't like picking my wallet off the dash, this is a sticker that took some time to get off. If you have ever seen a 4th gen F-Body, the windshield is very raked back. She had to lean with half her body. She had another officer standing behind her, she was blocking the officer's line of sight completely. I just said there dumb founded. If I was a crazy person, I would have inflicted all kinds of havoc. There was no way she would have every reached her sidearm, in fact, I was closer to it then her hands were. Hell, if I was Hannibal Lecter i could have bit, she was that close. It was super odd.
Never understood why an officer would ever risk their safety like that. You see the person reaching for something, putting the car in gear, back up and put the b-pillar between yourself and the suspect in the car, draw your weapon. I don't know. I am sure I am missing something.
Averageman
07-29-15, 16:19
Who knows what he saw to warrent such an action?
I can think though if I thought I saw something that looked like a gun, I would want to get a hand on it and/or draw my weapon at the same time.
I think this goes back to an earlier thread in which the guy began by acting evasive and then built to agitated the next thing you know the Cop has a gun pointed at him.
I'm pretty sure this will get Monday Morning Quarterbacked to death here, but to be honest I'm pretty willing to guess the Cop was doing his job and the driver was doing everything he could to avoid something a lot bigger than talking to a Cop or getting a ticket.
Once again, if you want to play the game by the new rule book, don't be surprised when it all goes South on you.
Who knows what he saw to illicit such an action?
I can think though if I thought I saw something that looked like a gun, I would want to get a hand on it and/or draw my weapon at the same time.
I think this goes back to an earlier thread in which the guy began by acting evasive and then built to agitated the next thing you know the Cop has a gun pointed at him.
I'm pretty sure this will get Monday Morning Quarterbacked to death here, but to be honest I'm pretty willing to guess the Cop was doing his job and the driver was doing everything he could to avoid something a lot bigger than talking to a Cop or getting a ticket.
Once again, if you want to play the game by the new rule book, don't be surprised when it all goes South on you.
Unfortunately, it often costs someone else (in this case the LEO) their job at the very least, or their life, be it behind bars or via death. To me it looked like we was reaching for the seat belt, and the car takes off, and he pulls the trigger either as a perceived lethal threat with a fraction of a second to decide (being dragged to death by his hand in the seat belt,) or it was straight unconscious response the perceived threat and technically an ND? Hopefully he can convey adequately that he felt his life was in danger to a jury.
finally watched it
IMHO he was not shot in the head for a lic plate on front of car he was shot because he tried to run from the guy with his car which could have ran him over or dragged him so the news should say he was shot while the perp attempted to drag him or run him over with his car
I would never be like OH I am not sure if I have my lic ? that alone says something
I have some concerns about comments made to the media. Hamilton Country Prosecutor Joseph T. Deters' comments were unprofessional and inflammatory.
Singlestack Wonder
07-29-15, 16:54
Another result of very poor police training. In reviewing the video here on local news website, the shooting was not justified.
In regards to Deters, he's been a staunch, no bs DA for many years. Many times when store owners in Cincinnati were confronted by armed robbers and the store owners shot the perps, he fully supported the actions and refused to investigate the store owners.
Averageman
07-29-15, 16:56
CI have some concerns about comments made to the media. Hamilton Country Prosecutor Joseph T. Deters' comments were unprofessional and inflammatory.
You mean like the whole pandering to "Black Live Matter" so your City isn't turned in to Ferguson?
If you really want to totally disregard the rules and go with full on anarchy, don't be surprised that after you win that prize the guys left with all of the guns go ahead and flip that script on you. Those who would appease this kind of crap deserve the same trophy to take home.
Do you really want to watch this Country slowly slide in to The United States of Mogadishu?
Voodoo_Man
07-29-15, 16:57
I have some concerns about comments made to the media. Hamilton Country Prosecutor Joseph T. Deters' comments were unprofessional and inflammatory.
It'll brought up in court no doubt.
Can't be impartial when you are blasting the guy you just charged with murder...
After watching the video, it looks to me like the gun went off due to a startle response and/or sympathetic squeeze response. In either case my question is: Why did he draw his gun in the first place? Is not the sidearm used for self defense? Why was his gun ever pointed at the guy's head? I saw nothing to make me think the officer was in any danger of attack. I saw a noncompliant dummy that stupidly wanted to jack-rabbit out of there. Where was the need for self defense?
Firearm safety rule: Don't point your gun at something you do not intend to shoot.
I see nothing to make me think this officer should be charged with murder or put away for life, but it does appear to be an ND and he should be held responsible for his choices. I would certainly be held responsible for my actions in a case like this.
Hopefully he can convey adequately that he felt his life was in danger to a jury.
Good luck with that. He's already lied on his report.
"Officer Tensing stated that he almost was run over by the driver of the Honda Accord and was forced to shoot the driver with his duty weapon (Sig Sauer P32). Officer Tensing stated that he fired a single shot. Officer Tensing repeated that he was being dragged by the vehicle and had to fire his weapon," Officer Eric Weibel's incident report says.
SilverBullet432
07-29-15, 17:18
I dont agree with it. Let the scumbag go, get a warrant then go find him for evading.
My prediction. The officer will claim his hand got caught and fear of being drug down the road. At least one jury member will agree. Not guilty.
To the video. From the way the guy was talking and handing the officer a bottle of liquor when asked for a license, my guess is this stop went from a license plate to a DUI investigation during the video.
Good luck with that. He's already lied on his report.
"Officer Tensing stated that he almost was run over by the driver of the Honda Accord and was forced to shoot the driver with his duty weapon (Sig Sauer P32). Officer Tensing stated that he fired a single shot. Officer Tensing repeated that he was being dragged by the vehicle and had to fire his weapon," Officer Eric Weibel's incident report says.
where is that info at? Another article?
Averageman
07-29-15, 17:36
My prediction. The officer will claim his hand got caught and fear of being drug down the road. At least one jury member will agree. Not guilty.
To the video. From the way the guy was talking and handing the officer a bottle of liquor when asked for a license, my guess is this stop went from a license plate to a DUI investigation during the video.
Lets put a simple scenario out there.
I pulled him over, no licence, I smelled alcohol, he was evasive in his answers. I saw the suspects hands move and thought I might have seen a weapon, I reached in to control the muzzle of the weapon, the car moved and I moved with it, I drew my pistol and fired.
I'm not sure that doesn't work.
At some point he was knocked on his butt, of course he was in fear of being dragged down the road, that's why he pulled away.
It'll brought up in court no doubt.
Can't be impartial when you are blasting the guy you just charged with murder...
Just wanting to make sure we are on the same sheet here - I wouldn't have said it - but the DA is the advocate for the people in bringing charges and prosecuting. He doesn't have to be impartial, he just can't suppress evidence that supports innocence. If the DA doesn't think a jury could/would find you guilty he shouldn't charge you. JMO
I went through LE academy and FTO training 15 years ago. If I had a nickel for every time I was told "don't ever reach in the car if it's driveable", well, I'd have a lot of nickels.
This officer was on the job for four years. Did no one ever tell him that? I'll just come right out and say it. If you're in danger of being dragged by a drive off, you put yourself in that position needlessly. Defending a shot from beside or behind is a tough sell unless you're behind and the car is in reverse. Why put yourself in that position?
Officer Tensing has a tough road ahead. One of his own making unfortunately. :(
Averageman
07-29-15, 17:45
Just wanting to make sure we are on the same sheet here - I wouldn't have said it - but the DA is the advocate for the people in bringing charges and prosecuting. He doesn't have to be impartial, he just can't suppress evidence that supports innocence. If the DA doesn't think a jury could/would find you guilty he shouldn't charge you. JMO
I think there may be a more modern approach.
You see the evidence and then get out in front of it with a statement, condemn the Officer and knowing full well this will appease the natives and give the Officer an "out" in court you make the charges and push some personal condemnation.
In the end BLM doesn't burn your business district down and you look like a liberal stooge for the Justice Department.
All the while you've personally made a case full of wholes that a second year Law Student could ruin.
I'm just saying that Justice like Military may eat its young in order to keep the peace. Or in the terms of a laymen, "F' the Cop, I'm the Prosecutor and I've got a career going on here."
I guess it seems stupid on both sides of this mess
To the video. From the way the guy was talking and handing the officer a bottle of liquor when asked for a license, my guess is this stop went from a license plate to a DUI investigation during the video.
Looked like an unopened bottle of gin to me.
Looked like an unopened bottle of gin to me.
Either way it wasn't his license. Ive had drunk/high people hand me all sorts of things when I ask for their licenses. Its not uncommon at all.
I think he officer saw the bottle and asked him "what's that" the guy then handed him a closed bottle of gin. I was at work so I could not have the volume up too much when I watched it, but I don't think the answer to "may I see your lisence" was a bottle of booze.
Either way. Not sure the officer should be charged with murder and the comments by the DA are just asinine.
Good luck with that. He's already lied on his report.
"Officer Tensing stated that he almost was run over by the driver of the Honda Accord and was forced to shoot the driver with his duty weapon (Sig Sauer P32). Officer Tensing stated that he fired a single shot. Officer Tensing repeated that he was being dragged by the vehicle and had to fire his weapon," Officer Eric Weibel's incident report says.
If he said he was dragged 100 yards that would be a lie, but he was clearly dragged a very short distance.
I have some concerns about comments made to the media. Hamilton Country Prosecutor Joseph T. Deters' comments were unprofessional and inflammatory.
This.
Calling it a "Chicken Crap" Stop, and claiming they guy was not a murderer, someone should point out Tim McVeigh was pulled over for missing plate too, and he just murdered 150+ people.
So this guy has a a guy with no plate (Strike 1), no ID (Strike 2), alcohol bottle (Strike 3)and is attempting to flee (Strike 4). Obviously not an upstanding citizen.
where is that info at? Another article?
http://www.edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/us/cincinnati-police-shooting/index.html
Also about the "gin" ... that was air freshener. Not to much golden colored gin out there.
What's in the bottle?
That's air freshener. You can smell it.
Smells it... Oh, ok. -- sits it on the roof.
Gold gin???? If it were gin after the officer handles it and reads its, one would hope he would know the difference.
If he said he was dragged 100 yards that would be a lie, but he was clearly dragged a very short distance.
No, look again, he falls backwards.
"Looking at Officer Tensing's uniform, I could see that the back of his pants and shirt looked as if it had been dragged over a rough surface," the report says.
If he were dragged it would have been the sides of his pants, shoes, legs of pants and probably not his shirt. He shot him from the side of the car and retracted straight back and fell on his back.
Notice the video right after he shoots him is straight up the sky and just before that he is almost facing him a bit. The car simply moves past him. There was plenty room with no cars in front.
Also if you watch the video before he reaches in the glove box he turns the car off. Then when the LEO tries to open his door, he decides he's leaving and reaches to start car again.
That's when he does what Glocktogo says he shouldn't be doing..... then he shoots him in the face/head and falls back on his ass/back... Really not much more to it than that.
No, look again, he falls backwards.
Completely consistent with being dragged a short distance and then losing your balance as you try to disengage away from vehicle.
I have heard similar accounts about the prosecutor as well. Which makes me wonder. I'm not entirely convinced a murder charge is warranted. Negligent Homicide of something similar in statute.
Another result of very poor police training. In reviewing the video here on local news website, the shooting was not justified.
In regards to Deters, he's been a staunch, no bs DA for many years. Many times when store owners in Cincinnati were confronted by armed robbers and the store owners shot the perps, he fully supported the actions and refused to investigate the store owners.
I bet that alone could be a fun thread to read :)
Either way it wasn't his license. Ive had drunk/high people hand me all sorts of things when I ask for their licenses. Its not uncommon at all.
When he regains his feet from the "fall" as it's inaccurately being described, he is closer to the Impala that was up the street. How is this possible if he simply "fell backwards" from where he was originally standing?? Think hard. Don't flinch now....
When he regains his feet from the "fall" as it's inaccurately being described, he is closer to the Impala that was up the street. How is this possible if he simply "fell backwards" from where he was originally standing?? Think hard. Don't flinch now....
If he was dragged, he was dragged by a dead man he had just killed. He was on his feet, not being dragged when he stuck the gun in his face and pulled the trigger. So ok, I'll concede that after the bullet entered the citizens head due to the officers actions that perhaps he was carried along a bit. What I am saying is the alive citizen did not drag him down the street. When you shoot someone in the head that is driving a car that you have taken upon yourself to get entangled in or otherwise attached to..... well, do you honestly expect things to go well.
So perhaps the out of control car with a dead driver did in fact carry the officer along a bit. But he fell backwards and the other officer noted the cloths showed that as well as the camera shot.
so you think a dead guy took the car out of park and put the car in drive hit the gas and drug him down the road ?
never knew dead people could do all that, now those Haitian zombies maybe !
BoringGuy45
07-29-15, 21:48
After watching the videos, I'm thinking that murder or even manslaughter are going to be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm thinking in this case, and also in Baltimore for that matter, the arrests were made so that they could be acquitted by the jury and the DA can just shrug and say, "Hey, I thought he was guilty. If you want to lynch anyone, lynch those 12 idiots!"
Ok, you guys can read this any way you like. I have got the video in Sony Vegas.
24.000p Frame 804 - Officer has left hand on seatbelt. Seatbelt is now in crook of left arm of citizen ( inside elbow. Sealtbelt has been been pulled off citizens shoulder, so it lays in crook of his own elbow, officers left hand on top of belt and elbow. Officers right hand if holding pistol pointed directly at citizens head. Got the picture? All this is just barely inside car door frame.
Frame 807 - gun has recoiled, seatbelt has lifted up. Officers left had has lifted up and back towards him ( towards front of car direction )
Frame 809 - not a lot of change here other than seatbelt has now been released such that it now sits normally on citizens shoulder as it was before officer pulled it down.
Frame 811 - Officers LEFT hand is now just inside car door and NOT tangled in anything. Right hand with pistol is still pointed or held on citizen.
Somewhere... right about now, you see the relation of the two cars change distance but the shots are erratic.. .but before that the angle showed the rear edge of citizen car and silver car to be nearly static as shots popped into view.
Frame 817 - Officers LEFT hand is just above door opening and finger is pointing/touching the pillar. IOW, his hand is retracting but is neither in nor out of car, it's resting/hovering where the window would be. Right hand with pistol is out of car and out of most of frame but looks to be above or near roof line.
Frame 816 - not much change
Frame 918 - Officers left hand resting on door jamb, thumb just outside car.
Frame 821- Officer left hand open and lifting off door jamb.
Frame 832 - nothing in image now
Frame 826 - Officers camera is taking a photo directly up at sky and center pillar of car and some distinctive trees
Frame 828 - Officers camera is now shooting from a ground level but same trees. Now only quarter panel of car is seen.
Frame 831 - Back to sky and some portion of side of car
Frame 833 - Picture of officers face
Frame 835 - Officers face with silver car in background - still aiming at sky
Frame 838 - Officers face and hand and sky
Frame 840 - sky
Frame 842 - sky
Frame 845 - sky
Frame 847 - sky
Frame 850 - sky
Etc.
Frame 859 - Angle is now returning from sky to road
Frame 862 - looks to be officers right hand with pistol and red led on pistol aiming down street
Frame 864 - Officers right and left arms and parts of right and left legs - right hand holds pistol, left arm stretched out. Looks like situp position where one is sitting on butt and trying to get up.. Red led was tail lights of silver car.
Frame 866 - same but very clear
Frame 869 - same
Frame 876 - he is just about on his feet now - pistol in hand.
Frame 909 he is now running towards car at end of street and has a couple car lengths to go to get to silver car on other side of street.
Frame 995 - he has now run to the point he is beside silver car - still a long way to go down the street.
24 Frames per second... you can do the math.
He was never entangled in the seat belt. He was not dragged by the living driver. He did fall back on his ass after he shot him though, and he got up the same way everyone else does from a situp position after having done so. The gun never even moved in his hand.
so you think a dead guy took the car out of park and put the car in drive hit the gas and drug him down the road ?
never knew dead people could do all that, now those Haitian zombies maybe !
No, As I said, He pulled his door shut, started the car, as officer reached in to turn car off he put it in gear and then in the next second he was actually raising his arm to block the oncoming gun. WHEN HE WAS SHOT... the officer was on his feet, controlling whatever it was he thought he needed to be controlling. At that instant he ( the officer ) can hardly say "He dragged me" because "He" was dead for all practical purposes.
Frame 733 you can see him reach to start car... Frame 776 muzzle is moving towards citizen -- about frame 800 he is shot. So about 2 to 3 seconds with the OFFICER ON HIS FEET. Or else he has some seriously long arms.
I'm not saying he shot him just siting there in park. I think he simply over reacted. When the guy started the car he clearly reached in to turn it off. He should have simply stepped back and let the guy go. But yes, after the guy was shot the car was being operated by no one. Who knows what the guys body or legs might have done when the bullet penetrated his skull.
But no, I don't think he shot him just sitting there with the car turned off.
TacticalSledgehammer
07-29-15, 22:36
All I know is driving to my job downtown will be interesting to say the least...
El Vaquero
07-30-15, 00:08
To me this looks like a case of sympathetic reflex. Officer was trying to grab with his left hand while holding his pistol with his right hand. This is precisely why you don't ever want to go hands on with your gun in your hand. It does not look to me that he was shot because he was fleeing. It appears accidental/negligent.
As far as the traffic stop is concerned it looked good up until that point. I would not consider a no front plate stop, a feather legged or chicken shit traffic stop. There may have been more to this prior to the stop (i.e. observed leaving a drug house, gang member, etc). The man was being evasive when asked about his drivers license, was acting fidgety, even pretended to look door a DL he knew he didn't have, and had a bottle of liquor within his reach. Put it all together, it warrants further investigation. Officer did fine asking him out of the car, man pulls door shut and resists. This is definitely a red flag that this may go bad. I'm even ok with the officer pulling out his pistol when the man starts the car and puts it in drive. Where he messes up is reaching in the car with his pistol in his hand. Either pull your pistol OR reach in, don't do both.
If evidence surfaces that the officer intentionally shot him just for fleeing than he deserves facing a murder charge or whatever charge they put on him. From what the video shows though, to me, it looks accidental/negligent. Not intentional.
I tried to not get all fired up over this but after watching Megyn Kelly tonight, my blood pressure is up a little bit.
Do I think the cop screwed up? YUP!
Do I think the cop MURDERED this guy? NOPE
I can not effin stand people telling the world how it is supposed to happen when they have never spent a minute in our shoes!
Problem number one.... LACK OF TRAINING.
The police administrators are shooting themselves in the foot (sorry for the pun) every single time they deny an officer training. Officers are in field training for less time because they don't want to pay two officers for doing the job of one. The training budget gets less and less every year. WHY? I have been paying my own way for schools for years now. Why? Because it betters ME. If they don't want to pay me to train then I'll do it to better myself. If I decide to take my training along with me to a new job, so be it, I've earned it on my own.
I have been dragged down the street before. Has anyone else reading this? Luckily for me, it was a 75 year old Alzheimer's patient instead of a bad guy that wanted to get away. The cop should have stepped away when the car started and chased the guy in his own car. End of story. If he got his foot ran over, he would get a few weeks paid vacation. Second, never open the door for a bad guy, ever. Always have them step out on their own. It's much safer and you are far enough away from the vehicle to not get run over if the bad guy drives away.
If he got tangled in the seat belt or his hand got slammed in the door as the bad guy closed it and got dragged down the road then yes a shot to the head would be a good idea.
So what do I think happened? (flame suit on)
I have been a firearms instructor for 14 years. I know things.
From watching this video, I only have one point of view. My educated guess is based on what is called sympathetic response. This is when you begin to fall down the stairs and you grab for the railing with your left hand to stop your fall and your right hand does the same thing simply because your left hand is doing it. If you have a pistol in your right hand and your finger is on the trigger and you begin to fall down the steps and you grab for the railing with your left hand, there is a very good chance that you will discharge your firearm.
So, what I think happened is, the cop got startled when the guy started the car and he drew his weapon with a poorly placed trigger finger. Something he did with his left hand caused him to have sympathetic reflex and the gun discharged, striking the bad guy.
Rule #1: Do what the cop says whether you think it's right or wrong. Be alive to sue him in court if you believe that your constitutional rights were violated.
Rule #2: Before being the Judge, Jury and Executioner to the cop, find out what training he/she has had or been denied by the desk jockeys.
Rule #3: Remember that police make life or death decisions in milliseconds. This decision extends to the bad guy, the cop and any bystander. Police are humans too and they will make mistakes.
In my line of work, I point my firearms at people quite often. Do I intend to shoot them? Yes. Do I shoot everyone I point my firearms at? Nope. So keeping my finger off the trigger is numero uno in my line of work (training).
I won't even get into the race issue. Every single life is precious.
After seeing SO many OIS videos where the officers in question have terrible tactics, I can't help but agree with CoryCop on the training, or lack thereof. The administrative priorities are all effed up. I can't remember the last time recurrent vehicle stop TTP training was mandatory, but I swear to Christ if I have to sit through "Muslim Sensitivity Training" one more time, I think I'll puke.
You know what works on maintaining good relations with the Muslim community? How about not shooting one of them in the face because they didn't jump when you said jump? Now don't get me wrong because I'm a big fan of face shooting, but my AOR has had TWO nationally televised incidents where the LEO's involved made a giant mess of things this year. In both cases, bad tactics were in play and mayhem ensued. In one case the LEO was simply an idiot out of his league. The other is an out and out bad cop who has no business exercising any authority over anyone, ever.
In most organizations where this stuff happens too often, leadership is usually so poor that it can't rightly be called leadership at all. "Risk Aversion" is nearly a religious experience for some, while others seem to thrive on creating conflict where none exists. None of it is professional. On the flip side of that coin, you've got a public that's been whipped into a froth by a sensationalist media out to make a buck, along with hucksters of the worst sort fleecing the locals while pretending to "fight for them". Community outreach does no good if the community doesn't reciprocate, or the "leaders" are dealing with people the public you serve doesn't trust.
IMO, the blame lies everywhere. You can't swing a dead cat at a post incident press conference and not hit at least a half dozen culpable parties, on the first swing no less. It's repugnant. All you can do in the end is clean up your side of the mess as best you can, then twist those accusatory fingers back on their owners once you're clean. It does no good to sling mud at everyone else when you're up to your own neck in it. :(
It's always interesting to have two people, or more, watch the same thing and reach conclusions. In my frame-by-frame watching, that car is moving when the shot goes off.
If they have bodycams, I hope they have dashcams too and that comes out. Right now, I disagree that it was shot first, then car moves. I still see it as officer left hand on seat belt, car starts moving, shot to the head, car speeds off.
It's always interesting to have two people, or more, watch the same thing and reach conclusions. In my frame-by-frame watching, that car is moving when the shot goes off.
I can see the car inching forward when he has still not reached into it. Even the narrator points this out.
TacticalSledgehammer
07-30-15, 08:32
I think we'll be seeing the other responding officer's body cam soon also. So far a lot of folks in the area think this indictment is only being used to delay riots while the city prepares. I couldn't make heads or tails out of the video personally, but I'm no cop.
I got a chance to watch the video yesterday. My first reaction was it looked like a bad shoot and I still hold that position. I don't see the necessity of reaching into the vehicle and I don't see a reason to draw your weapon. On the flip side, it is getting ridiculous how many idiots there are out there that keep getting emboldened by the current administration and the likes of Al Sharpton to disobey police officers. If you comply with the officer and do what you are told you are going to go home that night. The driver was in the wrong, the officer looks to be in the wrong, a guy got shot and an officer with bad tactics made the vast majority of good officers look bad by making bad decisions. The murder charge is an overreach and the prosecutor's comments were over the top and inflammatory. Just hoping that some true leaders will step up in the near future and bring some unity to this country because I don't recognize my country anymore.
Singlestack Wonder
07-30-15, 09:15
"Do I think the cop MURDERED this guy? NOPE" CoryCop25
What if the driver had a gun and it went off unintentionally and hit the officer. I bet he would be charged with murder.
All I know is driving to my job downtown will be interesting to say the least...
My son and daughter in-law work downtown also, we are concerned for them also.
Cory has a good perspective on this imho.
What if the driver had a gun and it went off unintentionally and hit the officer. I bet he would be charged with murder.
Well, the two people involved are operating under different circumstances. One is in the act of committing a crime, and the other is doing work the people of the college/city, and there under lawfully outlined reasons.
SomeOtherGuy
07-30-15, 10:40
I think the sympathetic response angle is plausible. It looks to me like a possible negligent homicide / manslaughter based on an understandable but bad response to a situation where the officer contributed to putting himself into a bad situation. It does not look like murder to me - not like, for example, the South Carolina shooting in the back of the fleeing guy.
I got a chance to watch the video yesterday. My first reaction was it looked like a bad shoot and I still hold that position. I don't see the necessity of reaching into the vehicle and I don't see a reason to draw your weapon.
Not a LEO but it's interesting to see no one defending the officer's reach into the vehicle. That seems like a bad idea.
On the flip side, it is getting ridiculous how many idiots there are out there that keep getting emboldened by the current administration and the likes of Al Sharpton to disobey police officers.
Yeah, almost as if the current administration wanted to encourage conflict. I believe they do - for political gain and to slowly generate support for a federal police force, which was an Obama campaign promise in 2008.
If you comply with the officer and do what you are told you are going to go home that night.
Except that there have been a couple of recent cases where an unarmed person, trying to leave the encounter on foot, got shot for no good reason.
I think the body cameras are showing their value. Without camera footage here I would expect (1) black community members to claim the guy was shot execution-style in cold blooded murder, and (2) the officer to exaggerate the danger faced. Pending the investigation - other camera footage, incident re-creation, etc. - this might turn out to be manslaughter or it might turn out to be a bad but not criminal shooting.
Except that there have been a couple of recent cases where an unarmed person, trying to leave the encounter on foot, got shot for no good reason.
Well, as has been said, if you like to operate under the "new rules", you run that risk by attempting to flee. Would suggest fleeing an officer on foot is a bad idea, generally speaking.
SomeOtherGuy
07-30-15, 10:51
Well, as has been said, if you like to operate under the "new rules", you run that risk by attempting to flee. Would suggest fleeing an officer on foot is a bad idea, generally speaking.
It IS a bad idea, and illegal, but except in the case of a fleeing felon it has never been a legal basis for shooting them.
I was trying to edit my above post but the system malfunctioned while I was. I remember reading about an incident where a white motorist was stopped for some traffic thing and ended up dead, not because of any active resistance but because of his slow responses, which were characteristic of his autism and speech issues. Over the last couple years I've read of several incidents where motorists who were NOT fleeing, NOT threatening, NOT violent, NOT felons still wound up dead in roadside police encounters. Not trying to make a major thread veer but the assertion that cooperating with police ALWAYS lets you stay alive has been proven wrong, and unless that is fully addressed then this issue will take on more of the characteristics of a mindless sports-fan allegiance than of intelligent debate on how to enforce the law, protect officers, and not have unjustified shootings of people who get stopped.
Except that there have been a couple of recent cases where an unarmed person, trying to leave the encounter on foot, got shot for no good reason.
I think the body cameras are showing their value. Without camera footage here I would expect (1) black community members to claim the guy was shot execution-style in cold blooded murder, and (2) the officer to exaggerate the danger faced. Pending the investigation - other camera footage, incident re-creation, etc. - this might turn out to be manslaughter or it might turn out to be a bad but not criminal shooting.
Fleeing is generally not a good response, but yes, not a reason to get shot. I remember an incident where a white kid was bebopping to his Ipod and was completely unaware of what was going on around him. Cops thought he was the suspect so when the kid turned around and freaked he for some reason reached under his shirt on his strong hand side and got shot. It does happen...situational awareness is important. Obviously not a reason to get shot but if the kid was paying attention to what was going on around him he would probably still be alive.
Curious what typical LE is trained with in regard to use of deadly force?
PatrioticDisorder
07-30-15, 11:29
I tried to not get all fired up over this but after watching Megyn Kelly tonight, my blood pressure is up a little bit.
Do I think the cop screwed up? YUP!
Do I think the cop MURDERED this guy? NOPE
I can not effin stand people telling the world how it is supposed to happen when they have never spent a minute in our shoes!
Problem number one.... LACK OF TRAINING.
The police administrators are shooting themselves in the foot (sorry for the pun) every single time they deny an officer training. Officers are in field training for less time because they don't want to pay two officers for doing the job of one. The training budget gets less and less every year. WHY? I have been paying my own way for schools for years now. Why? Because it betters ME. If they don't want to pay me to train then I'll do it to better myself. If I decide to take my training along with me to a new job, so be it, I've earned it on my own.
I have been dragged down the street before. Has anyone else reading this? Luckily for me, it was a 75 year old Alzheimer's patient instead of a bad guy that wanted to get away. The cop should have stepped away when the car started and chased the guy in his own car. End of story. If he got his foot ran over, he would get a few weeks paid vacation. Second, never open the door for a bad guy, ever. Always have them step out on their own. It's much safer and you are far enough away from the vehicle to not get run over if the bad guy drives away.
If he got tangled in the seat belt or his hand got slammed in the door as the bad guy closed it and got dragged down the road then yes a shot to the head would be a good idea.
So what do I think happened? (flame suit on)
I have been a firearms instructor for 14 years. I know things.
From watching this video, I only have one point of view. My educated guess is based on what is called sympathetic response. This is when you begin to fall down the stairs and you grab for the railing with your left hand to stop your fall and your right hand does the same thing simply because your left hand is doing it. If you have a pistol in your right hand and your finger is on the trigger and you begin to fall down the steps and you grab for the railing with your left hand, there is a very good chance that you will discharge your firearm.
So, what I think happened is, the cop got startled when the guy started the car and he drew his weapon with a poorly placed trigger finger. Something he did with his left hand caused him to have sympathetic reflex and the gun discharged, striking the bad guy.
Rule #1: Do what the cop says whether you think it's right or wrong. Be alive to sue him in court if you believe that your constitutional rights were violated.
Rule #2: Before being the Judge, Jury and Executioner to the cop, find out what training he/she has had or been denied by the desk jockeys.
Rule #3: Remember that police make life or death decisions in milliseconds. This decision extends to the bad guy, the cop and any bystander. Police are humans too and they will make mistakes.
In my line of work, I point my firearms at people quite often. Do I intend to shoot them? Yes. Do I shoot everyone I point my firearms at? Nope. So keeping my finger off the trigger is numero uno in my line of work (training).
I won't even get into the race issue. Every single life is precious.
This, I think if anything the cop should lose his job. I don't see anything criminal and my blood pressure was raised as well watching the Kelly Files last night.
PatrioticDisorder
07-30-15, 11:34
If anyone hasn't noticed there is a war on cops that closely coincides with a war on men, specifically white Christian men and if you're a cop and a minority you're a "sell out", if you're a minority and conservative you too are also a sell out to the left. That's what this "social justice" politically correct nonsense is about, Obama & Holder have stoked these flames for 6 1/2 years and now the fire is burning hot.
RancidSumo
07-30-15, 17:06
He deserves to be behind bars for a couple decades. Involuntary manslaughter or homicide, depending on what the dash cam/other body cam shows. If it was a ND, which it looks like it might have been, then it's the former.
Averageman
07-30-15, 18:11
He deserves to be behind bars for a couple decades. Involuntary manslaughter or homicide, depending on what the dash cam/other body cam shows. If it was a ND, which it looks like it might have been, then it's the former.
Not even close.
He has been charged with nothing that cannot be beat in a court of Law. Murder, not even; Voluntary Manslaughter, again, not even.
Grandstanding Prosecutor; well, maybe.
I have no doubt that it is in reaction to the folks from BLM.
From watching this video, I only have one point of view. My educated guess is based on what is called sympathetic response. This is when you begin to fall down the stairs and you grab for the railing with your left hand to stop your fall and your right hand does the same thing simply because your left hand is doing it. If you have a pistol in your right hand and your finger is on the trigger and you begin to fall down the steps and you grab for the railing with your left hand, there is a very good chance that you will discharge your firearm...
I think sympathetic response is a pretty interesting concept on many different levels. As an example: Officer, or anyone else for that matter, lays hands on someone and their instantaneous response is to "resist" which I think could be defined as an sympathetic response. Or, Officer is trying to get person to comply by using force, and expects them to acquiesce, yet the natural defense response is to resist, being a sympathetic response... However, that's deemed unacceptable, and more force is applied which in turn creates more resistance...
M4C + 7&7 = :confused:
Averageman
07-30-15, 18:27
I think sympathetic response is a pretty interesting concept on many different levels. As an example: Officer, or anyone else for that matter, lays hands on someone and their instantaneous response is to "resist" which I think could be defined as an sympathetic response. Or, Officer is trying to get person to comply by using force, and expects them to acquiesce, yet the natural defense response is to resist, being a sympathetic response... However, that's deemed unacceptable, and more force is applied which in turn creates more resistance...
M4C + 7&7 = :confused:
And none of that matches what is charged?
And none of that matches what is charged?
Como se what? I don't know and don't care what was charged... I'm on a sideways tangent. Go have a drink and come back :)
I think sympathetic response is a pretty interesting concept on many different levels. As an example: Officer, or anyone else for that matter, lays hands on someone and their instantaneous response is to "resist" which I think could be defined as an sympathetic response. Or, Officer is trying to get person to comply by using force, and expects them to acquiesce, yet the natural defense response is to resist, being a sympathetic response... However, that's deemed unacceptable, and more force is applied which in turn creates more resistance...
M4C + 7&7 = :confused:
That's not what sympathetic response is. Basically it means involuntary body movements in response to other body movements. Like in the example given, if you fall down the stairs and reach out with your left and and grab the rail your right hand will also clench down some. Thats how a lot of NDs happen.
Now a person could have a natural response to immediately resist sudden attacks on them but that's not what sympathetic response is.
Curious what typical LE is trained with in regard to use of deadly force?
It is hard to break down because of overlap - our guys get 8 hours of use of force lecture (case based instruction); 40ish hours of firearms; 8 hours of force-on force (broken into small groups); and a final evaluation (which must be passed to be certified) on our use of force simulators - the reason I said it was kind of hard to quantify because of overlap is they also get some in building searches, they get more than just 'some' in their 40ish hours of defensive tactics, they get some in their 8 hour block of DV scenarios, and they get some in Emergency Vehicle Operations.
Nationwide it is probably all over the place, we recently had an officer in our reciprocity class (certified in another state) ask our legal instructor 'is the 4th Amendment Nationwide?' No shit - I'm not kidding.
I think where the ball is dropped in many agencies/jurisdictions is at the in-service level. Many times that block is taught by well meaning but unqualified fellow officers.
It is hard to break down because of overlap - our guys get 8 hours of use of force lecture (case based instruction); 40ish hours of firearms; 8 hours of force-on force (broken into small groups); and a final evaluation (which must be passed to be certified) on our use of force simulators - the reason I said it was kind of hard to quantify because of overlap is they also get some in building searches, they get more than just 'some' in their 40ish hours of defensive tactics, they get some in their 8 hour block of DV scenarios, and they get some in Emergency Vehicle Operations.
Nationwide it is probably all over the place, we recently had an officer in our reciprocity class (certified in another state) ask our legal instructor 'is the 4th Amendment Nationwide?' No shit - I'm not kidding.
I think where the ball is dropped in many agencies/jurisdictions is at the in-service level. Many times that block is taught by well meaning but unqualified fellow officers.
Thanks for answering my question. I suspected there was some national variability in training.
In general terms, are LE typically taught to use it as a last resort? I'm sure it is more complicated and subject to a broad spectrum of situations, including escalation of violence. Use the traffic stop situation and not a swat raid scenario, which I will assume would be very different.
I would imagine what information the officer has on the subject comes into play also. Right?
Just trying to learn, obviously I am not in LE.
From watching this video, I only have one point of view. My educated guess is based on what is called sympathetic response. This is when you begin to fall down the stairs and you grab for the railing with your left hand to stop your fall and your right hand does the same thing simply because your left hand is doing it. If you have a pistol in your right hand and your finger is on the trigger and you begin to fall down the steps and you grab for the railing with your left hand, there is a very good chance that you will discharge your firearm.
So, what I think happened is, the cop got startled when the guy started the car and he drew his weapon with a poorly placed trigger finger. Something he did with his left hand caused him to have sympathetic reflex and the gun discharged, striking the bad guy.
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/trigger-finger-positioning-hand-clenches-and-accidental-discharges
Agree 100% brother. I don't think he meant to pull the trigger at all. He grabbed onto the car while drawing his pistol as the car pulled away, causing him to fall while grabbing onto the car.
I think he didn't realize he shot the driver until he ran up and saw he was shot in the face. At that point he didn't want to admit being on camera having a Negligent Discharge and ego/fear took over. Probably also got some bad advice from his bosses on how to articulate the entire incident.
BoringGuy45
07-31-15, 08:34
I'm thinking there's no way he'll get a murder conviction. They'll need to prove malice. They can call it bad tactics and they may even get voluntary manslaughter. But unless they can show that this officer killed the guy with evil intent, he's going to get acquitted.
The officer was pretty laid back the entire time. I do not believe, for one second, that he intended to shoot the guy in the face when he walked up to the car, or right up until he pulled the trigger to hopefully stop the car from pulling away with him tangled up in it.
Averageman
07-31-15, 09:24
http://www.alternet.org/breaking-prosecutors-release-video-sam-dubose-shooting-file-murder-charges-warning-graphic-video?sc=fb
Hamilton Country Prosecutor Joseph T. Deters announced Wednesday afternoon that murder charges will be filed against University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing for the shooting death of Sam Dubose, an African-American man who was pulled over for a minor traffic violation.
Prosecutor Deters, himself a two-time graduate of the University of Cincinnati, said he was treating officer Tensing as "a murderer," calling his shooting "the most asinine thing" he'd ever seen on the job.
Dubose was shot directly in the head by Officer Tensing.
"He wasn't dealing with someone who was wanted for murder, he was dealing with someone who didn't have a license plate," Deters said. "If he's rolling away let him go, don't shoot him in the head. It was... a chicken-crap pull over [to begin with]"
The long-time prosecutor was unequivocal, "It's bad what he did and it shouldn't have happened." He went on to say Hamilton Country authorities would seek life in prison.
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/30/judge-sets-1-million-bond-for-ohio-officer-charged-in-murder/21216059/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-sb-bb%7Cdl13%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D1289477396
Tensing was indicted on Wednesday on murder and voluntary manslaughter charges in the July 19 death of Samuel DuBose, who was shot in the head during a traffic stop. Tensing, who turned himself in and spent the night in jail in isolation, appeared in court in gray, striped prison clothes.
The incident was the latest in a series of fatal police confrontations in the United States that have raised questions about law enforcement's use of force against minorities.
In announcing the indictment on Wednesday, Hamilton County Prosecutor Joseph Deters said Tensing was not dragged by DuBose's car as the officer had claimed to justify the shooting.
I'm thinking the Prosecutor just went way over board and neither of those will stick. I also think the personal comments are not warranted. All that is up to a GJ to decide and I sure don't see Murder or Voluntary Manslaughter working without a reasonable doubt being in someone's mind.
In my opinion he is playing it up for the "Hands Up Don't Shoot Crowd" in the hopes they wont begin protesting. looting and burning the city to the ground a'la Ferguson.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/29/publish/30830777/
I was wrong, it has already been to the GJ.
The murder charge came after 12 Hamilton County citizens reviewed evidence all day Monday as part of their grand jury investigation into the incident, which had put the city on edge and rekindled worries about the sometimes strained relationship between police and blacks in Cincinnati.
"He wasn't dealing with someone wanted for murder. He was dealing with someone without a front license plate," Deters said, describing that offense as "chicken crap stuff."
"Some people want to believe Mr. DuBose did something violent toward the officer," Deters said. "He did not. He did not at all."
He said DuBose had marijuana in the car and about $2,600 cash. "He might have had marijuana, but you don't deserve to be executed for something like that," Deters said.
That may explain why Mr Dubose was acting a bit nervous.
Bishop Bobby Hilton, of the Word Deliverance Church in Forest Park, said people should welcome the actions taken Wednesday, regardless of how angry or sad or frustrated they are about the shooting.
"There should be no unrest. There's unrest when people feel like they're not being heard," Hilton said. "What more can you ask for? As terrible as it is, it should be a proud moment for our community. We can prove that we can take the most horrible incident and show the world how our community reacts and becomes better."
Again this is exactly why I feel they went with a murder charge.
http://www.cincinnati.com/media/cinematic/video/30848675/
2nd Body cam video worn by a different Officer.
In my opinion he is playing it up for the "Hands Up Don't Shoot Crowd" in the hopes they wont begin protesting. looting and burning the city to the ground a'la Ferguson. [/B]
Possibly. If the crowd chants "off with his head" and you appease them by over charging until damage control can be done... who knows these days. So is it possible that if he is clearly over charged then he walks? Or do lesser crimes automatically filter in?
The problem is, which I believe everyone is in agreement... doesn't matter if someone wants to nit pick over the car moving or not, or where it all ended up.
The car was stopped and not running with the officer --outside the car-- in a place he deemed safe under any circumstance he had decided to get involved in.
Then the action was made by the citizen to flee by starting the car and placing it in gear.... which yes, that means it might move forward at various speeds.
THEN.. after all that, the Officer decides to play Superman and physically stop the car (mistake 1). Why did he do that? IMO, he did it because he had sufficiently determined the citizen was not a threat and he only need concern himself with simply shutting the car off. Unfortunately, his reasoning and choice resulted in that action being more difficult than he had determined and he realized, oh no, I've now basically placed myself in a dangerous proximity that the citizen -could, but has shown no signs of, using as a weapon that could run over me.... he pulls his weapon in response (mistake2) and stumbles a bit, grabs the seat bealt, which simply slipped off the guys shoulder offering him no support,,,, that sympathetic muscle reaction takes place, the ND occurs, and now the vehicle is basically a run away danger and he falls away from it.
So let's say everyone agrees in the end this was a CF of 'wish I hadn't done that' negligent death. .... If he is charged with murder and voluntary manslaughter and those don't apply... will he automatically have to stand for involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, or something similar?
IOW, now that he has been charged he is innocent. Based on the charges and trial rules, what possible things might he possibly be found guilty of if everyone were to accept he didn't actually mean to do this but was a result of his improper reasoning and action.
The machinations and mental gymnastics being done over this is astounding. I'll stick to Occam's Razor.
Guy chose to flee with a cop tangled up in the car with him. He got shot for doing it. Oh well. Don't try to move your car while a cop is talking to you on a legal stop.
Averageman
07-31-15, 10:48
Possibly. If the crowd chants "off with his head" and you appease them by over charging until damage control can be done... who knows these days. So is it possible that if he is clearly over charged then he walks? Or do lesser crimes automatically filter in?
So let's say everyone agrees in the end this was a CF of 'wish I hadn't done that' negligent death. .... If he is charged with murder and voluntary manslaughter and those don't apply... will he automatically have to stand for involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, or something similar?
IOW, now that he has been charged he is innocent. Based on the charges and trial rules, what possible things might he possibly be found guilty of if everyone were to accept he didn't actually mean to do this but was a result of his improper reasoning and action.
The machinations and mental gymnastics being done over this is astounding. I'll stick to Occam's Razor.
Guy chose to flee with a cop tangled up in the car with him. He got shot for doing it. Oh well. Don't try to move your car while a cop is talking to you on a legal stop.
I'm not sure when the rule book changed, but clearly there are now two sets of rules. For those operating off of the new set of rules and don't want to get shot by a Cop,I offer these suggestions;
When the Cop asks you a question, answer his questions.
When stopped don't jack with the door.
When stopped don't attempt to put the car in gear and drive away.
When stopped if the Cop reaches in the window of your car for something, this is a bad thing, just lean back and let him have control of whatever he feels is putting him in danger.
When driving make sure you have your plates on the car where they are supposed to be.
When driving keep your license with you at all times.
Now I'm sure those operating on the new set of rules feel these things are unfair and you should be able to do just about anything you want when pulled over and not get shot. Well, maybe so, but for the most part the more of the above rules you break, the more likely something stupid like this will happen to you.
I have to agree with all of this.
I keep remembering how Officer Darren Wilson was treated and I'm beginning to think this will be the norm, not the exception.
Even here; after being cleared by Holder and the DOJ, look how many people of color still feel Officer Wilson was at fault.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/justice/2015/03/20/ctn-sot-michael-brown-evidence-witnesses.cnn
bluejackets92fs
07-31-15, 13:53
I went to grade school with Ray (Officer involved) and have known him since we were 9 or 10 years old. His dad's construction company did my parent's driveway and patio when I was growing up. He comes from a good family and was raised right. Ray is an excellent person so this is very out of character for him. This week has been really hard for me especially with an older brother in law enforcement. The "what if's" and "maybe this" thoughts have been swirling around my head for days now.
I feel bad for the victim's family too, obviously, but there is something that I'm missing in this story. The sequence of events is just not sitting well with me. Like people have stated, he was obviously dragged otherwise he wouldn't have gotten back to his feet so close to the vehicle that was what appears to be 20-30 feet down the street. The events in the car happen so fast that I honestly can't tell if he fired before the car was moving or not. I can't tell if he was wrapped up in the belt or if he had his arms in the car when it was put into drive. Obviously the intent of the victim was to flee but does that warrant the use of force? Maybe, maybe not. I can't tell based on the video and how fast everything happened.
I don't even know what to think. This one hits too close to home.
Based on my frame by frame view, it sort of looks like to me the Honda moved maybe the width of driveway as he was being shot. Then the officer falls away and the car went quite some distance. This SUV can seen repeatedly in the commotion through the windows of the Honda. You can look through the car and see this parked vehicle before and after shot.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.123181,-84.513175,3a,75y,246.76h,72.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLkwnl7GPLplapo1xudbW-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Collegefour
07-31-15, 22:21
Post #40 and #76 are primary motivators for officers not wanting to wear body cams. When it is possible for forensic examiners to produce evidence so detailed, so nuanced, and so split second accurate, it becomes ridiculous for an officer to even write a report and/or testify. They are going to win/lose/be judged by the footage, and nothing else. So their statement/report only serves to incriminate them if it doesn't exactly match the footage. And I mean EXACTLY.
I have been a use of force instructor for over 15 years. I can explain in detail what occurs when an officer has a sympathetic nervous system discharge. I can also explain how it affects a person's ability to act. It is also well documented in legitimate research that there is post incident amnesia PRECISELY at the time that everyone wants a report or a statement. An officer involved in a use of force incident should be given two to three days to recover before writing anything other than a very preliminary report. The officer should also have access to the camera footage to assist his/her memory recovery.
For all the Monday morning QB's in this thread, just remember that the action that you are breaking down into frames and spending minutes to hours pouring over occurred in tenths of a second to a few seconds. You are quick to judge, but if you were an officer and really wanted to live, you might be surprised just how much your own actions would mirror this officer's. Spend some time thinking about THAT.
Post #40 and #76 are primary motivators for officers not wanting to wear body cams. When it is possible for forensic examiners to produce evidence so detailed, so nuanced, and so split second accurate, it becomes ridiculous for an officer to even write a report and/or testify. They are going to win/lose/be judged by the footage, and nothing else. So their statement/report only serves to incriminate them if it doesn't exactly match the footage. And I mean EXACTLY.
Can't say I can buy the "EXACTLY" part. Anyone that is a technophobe probably should just pack it up and get out. It's not going away. There is almost always a reluctant resentment curve. What's wrong with multiple accurate accounting of the facts?
You just said you can't believe the officer because of post incident amnesia but you don't want secondary data collection? That's like going to a crime scene and not interviewing witnesses or collecting evidence.
"For all the Monday morning QB's in this thread, just remember that the action that you are breaking down into frames and spending minutes to hours pouring over occurred in tenths of a second to a few seconds. You are quick to judge, but if you were an officer and really wanted to live, you might be surprised just how much your own actions would mirror this officer's. Spend some time thinking about THAT. "
I don't deny that. I thought about it the first time I saw it. Anyone -could- have done what he did. It was like some freak accident. Wrong place, wrong time, could have been anyone. At the same time, it really did happen and we really do have some emerging technology to see how that ties into the human mental and social aspects of the situation. As expected the facts don't exactly line up to the recollections. So we are lucky to have secondary data. You simply mistake interest and analysis for judgement. There is nothing to judge.
Collegefour
08-01-15, 03:50
What's wrong with multiple accurate accounting of the facts?
There is nothing wrong with your suggested practice. The problem is that video is not taken as part of a whole, but as the last word on what "really" happened.
You just said you can't believe the officer because of post incident amnesia but you don't want secondary data collection? That's like going to a crime scene and not interviewing witnesses or collecting evidence. I did NOT say that you cannot believe the officer, I said that any official statements/reports should wait until the officer recovers. As memory returns, details that were missed or glossed over will emerge, making it look like the officer was lying, or possibly just trying to "spin" his/her story. The truth is that they really just didn't remember.
"For all the Monday morning QB's in this thread, just remember that the action that you are breaking down into frames and spending minutes to hours pouring over occurred in tenths of a second to a few seconds. You are quick to judge, but if you were an officer and really wanted to live, you might be surprised just how much your own actions would mirror this officer's. Spend some time thinking about THAT. "
I don't deny that. I thought about it the first time I saw it. Anyone -could- have done what he did. It was like some freak accident. Wrong place, wrong time, could have been anyone. At the same time, it really did happen and we really do have some emerging technology to see how that ties into the human mental and social aspects of the situation. As expected the facts don't exactly line up to the recollections. So we are lucky to have secondary data. You simply mistake interest and analysis for judgement. There is nothing to judge.
If the repercussions were based solely on science in these matters, then I would agree with you. However, I think we are both aware that is not the case. I am thankful that I have only a few years left in this field, and I strongly caution anyone who is seriously considering entering it. Developments like these, and the way they are being used, will chase away the thoughtful, reasonable, articulate and intelligent people who have populated this field in favor of exactly the type of people that most members of the public would describe as someone who is not fit for it. If you think the police are bad now, wait until "the police" consist of "former" criminals and gang bangers, wannabes and mall cops because no one in their right mind will take the risk and do the work.
I did NOT say that you cannot believe the officer, I said that any official statements/reports should wait until the officer recovers.
That's what I mean. You can't believe that you are getting a complete and accurate accounting because science has shown he will be impaired. We both agree, he should fill out some sort of accounting. If you could believe everything he says is complete and accurate there would be no need to wait. However you want to phrase it. You can't consider his report accurate? You can't place full faith in the report? .. the same is said of eye witnesses all the time. You can't believe what they say they saw. As reports go, it's the same thing... you can't believe the report because time has shown they will be inaccurate.
"If you think the police are bad now, wait until "the police" consist of "former" criminals and gang bangers, wannabes and mall cops because no one in their right mind will take the risk and do the work."
I don't think the police are bad now. I don't even think this guy is bad. There are some bad ones out there though. But I also don't think the world is coming to an end from a quality standpoint. I think the younger officers will embrace technology because they have simply been born into it and will have more advanced tools that actually keeps them safer and makes it easier for them to deal with the public.
That's what I mean. You can't believe that you are getting a complete and accurate accounting because science has shown he will be impaired. We both agree, he should fill out some sort of accounting. If you could believe everything he says is complete and accurate there would be no need to wait. However you want to phrase it. You can't consider his report accurate? You can't place full faith in the report? .. the same is said of eye witnesses all the time. You can't believe what they say they saw. As reports go, it's the same thing... you can't believe the report because time has shown they will be inaccurate.
I don't know if this addresses your conversation - our knowledge of how the mind works is much more advanced today, that just makes sense. For instance in the late 70's there was a fairly small, but dedicated group of practitioners of investigative hypnosis. In those days the thought process was that the subconscious recorded everything the eyes saw, even if the conscious didn't register it. The belief was that a person walking into a convenience store who had looked at the parking lot as they walked in would be able to be placed into a hypnotic state and look at a 'tv show' of themselves walking into the store, pausing the 'show' to look at a freeze frame of the vehicles in the lot and recall the tags.
We know today that is not how the mind works. If questioned improperly, the eye-witness, probably eager to please or otherwise motivated, is very susceptible to implanted memories. Called confabulation this is not 'lying' in the strictest sense, it is merely the mind's attempt to fill in gaps. 'How tall was the robbery?' 'I don't know.' 'Was he as tall as me?' Here's where it goes wrong, eager to please, be helpful, solve the crime, the witness will often answer as best they can, they aren't lying they aren't even conscious that they are merely trying to fill in missing gaps. So when they say 'About your height officer,' two-days later when the midget robbery suspect confesses, the eye-witness will swear it wasn't him, the false memory is that implanted.
I spend a lot of time training officers on use-of-force using FATS and Training Lab Systems. We thoroughly debrief students after each scenario they participate in, one of the techniques we use is to have the student officer walk us through the encounter from the beginning, as if we just arrived on scene and are investigating. It is not unusual under those circumstances for officer to leave out whole chunks of data, in some cases they will insist that a man got out of the vehicle with a weapon, when in fact he didn't, they often tell us they took action well before they actually did, etc. This doesn't mean they are lying, or even poor observers, it is simply how the mind works.
Officers should not be expected to give details beyond the briefest statement until they have had a sleep cycle.
I don't know if this addresses your conversation - our knowledge of how the mind works is much more advanced today, that just makes sense. For instance in the late 70's there was a fairly small, but dedicated group of practitioners of investigative hypnosis. In those days the thought process was that the subconscious recorded everything the eyes saw, even if the conscious didn't register it. The belief was that a person walking into a convenience store who had looked at the parking lot as they walked in would be able to be placed into a hypnotic state and look at a 'tv show' of themselves walking into the store, pausing the 'show' to look at a freeze frame of the vehicles in the lot and recall the tags.
We know today that is not how the mind works. If questioned improperly, the eye-witness, probably eager to please or otherwise motivated, is very susceptible to implanted memories. Called confabulation this is not 'lying' in the strictest sense, it is merely the mind's attempt to fill in gaps. 'How tall was the robbery?' 'I don't know.' 'Was he as tall as me?' Here's where it goes wrong, eager to please, be helpful, solve the crime, the witness will often answer as best they can, they aren't lying they aren't even conscious that they are merely trying to fill in missing gaps. So when they say 'About your height officer,' two-days later when the midget robbery suspect confesses, the eye-witness will swear it wasn't him, the false memory is that implanted.
I spend a lot of time training officers on use-of-force using FATS and Training Lab Systems. We thoroughly debrief students after each scenario they participate in, one of the techniques we use is to have the student officer walk us through the encounter from the beginning, as if we just arrived on scene and are investigating. It is not unusual under those circumstances for officer to leave out whole chunks of data, in some cases they will insist that a man got out of the vehicle with a weapon, when in fact he didn't, they often tell us they took action well before they actually did, etc. This doesn't mean they are lying, or even poor observers, it is simply how the mind works.
Officers should not be expected to give details beyond the briefest statement until they have had a sleep cycle.
Sage advice for any Armed Citizen that was involved in a Justified Shooting, no? Especially your last sentence.
So how long should the officer wait to take action when he is tangled in a car, and it starts moving? "Width of a driveway" is being propped up as too soon. Does he need to lose skin to road rash first? Does he need to check the speedometer? 10mph? 25mph?
Again, the mental gymnastics being performed are quite overwhelming.
The perp started the car in motion with the officer partially inside it. He got dead. I feel very little sympathy for the deceased. I can never see a reasonable person seeing this as an issue either, because most of us put the car in park, take our ticket, and move on about our lives.
I don't know if this addresses your conversation - our knowledge of how the mind works is much more advanced today, that just makes sense. For instance in the late 70's there was a fairly small, but dedicated group of practitioners of investigative hypnosis. In those days the thought process was that the subconscious recorded everything the eyes saw, even if the conscious didn't register it. The belief was that a person walking into a convenience store who had looked at the parking lot as they walked in would be able to be placed into a hypnotic state and look at a 'tv show' of themselves walking into the store, pausing the 'show' to look at a freeze frame of the vehicles in the lot and recall the tags.
We know today that is not how the mind works. If questioned improperly, the eye-witness, probably eager to please or otherwise motivated, is very susceptible to implanted memories. Called confabulation this is not 'lying' in the strictest sense, it is merely the mind's attempt to fill in gaps. 'How tall was the robbery?' 'I don't know.' 'Was he as tall as me?' Here's where it goes wrong, eager to please, be helpful, solve the crime, the witness will often answer as best they can, they aren't lying they aren't even conscious that they are merely trying to fill in missing gaps. So when they say 'About your height officer,' two-days later when the midget robbery suspect confesses, the eye-witness will swear it wasn't him, the false memory is that implanted.
I spend a lot of time training officers on use-of-force using FATS and Training Lab Systems. We thoroughly debrief students after each scenario they participate in, one of the techniques we use is to have the student officer walk us through the encounter from the beginning, as if we just arrived on scene and are investigating. It is not unusual under those circumstances for officer to leave out whole chunks of data, in some cases they will insist that a man got out of the vehicle with a weapon, when in fact he didn't, they often tell us they took action well before they actually did, etc. This doesn't mean they are lying, or even poor observers, it is simply how the mind works.
Officers should not be expected to give details beyond the briefest statement until they have had a sleep cycle.
I always joke that people are the worst witnesses. I have two examples.
First was a bank robbery. Guy was in and out in about 46 seconds. When interviewing the witnesses the suspect was described as a white, hispanic, or light skinned black male. Age 30 to 55. 5 foot 8 to 6 foot 2. 180 to 250 pounds.
Second was a fatal accident of pickup truck vs motorcycle. We had about 12 witnesses. 11 witnesses say the truck pulled out of the side street and sideswiped the motorcyclist when merging into his lane. Motorcyclist falls down (no helmet) and dies of head trauma. Then the 12th witness say the truck pulled into the first lane and the motorcyclist was in the second lane (contrary to what everyone else says and the evidence). He said the truck had a refrigerator in the back and when he made the turn the fridge fell out of the back of the truck and hit the motorcyclist. That account was so different than the rest of the people that we actually searched the scene for a fridge which of course there was none.
So how long should the officer wait to take action when he is tangled in a car, and it starts moving? "Width of a driveway" is being propped up as too soon. Does he need to lose skin to road rash first? Does he need to check the speedometer? 10mph? 25mph?
Again, the mental gymnastics being performed are quite overwhelming.
The perp started the car in motion with the officer partially inside it. He got dead. I feel very little sympathy for the deceased. I can never see a reasonable person seeing this as an issue either, because most of us put the car in park, take our ticket, and move on about our lives.
The mental gymnastics are overwhelming and the mind is generally adept at handling - providing a sound solution has been implanted. I would suggest reading two book 'The Gift of Fear' and 'Just Two Seconds' both by Gavin DeBecker to better understand 'survival signals.'
In terms of the officer in question - time literally slows down when we are threatened - our perceptions focus sharply. I desert raced a little in my young adulthood, one day I hit a clump of sagebrush wrong WFO in 6th gear, I went over the bars and was literally for a moment, flying upside down holding onto the bars, I distinctly remember the distinct sound of the motor unwinding and thinking to my self 'push the bike away' and 'eff, this is gonna hurt' it seemed like 5 -6 seconds went by before I hit - in reality it was 'smack, whoops, thump' and it did hurt, bad.
In another incident I was attending the rappelmaster course at Ft. Campbell. During the course we were allowed to aussie rappel. Being an idiot I jumped to the front and said I'll go first. There was an ulterior motive - I knew I was the only lefty in the remnants of the course and wanted to make sure I got hooked up correctly since big Army didn't allow the use of locking beaners at the time. They hooked me up and I leaned forward - if you have rappelled off a wall with a low anchor point you know there is a breakover point where you have to essentially run a couple steps down the wall as the rope snaps down to the edge of the wall, I leaned forward and the breakover never happened, I was freefalling. My first thought was 'they wrapped me wrong' the next thought was to clamp down and let my hand ride the rope into beaner, thus jamming up shit and hopefully keeping me from a 40 foot face plant. I heard myself scream. About that time I felt like I had been cut in half, as I came to the end of the 8-10 feet of slack those bastards had hooked me up with, you should have seen my waist. I had stopped cold, regained my position and descended. Afterwards one of my classmates told me about the slack, and I sheepishly asked how loud my scream was, he looked at me kind of funny and said 'what scream?' Thing is, I heard it.
Those experiences combined with what I've learned lead me to believe that there is in all likelihood an 'objectively reasonable' reason for the officer's action. Yes, it was tragic, but it also may be 'reasonable.'
So how long should the officer wait to take action when he is tangled in a car, and it starts moving? "Width of a driveway" is being propped up as too soon. Does he need to lose skin to road rash first? Does he need to check the speedometer? 10mph? 25mph?
Again, the mental gymnastics being performed are quite overwhelming.
The perp started the car in motion with the officer partially inside it. He got dead. I feel very little sympathy for the deceased. I can never see a reasonable person seeing this as an issue either, because most of us put the car in park, take our ticket, and move on about our lives.
Yeah, maybe you're right... Like those ABC agents and the young girls buying water. The agents should have blown them away. No need to feel sympathy for dead people that run from Police out of fear.
"width of a driveway" was in reference as to how far be may or may not have been dragged. It was NOT a guideline regarding action or inaction.
However if you really want an answer to your question, simply go read post #4 of this thread. That is what you believe reasonable people should and do accept. No one is trying to change your mind. History has proven you wrong with the ABC agents. Speaking of gymnastics... shouldn't we be careful not to pole vault over reality? Is 'do what I say or die' or 'you resist, you die' .. really where we want to go?
BTW... Occam's Razor is used when there are multiple hypothesis and/or assumptions that could be accepted as true. You are only allowing for one potential which is simply your interpretation of what you consider facts. So you can't have Occam's Razor because you deny that any other possibility exists as valid. IOW, you made your own gymnastic event in the Internet Forum Olympics and awarded yourself the gold medal.
Anyway, I'll bow out since this is your home... it was just my unbiased observations... nothing personal towards you or Police. I actually feel sorry for the guy and believe it or not the dead guy too. It could have been anybody in both of those roles. That day it was a young officer and a guy that apparently couldn't get his life together in time and now it's gone.
Adios.
The VA ABC agent case has nothing to do with this case, at all. The ABC agent actively jumped on her car, on incorrect suspicion of underage procurement of alcohol. They are not the same, no matter how you want to make them equivalent.
Adios
Promise?
The mental gymnastics are overwhelming and the mind is generally adept at handling - providing a sound solution has been implanted. I would suggest reading two book 'The Gift of Fear' and 'Just Two Seconds' both by Gavin DeBecker to better understand 'survival signals.'
It strikes me that you have no idea to what I am referring. People are getting their mind wrapped up that in some fashion the car moving a little bit versus moving a lot somehow makes the cop wrong and the dead guy just an innocent dead guy, wronged by the man. They are going frame by frame to do an analysis of distance covered, and then attributing that distance, as unacceptable to be fearful of your life. They are creating a bunch of strawmen, to make it the equivalent of "you have to let the dog bite you, before you can know for sure you'd be bitten, and therefore cleared to shoot".
We all know that is BS. We all know that if a dog is charging at me, that I do not need to wait to be bit. We all know that I do not have to wait to be stabbed by the guy with the knife before I can shoot him. Yet, since this case hasn't been settled by established case law, we've got this cerebral over-processing going on, making it basically Ok to start pulling away with a cop tangled in your seat belt, or even deciding to start the car and press the accelerator while clearly intoxicated, and under questioning for a legal stop.
You pull your car away, and happen to unfortunately tangle up an officer, I feel ZERO.ZERO sympathy for whatever happens to you -- or anyone who would agree with you in doing it. I'm not even a huge fan of all the things cops do on stops, or anything else, but THIS case says to me, "Toughski Shitski".
It strikes me that you have no idea to what I am referring.
You are right, I took a different meaning to your sentence - 'Again, the mental gymnastics being performed are quite overwhelming' - drive on, I pretty much agree with you in either case.
The VA ABC agent case has nothing to do with this case, at all. The ABC agent actively jumped on her car, on incorrect suspicion of underage procurement of alcohol. They are not the same, no matter how you want to make them equivalent.
Promise?
Just go ahead and shut my account off. That should satisfy your question.
"People are getting their mind wrapped up that in some fashion the car moving a little bit versus moving a lot somehow makes the cop wrong and the dead guy just an innocent dead guy, wronged by the man."
Seriously? That's what you think? If you are speaking about me, you are truly clueless.
Like I say, rest easy... just shut my account off.
Thanks for answering my question. I suspected there was some national variability in training.
In general terms, are LE typically taught to use it as a last resort? I'm sure it is more complicated and subject to a broad spectrum of situations, including escalation of violence. Use the traffic stop situation and not a swat raid scenario, which I will assume would be very different.
I would imagine what information the officer has on the subject comes into play also. Right?
Just trying to learn, obviously I am not in LE.
This is probably the best way to a partial understanding on the topic:
http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/welcome.aspx
That page mentions the "Use of Force Continuum". If you Google that, you'll come up with a dizzying array of "models" that have been used all over the place. Some of them are so complex, they're utterly unusable. It's an ever evolving topic and there's no right answer. Even using a UoF Continuum model has fallen out of favor in many circles, because it can't model for the unpredictability of any given situation. Some evolve in a linear fashion over a drawn out period, while others explode within fractions of a second.
You want to do your job and enforce the law. An intended byproduct of that is reducing the risk to public safety. You also have to factor in personal safety, which is both consciously and subconsciously factoring on your risk assessment. No two officers anywhere in the world are going to arrive at the same conclusion every time. It's a human endeavor with many nuanced outcomes of Good, Acceptable, Substandard and Unacceptable results. At the same time, the parameters of each category are continuously evolving and subject to interpretation by just as many different people coming up with different ratings or scores on each event.
What it ultimately comes down to is this: Training + Experience + Preferred Outcomes - Competing Harms ÷ Time to Decision = Risk Management
In this case you have to weigh the training and experience of the university officer with less than 5 years on the job, the benefit to the public safety in detaining the individual for a missing plate, the safety of the subject, the safety of the officer, the subject's level of non-compliance, then divide it all by the amount of time the officer had to make a decision.
How long did it take you to read this post?
How long did the officer have to make his decision?
How long does it take the average American to make a snap judgement, based on nothing but what media bobbleheads and single video give them?
I can't imagine anyone realistically putting this outcome in the Good column. Some on the hardcore crime & punishment side are going to find it Acceptable. Most are going to fall in the Substandard to Unacceptable range and a few will want the officer publicly executed.
For my take, deciding whether it falls in the Substandard or Unacceptable range is going to require a far more serious examination of ALL the relevant facts than what this prosecutor has given. I don't care for his tone or rhetoric in public. Even if he ultimately winds up being correct, his conduct is unprofessional and IMO, will cause severe damage between his office and the LE agencies he still has to work with. :(
Just go ahead and shut my account off. That should satisfy your question.
You are welcome back, any time. Your previous posts are clear on exactly what you believe, and it is consistent with my portrayal.
You believe the officer murdered the guy, or at the very least should be guilty of manslaughter of some flavor, because being dragged the "width of a driveway" is "clearly lying" about being dragged by the car.
You believe the officer murdered the guy, or at the very least should be guilty of manslaughter of some flavor, because being dragged the "width of a driveway" is "clearly lying" about being dragged by the car.
No, you are wrong. In fact I am the only person in the entire thread that has said he is Innocent and asked if he might be subject to some lesser charges and if so what might they be as the charges do not seem correct.
Never said he wasn't dragged by car. I said he wasn't dragged by the driver. He may have been dragged by the car after the driver received a bullet in the head. Kinda hard to hold the driver accountable at that point. Especially after you have watched him shut his door, start the vehicle and place it in gear... while you are in a safe proximity OUTSIDE.
Again... look at your frames in the video.
You will never convince me that the driver is solely to blame even by twisting my words. The officer lost control of the situation when the car started. He made incredibly dangerous decisions after that. Sometimes dangerous decisions are necessary. I have seen nor heard anything that convinces me that is the case here. The driver was wrong too, but he was not endangering the officer. In fact he was trying to create distance with no erratic moves. The engine starting was a pretty big clue.
The caption to this picture can easily be "Going, Going, .... " as he has re-shut his door, re-started the car and is shifting into or has shifted into drive with the front wheels pointed in a safe forward direction. If all that commotion was a Rattle Snake shaking it's rattle on the center console there is no way in hell that Officer would not have withdrawn his arm right then and there, as well as the rest of his body. Again for whatever reason, he thought it a good idea to start a wrestling match which immediately got even further out of his control and his secondary choice of solutions probably didn't go the way he was planning either. As I, like others, think it was an ND.
http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y324/TB-AV/Door%20shut.jpg
This is probably the best way to a partial understanding on the topic:
http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/welcome.aspx
That page mentions the "Use of Force Continuum". If you Google that, you'll come up with a dizzying array of "models" that have been used all over the place. Some of them are so complex, they're utterly unusable. It's an ever evolving topic and there's no right answer. Even using a UoF Continuum model has fallen out of favor in many circles, because it can't model for the unpredictability of any given situation. Some evolve in a linear fashion over a drawn out period, while others explode within fractions of a second.
You want to do your job and enforce the law. An intended byproduct of that is reducing the risk to public safety. You also have to factor in personal safety, which is both consciously and subconsciously factoring on your risk assessment. No two officers anywhere in the world are going to arrive at the same conclusion every time. It's a human endeavor with many nuanced outcomes of Good, Acceptable, Substandard and Unacceptable results. At the same time, the parameters of each category are continuously evolving and subject to interpretation by just as many different people coming up with different ratings or scores on each event.
What it ultimately comes down to is this: Training + Experience + Preferred Outcomes - Competing Harms ÷ Time to Decision = Risk Management
In this case you have to weigh the training and experience of the university officer with less than 5 years on the job, the benefit to the public safety in detaining the individual for a missing plate, the safety of the subject, the safety of the officer, the subject's level of non-compliance, then divide it all by the amount of time the officer had to make a decision.
How long did it take you to read this post?
How long did the officer have to make his decision?
How long does it take the average American to make a snap judgement, based on nothing but what media bobbleheads and single video give them?
I can't imagine anyone realistically putting this outcome in the Good column. Some on the hardcore crime & punishment side are going to find it Acceptable. Most are going to fall in the Substandard to Unacceptable range and a few will want the officer publicly executed.
For my take, deciding whether it falls in the Substandard or Unacceptable range is going to require a far more serious examination of ALL the relevant facts than what this prosecutor has given. I don't care for his tone or rhetoric in public. Even if he ultimately winds up being correct, his conduct is unprofessional and IMO, will cause severe damage between his office and the LE agencies he still has to work with. :(
Thanks for the link and thoughtful comments on the subject.
Interesting link, complex, nearly impossible topic.
ETA: In the current, open season on LE, climate, are any of you thinking of pursuing employment elsewhere? Not too sure I would want to be in LE right now, part of me wonders if that isn't the true purpose of all of this stuff.....admittedly, the paranoid side, of course.
Averageman
08-02-15, 22:38
This is probably the best way to a partial understanding on the topic:
http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/welcome.aspx
That page mentions the "Use of Force Continuum". If you Google that, you'll come up with a dizzying array of "models" that have been used all over the place. Some of them are so complex, they're utterly unusable. It's an ever evolving topic and there's no right answer. Even using a UoF Continuum model has fallen out of favor in many circles, because it can't model for the unpredictability of any given situation. Some evolve in a linear fashion over a drawn out period, while others explode within fractions of a second.
You want to do your job and enforce the law. An intended byproduct of that is reducing the risk to public safety. You also have to factor in personal safety, which is both consciously and subconsciously factoring on your risk assessment. No two officers anywhere in the world are going to arrive at the same conclusion every time. It's a human endeavor with many nuanced outcomes of Good, Acceptable, Substandard and Unacceptable results. At the same time, the parameters of each category are continuously evolving and subject to interpretation by just as many different people coming up with different ratings or scores on each event.
What it ultimately comes down to is this: Training + Experience + Preferred Outcomes - Competing Harms ÷ Time to Decision = Risk Management
In this case you have to weigh the training and experience of the university officer with less than 5 years on the job, the benefit to the public safety in detaining the individual for a missing plate, the safety of the subject, the safety of the officer, the subject's level of non-compliance, then divide it all by the amount of time the officer had to make a decision.
How long did it take you to read this post?
How long did the officer have to make his decision?
How long does it take the average American to make a snap judgement, based on nothing but what media bobbleheads and single video give them?
I can't imagine anyone realistically putting this outcome in the Good column. Some on the hardcore crime & punishment side are going to find it Acceptable. Most are going to fall in the Substandard to Unacceptable range and a few will want the officer publicly executed.
For my take, deciding whether it falls in the Substandard or Unacceptable range is going to require a far more serious examination of ALL the relevant facts than what this prosecutor has given. I don't care for his tone or rhetoric in public. Even if he ultimately winds up being correct, his conduct is unprofessional and IMO, will cause severe damage between his office and the LE agencies he still has to work with. :(
Thanks, great post.
Good luck with that. He's already lied on his report.
Background #1
No, look again, he falls backwards....If he were dragged it would have...
Background #2
If he was dragged, he was dragged by a dead man he had just killed. He was on his feet, not being dragged when he stuck the gun in his face and pulled the trigger. So ok, I'll concede that after the bullet entered the citizens head due to the officers actions that perhaps he was carried along a bit. What I am saying is the alive citizen did not drag him down the street. When you shoot someone in the head that is driving a car that you have taken upon yourself to get entangled in or otherwise attached to..... well, do you honestly expect things to go well.
So perhaps the out of control car with a dead driver did in fact carry the officer along a bit. But he fell backwards and the other officer noted the cloths showed that as well as the camera shot.
Background #3
The officer must have thought he could get the keys, get the car out of gear, or was already going to go hands on to get the guy out of the car. Any way you slice it, he already had his hands in the car, and the car started moving. Gun out. Shot to the head.
Accident, or intentional, I am really not concerned. Quite simply this will not ever happen to me, or anyone I know, because we do not run from the police over a piddly punk ticket like no front tag.
Background #1
Man, you don;t give up do you... After that post, several professional explained why it was not a lie. I accepted that and basically agreed with everything they said AND the other Office that 'mis-spoke' on his report, retracted that as well. The thread eveolved. I clearly accepted his words were not a lie but simply appear so in the beginning. Like I said "good luck with that" ... as it turns out the luck was indeed good and backed by science.
Background #2
Yes, indeed he does seem to me to fall backwards. Don't confuse the couple seconds of wrestling and the shot with what occurred after the shot.
I never saw that evolve, or at least your remarks do not show an evolution in thought. Did I miss the critical moment where you switched? I must have, point it out for me....
BTW, aren't you glad we don't grant silly requests like "shut my account off"?
The officer must have thought he could get the keys, get the car out of gear, or was already going to go hands on to get the guy out of the car. Any way you slice it, he already had his hands in the car, and the car started moving. Gun out. Shot to the head.
Accident, or intentional, I am really not concerned. Quite simply this will not ever happen to me, or anyone I know, because we do not run from the police over a piddly punk ticket like no front tag.
I'm interested to know why the driver was trying to flee. I'm doubting it was to avoid a ticket. No one seems to have broached that issue so far. It wont factor into the charges for the officer per se, but it's part of the overall event and motivation of the driver to put his and the LEOs life in danger.
BTW... Occam's Razor is used when there are multiple hypothesis and/or assumptions that could be accepted as true. You are only allowing for one potential which is simply your interpretation of what you consider facts. So you can't have Occam's Razor because you deny that any other possibility exists as valid. IOW, you made your own gymnastic event in the Internet Forum Olympics and awarded yourself the gold medal.
There are multiple hypotheses being thrown out.
1) This guy wanted to kill a black dude. Walked up to him, pulled out a gun, and shot him dead. Then lied on his police report.
2) This guy wanted to kill a black dude, so he trumped up some BS, pulled him over, talked to him on video, jumped in the car while it was still, and then shot the guy in the face. Then lied on his report.
3) This guy wanted to kill anyone, the dude he stopped happened to be black. BlackLivesMatter. He makes the guy feel uncomfortable enough to try and flee. Knowing his one clear chance to smoke someone is about to drive away, he shoots him in the head first. Lies on his report.
4) A legal stop occurs. Officer is calm, even in the face of an impaired, and uncooperative, or at the very least, a misleading driver. Suspect closes his door after the officer opens it, and begins to pull away with the officer's two arms inside the vehicle. Officer has already drawn his weapon, and discharges a round while being dragged/or being moved and/or pushed by the car. Kills the driver. States on his report he was "dragged" by the car, which seems to jive with the bodycam and his relative location upon regaining his feet. Probably regrets he shot the dude, but in hindsight, you can't drive off with a cop stuck in your car.
Yeah, #4 seems to fit all the stuff we can see and know so far. So uh, Occam's Razor would seemingly apply. As I said, I would love to know if the dashcam bears witness to #4, or if the other officers' bodycams show something that negates the O.R. conclusion from #4. If not, I am sticking with the likely reality that we can judge by video and official report.
I'm interested to know why the driver was trying to flee. I'm doubting it was to avoid a ticket. No one seems to have broached that issue so far. It wont factor into the charges for the officer per se, but it's part of the overall event and motivation of the driver to put his and the LEOs life in danger.
He had, at a minimum, 60 arrests on his sheet. He was probably on parole, or at the very least out on bond for one of them. I suspect even this minor arrest for DUI/no front plate would have put him in a real jam.
He had, at a minimum, 60 arrests on his sheet. He was probably on parole, or at the very least out on bond for one of them. I suspect even this minor arrest for DUI/no front plate would have put him in a real jam.
So a real pillar of society you're saying? My shocked face = :blink:
Background #3
That's exactly what I just said above. You don't seem to want to accept that after he was shot in the head he was no longer under his own free will. In fact he could simply have been a dead weight on the gas pedal. Whatever happens after he was shot had ZERO to do with the driver because for all practical purposes he was dead and was relieved of his ability to function by the Officer.
Again, don;t confuse what the driver did with what the car did with a dead or rapidly dying body inside.
I'm still not convinced he was dragged at all by car or driver but do admit the possibility he could have dragged a bit by the car. I would also suspect it was more simply walking, perhaps stumbling a bit, trying to stop car he realized was now dangerous and driverless... but it sounded like it revved up far too much for anyone to be able to stop and he simply fell away. Again, watch your video after the shot. After the shot it's just a car out of control. The person that was driving has left the building so to speak.
=======
Now think about what you are saying. You are saying a cop can pull a person over for a next to nothing infraction. Then if things don't go just right he could cause the person react adversely, claim it's adversarial, then simply shoot them. Now I don;t think this guy did that by any stretch of the imagination but that kind of thinking opens the door to all sorts of undesirable behavior. Not to mention create increase fear of Police in the public.
No this won't happen to you. You are I assume a practically normal person. What about the people with low IQ, mental issues but still able to function in society in a non-confrontational manner. You just can't run around killing them when they screw up.
Again you can ignore the thread development and edit my words in such manner that suggests I didn't learn something as it evolved and adjusted my opinion. But I NEVER said I thought he was a murderer.. and I'm pretty sure as sharp as you may be, you have not yet achieved 'mind reader' status.
I actually right now agree to a great deal with glocktogo's last post and also HKGuns comment ..."complex, nearly impossible topic"
You believe you have figured it out from day one. Society may side with you. There may be division in thinking, or most may simply say, now these facts have been presented I see it as the only rational solution. I currently feel there is negligence and inappropriate actions. But I would not hold that opinion if a reasonable alternative view was made clear.
Maybe the Officer will say I smelled alcohol and thought he was on drugs too. Maybe the tox report will confirm. Maybe he will say he was afraid for him to drive as he might harm someone.... well that all be well and good except again -his- actions caused a similar event to happen..... so as HK says it's complex.
I mean a lot of them were tied to his inability to keep a license, but some were drugs, as I recall. None were specifically dealing in violent behaviors though.
That's exactly what I just said above. You don't seem to want to accept that after he was shot in the head he was no longer under his own free will. In fact he could simply have been a dead weight on the gas pedal. Whatever happens after he was shot had ZERO to do with the driver because for all practical purposes he was dead and was relieved of his ability to function by the Officer.
The car was moving before the shot went off, I watched the video too. So did a couple others here. It's moving. I do not buy that it was post-mortem only that the car dragged him, pushed him, or gave him the sensation of getting ready to be dragged/pushed/crushed, etc.
Not a lot to "figure out". The outcome was less than ideal, sure. It is probably unacceptable in today's political and overly-sensitive climate.
I am not going to attribute the downfall of policing, or society, on this incident. I would offer that it has little bearing on anything, in actuality.
Great, convict the officer. Do it now. Make it happen. It will have the opposite desired effect, and Cincinnati will experience the same kind of "Rich and Vibrant" Spring that Baltimore is experiencing. There will be a slow down. There will be a more reactionary involvement of the police force. They will stop being active for a time. Killing, and crime in general, will go up because the police will make themselves "scarce". Just like in B-more.
I suspect that a jury of reasonable people, or maybe just one of them, will understand that you can not start moving a car with a cop attached to it, and one of the results of making an officer feel like he might be assaulted with a vehicle can include being shot.
Officer Tensing was being more than reasonable up until Dubose decided to drive away. I suspect he will comport himself well if he takes the stand.
Officer Tensing was being more than reasonable up until Dubose decided to drive away. I suspect he will comport himself well if he takes the stand.
Finally, I agree with you. 100%. Every word you just wrote in those two sentences.
Thanks for the link and thoughtful comments on the subject.
Interesting link, complex, nearly impossible topic.
ETA: In the current, open season on LE, climate, are any of you thinking of pursuing employment elsewhere? Not too sure I would want to be in LE right now, part of me wonders if that isn't the true purpose of all of this stuff.....admittedly, the paranoid side, of course.
Thanks. I'm no longer full time and merely work as an unpaid volunteer, which I'll keep doing. I have the luxury of picking and choosing who I'll work with, since there's no paycheck tied to it. The anti-LE climate doesn't really affect my approach to the mission, other than having to deal with a few more uncooperative people. I take people as they come and treat them as nice as they'll allow me to. My day job primarily consists of getting people to do things they don't want to do, sometimes with nothing more than a reasoned explanation as to why they should. That experience comes in handy from time to time. :)
As I suspected, he didn't flee to avoid a ticket. Can't vouch for this source but if correct, it fills in some missing parts of this event:
Report: Sam DuBose, Shot by Cop, Had Two Pounds of Marijuana and Thousands in Cash in His Car
Sam DuBose, the man shot to death by Officer Ray Tensing, had two pounds of marijuana in his car, along with thousands in cash, according to police sources familiar with the case. Leftist activists have seized on the case since Tensing is white and DuBose was black as evidence of an epidemic of cops gunning down unarmed men.
Sources within University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Police Departments told retired NYPD officer John Cardillo that police found two pounds of marijuana and thousands of dollars in cash in his car. Cardillo called to confirm these new facts with the public information office of the Cincinnati Police Department, and they did not deny them. Neither did the prosecutor’s office when Cardillo contacted them.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/03/report-sam-dubose-shot-by-cop-had-two-pounds-of-marijuana-and-thousands-in-cash-in-his-car/
Averageman
08-04-15, 09:31
As I suspected, he didn't flee to avoid a ticket. Can't vouch for this source but if correct, it fills in some missing parts of this event:
Report: Sam DuBose, Shot by Cop, Had Two Pounds of Marijuana and Thousands in Cash in His Car
Sam DuBose, the man shot to death by Officer Ray Tensing, had two pounds of marijuana in his car, along with thousands in cash, according to police sources familiar with the case. Leftist activists have seized on the case since Tensing is white and DuBose was black as evidence of an epidemic of cops gunning down unarmed men.
Sources within University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Police Departments told retired NYPD officer John Cardillo that police found two pounds of marijuana and thousands of dollars in cash in his car. Cardillo called to confirm these new facts with the public information office of the Cincinnati Police Department, and they did not deny them. Neither did the prosecutor’s office when Cardillo contacted them.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/03/report-sam-dubose-shot-by-cop-had-two-pounds-of-marijuana-and-thousands-in-cash-in-his-car/
I read $2500.00 in cash and pot, but I did not see it was poundage, that would make a lot more sense.
I'm no LEO, just a career NCO, but sometimes I would have to "interview" someone, on some occasions the person on the receiving end of this would start getting nervous and you knew pretty quickly things weren't on the up and up.
My prediction is he beats the rap on these charges and ends up finding a new career somewhere way out west.
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/sam-dubose-ray-tensing-case-dubose-had-4-bags-1-jar-of-marijuana-in-his-car-when-tensing-stopped-him
Just under 2 lbs. apparently, though the reason he tried to take off isn't all that relevant. As far as the actual incident goes, it doesn't look great but I would probably want to be on the jury before I decide. I can't see a murder charge flying though, since there was probably not intent.
The one thing I do want to say is that, as a cop, the prosecutor's statements really piss me off. How about this society, if you think cops are stopping people for "chicken crap stuff" like front plates or say untaxed cigarettes, DON'T MAKE THAT SHIT ILLEGAL? It's a really simple solution, if you don't want the cops to be in your business constantly, stop making a law for every little thing that goes on in society and stop calling the police every time any little thing bothers you. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying what happened here was right, I really don't know and I wonder what possessed him to reach into that car. What I am saying is where do we, as a society, get off passing all of these laws and then acting indignant when the police don't simply ignore the one's that we don't care that much about?
Averageman
08-06-15, 06:27
Has a toxicology report been released?
Eurodriver
08-06-15, 06:35
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/sam-dubose-ray-tensing-case-dubose-had-4-bags-1-jar-of-marijuana-in-his-car-when-tensing-stopped-him
Just under 2 lbs. apparently, though the reason he tried to take off isn't all that relevant. As far as the actual incident goes, it doesn't look great but I would probably want to be on the jury before I decide. I can't see a murder charge flying though, since there was probably not intent.
The one thing I do want to say is that, as a cop, the prosecutor's statements really piss me off. How about this society, if you think cops are stopping people for "chicken crap stuff" like front plates or say untaxed cigarettes, DON'T MAKE THAT SHIT ILLEGAL? It's a really simple solution, if you don't want the cops to be in your business constantly, stop making a law for every little thing that goes on in society and stop calling the police every time any little thing bothers you. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying what happened here was right, I really don't know and I wonder what possessed him to reach into that car. What I am saying is where do we, as a society, get off passing all of these laws and then acting indignant when the police don't simply ignore the one's that we don't care that much about?
Agreed. I remember when Old boy in NYC was choked to death reading on democratic underground similar thoughts.
Singlestack Wonder
08-06-15, 08:39
This doesn't help Tensing's case....
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/ray-tensing-beaten-in-2010-fight-seemed-like-ticking-time-bomb-attorney-says
I bet Lisa Rabanus has some law school, and undergrad, classmates who have a dim view of her too. It's how the world works. Or maybe Lisa Rabanus is just a very complacent person, who "gets along".
Most Type-A people are hated by 50% of the people they encounter, or more. It's kind of a watermark of being Type-A.
El Vaquero
08-07-15, 17:44
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/sam-dubose-ray-tensing-case-dubose-had-4-bags-1-jar-of-marijuana-in-his-car-when-tensing-stopped-him
Just under 2 lbs. apparently, though the reason he tried to take off isn't all that relevant. As far as the actual incident goes, it doesn't look great but I would probably want to be on the jury before I decide. I can't see a murder charge flying though, since there was probably not intent.
The one thing I do want to say is that, as a cop, the prosecutor's statements really piss me off. How about this society, if you think cops are stopping people for "chicken crap stuff" like front plates or say untaxed cigarettes, DON'T MAKE THAT SHIT ILLEGAL? It's a really simple solution, if you don't want the cops to be in your business constantly, stop making a law for every little thing that goes on in society and stop calling the police every time any little thing bothers you. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying what happened here was right, I really don't know and I wonder what possessed him to reach into that car. What I am saying is where do we, as a society, get off passing all of these laws and then acting indignant when the police don't simply ignore the one's that we don't care that much about?
I didn't see the weight listed in the article, but if it was just under 2lbs, that's a decent amount of weight. That's not personal use or even lower level street dealer weight. Definitely worth taking your chances evading in a vehicle. Especially if he has a bunch of priors. Not sure what the laws are in Ohio, but that much weed and with a bunch of priors, that dude would probably be seeing some prison time if he were in Texas.
This doesn't help Tensing's case....
There is another video from 2014 that's been posted. He made the news back then too. He pulled some guys over for a broken bumper .. or was with someone that pulled them over. I honestly couldn't figure that out. anyway, they (guys in car ) called a city officer/supervisor to the scene... It didn't exactly make him look like the brightest bulb in the pack.
Averageman
08-08-15, 13:34
I didn't see the weight listed in the article, but if it was just under 2lbs, that's a decent amount of weight. That's not personal use or even lower level street dealer weight. Definitely worth taking your chances evading in a vehicle. Especially if he has a bunch of priors. Not sure what the laws are in Ohio, but that much weed and with a bunch of priors, that dude would probably be seeing some prison time if he were in Texas.
And if that wasn't his weed, but something he purchased in the name of or with others, the outcome, running or staying might well have been the same.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.