DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... CINCINNATI (AP) — A second mistrial has been declared in the Ray Tensing trial after a jury said it could not come to a unani

Showing your thin skin again? You know it's a bad character trait right?

What do you think about people who are unruly when pulled over or stopped? Do they have any responsibility if something bad happens?

The other day Swish and I had an exchange and that went beyond politics. My point was just that encounters with police will go better if you're polite, respectful, and don't lie. There was some disagreement on whether or not that was a reasonable and expected way to act.

I don't think your question can be answered in one snarky, accusatory sentence.

I believe the aspect of being reasonable is a two way street.

I just want to know if you think it's reasonable that a cop beat someone or shoot someone that doesn't act the way you describe.

You see, one is an every day Joe who has not been trained to interact with others as a part of their profession. The other has received training, is sworn to protect and serve.

When people encounter officers who do not act in a professional manner, I think you're shifting the blame.

Now I agree with you in the way you describe the best way to interact with the police. I guess my issue is that I expect more out of people who are trained to protect and serve as a part of their profession.

You mean like the way you do with everything?

Ask me if an unarmed black man holds some responsibility for being shot to death straight in the head by a University of Cincinnati cop during a routine traffic stop (off campus) for not displaying a front license plate?

No, it is not reasonable that a cop beat someone or shoot someone that doesn't act the way I described. As you said, one is a professional and there is a certain protocol and expectation of behavior they have to follow, even when somebody is being unruly. We are in agreement there.

I'm just trying to convey is that there are two sides to these things. In some of the more notorious videos, the officer is just too trigger happy. That doesn't necessarily mean it is murder, which requires planning/malice aforethought-- conditions that are rarely met. Juries seem to be overwhelmingly in agreement with that. Some other points:

- We're talking about a small number of videos, a new one comes out perhaps once every few months but this is in a country with about 320,000,000 million people including about 42,000,000 black people and 1,000,000 or so police officers. Do the math on that-- these encounters are not nearly as widespread as some make them out to be.

- I do believe that how some people treat cops is crazy, they are put in some really hard and stressful spots and sometimes they make mistakes. The human element is lost on us sometimes; get people who are overworked and overstressed in any job and the number of mistakes increases. I ought to dig up some more riot footage that makes this particularly clear. Even in calm and benign encounters, there's an undercurrent of hostility that rarely starts with the officer(s). Sometimes it's much worse than that.

You should watch the video so you have a more complete understanding of what happened.

I did.

So.....Ask me if an unarmed black man holds some responsibility for being shot to death straight in the head by a University of Cincinnati cop during a routine traffic stop (off campus) for not displaying a front license plate?

Pretend the shooting, which I have said several times in this thread was not justified, did not happen.

- No front plate
- Said it was his car - came back to a female (wife's?)
- Said he had his license - doesn't have a license
- Partially full bottle on the floor, said it is not liquor despite the letters "GIN" prominently displayed on the front
- Some arguing about why he was pulled over (front tag)
- Officer goes to open car door, driver shuts door, turns on ignition, either starts driving away or is about to drive away. I think this was one of the more contentious points during the trial. I tend to think the car wasn't moving but it's actually hard to tell based on the video.
- *shot fired*

So yeah, that man does have some responsibility as he was being dishonest, had an open bottle of gin, and tried driving away while the officer was opening the door. But go ahead and keep saying it was for not displaying a front license plate.

I still don't think the officer had to pull his gun, but it is frustrating when somebody refuses to accurately describe the events that led up to it.

Do you think a woman is asking for it if they dress in a way you deem "slutty"?

No.

Do you think wearing revealing clothing is equivalent to driving around with an open bottle of liquor, and trying to drive off when a police officer attempts to open your door?

[quote=Haus}

Do you think wearing revealing clothing is equivalent to driving around with an open bottle of liquor, and trying to drive off when a police officer attempts to open your door?[/quote]

The only equivalency that I see is neither one of them deserve to be killed or raped. What the driver did is not deserving of the death penalty.

I'm wondering which of these infractions is a call for the death penalty? You are right in as much as the shooting victim may be responsible in deserving a ticket and possibly a little jail time, but not death.



That fact that you believe the officer didn't have to pull his gun is pretty much the entire story here.

We reserve the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes. The standard for self-defense is considerably lower. For example, a burglary is not punishable by death via the court system but a homeowner should and does have every right to use lethal force to defend his or her family (at least in some jurisdictions.)

Fear of getting run over by a car certainly meets that standard, although I'm not sure how much being on the outside of the car really factors into that, hence why I have said that I didn't think it was justified. It was a bad, and unfortunate split-second decision. I'm not sure how many times I have to say that.

No it's really not. Different categories of homicide (e.g. first degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc.) have different meanings and a lot of it comes down to intent and other specifics. A bad decision is significantly different than having a preordained intent to kill.

I guess we pretty much agree except for the fact that when someone dies who really shouldn't be dead, I believe there should be a cost associated with that.

If you're standing in front of a car, it's easy to get ran over. Standing beside a car? Yeah, not so much.

Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer. I only play one on Dawgtalkers.

I think it's involuntary manslaughter, which is a felony. The punishment might be loss of job and reputation, a 12 month sentence, out with good behavior in 6. I do not think it is murder. When it is (over)charged as such, don't be surprised when the verdict comes back as not guilty or there is a hung jury.

Why pretend? You may be able to defend this murder by pretending. Not me. This was murder of the second degree. An unarmed black man was convicted and sentenced to death by a single shot straight in head after being pulled over for a missing front plate because a university campus police officer in Cincinnati lost his temper.

White Police Officer in St. Louis Shoots Off-Duty Black Colleague

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...m=.ede778a1da7d

This has been out for a few days now.

Black cops aren't even safe from their white colleagues.

The off duty cop wouldn't have been shot if he would have disobeyed his police colleagues, and just stayed on the ground. But then again he probably would have been beaten to a pulp.


"The other officers ordered the off-duty officer to the ground, then recognized him as a fellow policeman and told him to stand up and walk toward them.

As he approached, another officer arrived and shot the off-duty officer in the arm, “apparently not recognizing” him, police told the Associated Press."

I disagree on the classification, and your extremely biased/warped explanation of the encounter will not change that. Apparently, members of two separate juries-- who have seen all the evidence and heard both sides of the story, agree with me.

Yes, it is frustrating when they simply put it like the cop went up, said you don't have a front license plate, then shot him...

Just my opinion.. but a cop should only pull/use his weapon if he is fear for his own life or for another person's life... from all that I've seen, it doesn't really look like he had any reason to be in fear for his own life. The guy didn't have a weapon and it wasn't like he was going to run over the cop, the cop was standing beside the car... can you make the argument that he thought a drunk person speeding off posed a threat to other people? Yea, I guess you could make that argument but I think it's a big stretch from their to shooting the guy from point blank range.

3 Chicago police officers indicted in Laquan McDonald case

https://www.yahoo.com/news/3-chicago-police-officers-indicted-191116856.html

or ankles

NO NOT AT ALL. Unless he attacks the officer, threatens the officer, or runs from the officer. Then it's a whole other story. It doesn't mean he deserves to be shot, BUT it means he very well could be shot with good reason. BTW that goes for a white, yellow, or red man as well.

That's fair. But when Spiral talks about murder, that suggests the real possibility of sending the officer to prison for the rest of his life. Do you think his mistake is worthy of life imprisonment? I don't.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/23/ray-tensing-case-2nd-mistrial-jury-deadlocks-ohio-/


This is also an important point about the jury being almost evenly split. This is not a case of one rogue juror refusing to convict-- this was split evenly after 30 hours of deliberation.

why shouldn't he go to prison for a very significant portion of his life?

what about the guy he shot?

what about HIS life? oh, thats right. he's DEAD.

Another site says that the majority wanted to acquit Ray Tensing of all charges.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hami...uit-ray-tensing

CINCINNATI -- Stew Mathews, the attorney who defended former University of Cincinnati officer Ray Tensing in both of Tensing's murder trials, said Monday that a majority of retrial jurors voted to acquit Tensing.

Mathews wrote via text message that eight jurors had voted to acquit Tensing of murdering black motorist Sam DuBose and seven had voted to acquit him of voluntary manslaughter for his role in DuBose's death. Those jurors were, however, unable to sway the remaining four and five, respectively, who believed Tensing ought to have been convicted on at least one charge.

This marks an apparent shift of opinion in Tensing's favor since his first trial, in which Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters claimed the jury had been split 4-4-4 in favor of convicting Tensing of murder, convicting him of manslaughter and totally acquitting him, respectively.

^^^ how come you didn't continue posting that part?

and since when should i have faith in the jury?

this is the same country where child killers like casey anthony gets off.

I thought I gave a pretty reasonable explanation, and a very (VERY) fair compromise in terms of punishment and guilt of a felony. Apparently that wasn't good enough though. What are you going to do, keep charging the guy over and over and tie up the rest of his life in the court system? That would be a mockery of justice in its own right.

So with two separate juries, about half of the jurors thought he was guilty of something and the other half thought he was not guilty. Again, these are not examples of some rogue juror that would just refuse to convict. The defense has a very valid argument here.

When one has no faith in cops, no faith in juries, and complete belief in racism, one has not much hope.

Its also fun to have hissy fits on the internet.

this is the same system that convicted black men for murders and such, only decades later for these guys to get released based on false testimony and dna evidence, and have let go of cops and order murderers due to mistrials, acquittals, etc.

^^ those are FACTS.

so how in the world do you think you have any sort of credibility convincing me to believe in a system that has routinely screwed over black people?

you and others still hasn't answered why black people should have any sort of faith in the justice system, based on history.

I'm waiting, but so far all i'm getting is comments about hissy fits and feelings, but no actual response to the question i asked.

as a matter of fact, that question goes to everyone.

GM
DC
Excl
Rocket
CHS
PS
40
Diam (i'm actually interested in what he has to say, and i promise not to go on attack mode with whatever you come with bro. i legitimately want to know based on your family history of fighting in the civil war)
Lurker
Clem
Pit
riley
Jules
Peen

and anybody else i didn't mention.

why should blacks or latinos have any faith and trust in law enforcement and the criminal justice system based on history?

and "cause you don't want to get shot" does not answer "faith and trust".

I'm waiting.

throughout these endless threads, nobody has yet to answer that.

nobody here has answered why our police force is like this, either.

Haus, do you even realize how screwed up this is?

you know what happens to service members who get trigger happy and kill a civilian when there isn't a thread?

straight to ft. leavenworth.

we aren't allowed to draw our weapons on a civilian pop for any old reason. and for GOOD reason.

why is it that domestically, the rules of engagement are higher here than it is for combat?

cops treat the population like terrorist over here. could you even FATHOM how many more civilian deaths we would have overseas if our soldiers had the same training and rules of engagement as a typical cop in america?

HOLY CRAP.

and that isn't feelings. that's straight up facts. i know the rules of engagement because i lived it.

i'm sorry but this is absolutely pathetic. and unjustifiable. i will never agree with you, Arch, Eve, or 40 on ANY of this. EVER.

Your right it did. But it also did the same to white, red, and yellow folks. I will agree with you. however that it did happen more to african americans.

Now as to why you should have faith based on our history... IMO you shouldn't.

Why should you have faith going forward? Because you now know there are more folks like me, DC, Excl, Rocket, CHS, PS, Lurker, Clem, Pit, Riley, Jules, and Peen who actually CARE and speak our minds. We care and put our mouths where are hearts are in relation to this subject.

ask Devil, if he ever post soon.

ask FBH, if he ever comes back.

if we pulled that "i feared for my life" crap excuse after popping an unarmed civilian, we would get UCMJ'ed so quick fast in a hurry.

jail time, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, loss of rank.

but these cops get paid leave and mistrials. disgusting.

i appreciate you giving me a honest answer, as always bro. much respect.

i think DC and excl are cool dudes, riley is iffy but i think he's tight, i dunno how jules and peen feel.

so i have faith in you guys. as individuals though.

but if we're not voting for people who can reform the system...then again, what will having faith in you guys as individuals do?

y'all aren't the cops. y'all (cept peen) aren't sitting there in the seats handing out sentences. y'all aren't jeff sessions out here trying to reignite the old ways and blatant support for private prisons.