He was employed by UC. They fired him once he was charged, not during the investigation.
Was he? At the UKPD, the officers are actually state police assigned to UK, IIRC. I assumed it was the same at UC, as it's a state school.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He was employed by UC. They fired him once he was charged, not during the investigation.
You can see his hands gestering about 30 seconds before. I think this will be key to the cops mindset.
How about telling someone to put out a cigarette and then when they refuse you drag them out of the car? Perfectly reasonable, right? Can you imagine what went on before dash cams, vest cams, smartphones, social media? But by all means keep defending these righteous individuals.In other words you can't think of any. That's special.
Also, you think it was reasonable for the cop to grab the guy's door and open it because he didn't have his license on him? Go back and run it through the computer. Why ask him to take off his seat belt? It was petty. It was unreasonable to begin with. No front license plate? Who cares?In other words you can't think of any. That's special.
No front license plate? Who cares?
If you feel like that, then you're clearly not following this case. There is lots being done. The cop was fired and charged with murder. UC already made a new rule about rules in terms of off-campus protocol. The city of Cincinnati is moving forward with getting on-person cameras. They are likely going to merge the UC police with the city of Cincinnati. The city of Cincinnati already admitted there are problems with the UC police. And it's only been 2 weeks since the murder.
So, you're wrong.
No, its obvious you have an issue with authority and following the law to include something as simple as a freakin traffic stop. (see your "traffic fairy" reference).This is your platform. The incidents you love to push your disdain for the police over. Almost a million local law enforcement officers alone, doing good every day and you showcase the screwups to blanket an entire group. People are getting shot for resisting and fleeing and your whole solution is pay the police better? Yeah, throw more money at the problem and that will fix it.
I never said one time that the Officer was innocent, quiet the opposite. Police 101 that every Officer knows is YOU CANT SHOOT A FLEEING SUSPECT (see Garner v Tennessee). This Cincy guy is done. The guy in SC that shot the fleeing suspect in the back is done. Murder for them both. The Officer in California that accidently shot the guy thinking he had his tazer in hand is done. Probably just a poor decision but then again prison is full of people that made poor decisions. Thats hardly a "blanket pass" on my part and I didnt need YOUR version of predetermined play by play of the film to come to that conclusion.
I think it's weird that people don't seem to mind killing another person these days. It seems in the past, people would grieve over having to kill someone, even if they had no choice. Now it seems like people are itching for a reason to pop someone. That's strange to me.
cop pleaded not guilty to voluntary manslaughter and murder today. Bail is 1M, was applauded. Hell, I would've probably made it more.
How does a dead guy's foot press the accelerator unless it's already on the accelerator? And was he knocked over after, or was he in the process of being knocked over when he fired the shot? The facts will be sorted out at trial.
The shooting shouldn't have happened. BUT. That doesn't mean the cop is guilty of the crime of murder under OH law.
If you listen to half the people in this thread, the cop walked up to the car. Stood there. Put his gun on the guys head and fired. There are lots of other details that go to intent and mindset, including the fact that the guy in the car was in the process of committing a crime.
Also, wonder if the license plate was pulled beforehand and the officer had previous knowledge of the arrests. Did he consider this suspect dangerous due to past infractions, or is this info coming out later, i.e. the officer had no idea.
How about telling someone to put out a cigarette and then when they refuse you drag them out of the car? Perfectly reasonable, right? Can you imagine what went on before dash cams, vest cams, smartphones, social media? But by all means keep defending these righteous individuals.
Also, you think it was reasonable for the cop to grab the guy's door and open it because he didn't have his license on him? Go back and run it through the computer. Why ask him to take off his seat belt? It was petty. It was unreasonable to begin with. No front license plate? Who cares?
So the cop then didnt know about Dubose priors. Interesting.
So the cop then didnt know about Dubose priors. Interesting.
Seriously, being asked to put a cigarette out is justification to become belligerent, assault a police officer and land yourself in jail? Even if it's a stupid request it isn't unreasonable, or a threat to your well being. In case you missed the last two decades, no one wants to breath that stuff anymore.
Bingo. It's because they're full of it. They like to think if they had to kill someone they'd blow the smoke off the barrel and say something badass. Most would just start weeping uncontrollably. I probably would. That's how you should react to killing someone.I think it's weird that people don't seem to mind killing another person these days. It seems in the past, people would grieve over having to kill someone, even if they had no choice. Now it seems like people are itching for a reason to pop someone. That's strange to me.
I wasn't clear on what I meant by something being done. I'm talking about the kind of nation-wide reviews and changes to hiring practices, training, and discipline that are needed to fix a national problem. Please ask questions for clarification if needed instead of presuming and declaring me wrong. I'm not interested in typical message board one-upsmanship, let's have an actual conversation if anything.
Bingo. It's because they're full of it. They like to think if they had to kill someone they'd blow the smoke off the barrel and say something badass. Most would just start weeping uncontrollably. I probably would. That's how you should react to killing someone.
And all I hear when someone talks about "being a man" or calls someone else a girl is that they are lacking in personal confidence. It's the old rule about the preacher's worst sins being the ones he constantly preaches about. All I hear when someone goes on about manliness is that they either have a tiny little pecker or some latent homosexuality they don't have peace about.
Except nowhere in that video did Dubose ever become belligerent or assault the officer.
If anything, he was very polite throughout.
just adds to the cops state of mind. i believe the imminent danger will be the cops defense. If he had known of the priors, he could state that he was weary/cautious etc, but since he didnt know...
Obviously it is wrong, I am just trying to see what the cops mindset was.
Neither post you just commented on was in regards to the Dubose case. It was in response to multiple posters in the thread talking about what would and wouldn't be justifiable homicide.How do either of you know how the cop felt about killing someone? Other than the initial few minutes after the incident, you know absolutely nothing about how he feels.
But hey feel free to lecture to everyone, including trained officers about how they should feel.
BTW, your constant analogies are irrelevant and not adding anything to your argument.
BTW, your constant analogies are irrelevant and not adding anything to your argument.
Glad to hear police violence is on the mend nationwide, then. My apologies, I had no idea.I could name 20 examples.
I'm about there with him too. If you wanted to continue the discussion with me you should've been better at it. I don't have time for bad internet conversation. Probably just should've avoided the thread altogether, but I didn't. Still, the discourse in this thread has been weak and when it gets that way I don't let myself get sucked into it the way I used to. Fallacies, name-calling, repeated arguments that have already been addressed, accusations of "Lies! Lies! Lies!" in lieu of asking for clarification... I'm not into it. Sorry.I don't want to no longer discuss this with you.
Signed; Bristolcat
How do either of you know how the cop felt about killing someone? Other than the initial few minutes after the incident, you know absolutely nothing about how he feels.
But hey feel free to lecture to everyone, including trained officers about how they should feel.
BTW, your constant analogies are irrelevant and not adding anything to your argument.
WTF does it matter? There was zero reason to use deadly force. If he drives off, get in your fricken cruiser and follow him...you have his plates, you have his description...you're going to put his life in jeopardy over a fricken front license plate???When shot in the brain, will your foot move to the gas pedal and gun it?
Or, like you guys are saying he didn't accelerate until he was shot, wouldn't that mean his foot is already on the gas pedal (Assuming his body went limp and the weight of his leg pressed down on the pedal).
Or, is the design of the car such that even if his body went limp, he'd already have to be pressing on the gas in order for the car to accelerate?
When shot in the brain, will your foot move to the gas pedal and gun it?
I don't have time for bad internet conversation...I don't let myself get sucked into it the way I used to... I'm not into it. Sorry.
I think you're right. If they go with imminent danger and the jury buys it, he will have had a reason to have his weapon drawn and ready to fire, and he'll walk. If they go with accidental discharge, he could probably still do time due to negligence, if they can then prove he shouldn't have had his weapon drawn.