The video of Sam Dubose's death is so bad, Cincinnati is prepping for riots.

[KellyinAvon]

Ohio has front tags. It's the law to display them or it seems they wouldn't go through the trouble and expense of issuing front and rear tags. To pull someone over for not having one is no different than an Indiana LEO pulling over a car for no tag on the back bumper. From what I understand this leads to finding felons in possession of controlled substances which leads to arrests. This prosecutor seems to have gone to the Nifong (Duke Lacrosse) school with the murder charges. Bad situation, not murder. The stop seems legit.

 

[Denny347]

Ok, I will just throw in my .02. The video certainly doesn't show murder, a lesser charge perhaps. Here locally, I've seen the prosecutors up charge officers for things that a non-LEO would NEVER have been charged with. The reason that non-LEOs don't get up charged is because the charges would never stick. However, I have a feeling that in Cincy, like Indy, politics is overriding common sense. This officer "may" have been wrong but he will be used by the politicians to show "they " are responsive to the minority community. Bad position to be in. As far as the dragging goes, I have seen this at the range, have something in your hand when the SHTF and you will likely clamp down on it without even realizing it. This is the main reason we teach to keep our gun hands empty when we can. It is plausible that he reached in (not a good tactic) and when the driver started to drive off, the officer involuntarily clinched down, making it feel like he was trapped. If the officer felt like he was trapped, he acted how HE felt he had to. The video will not show that. Was it right? That will be for a jury to decide I guess. Did he place himself in that position, yes. Is that enough to support a criminal recklessness (or whatever Ohio calls it), maybe, maybe not.

 

[KLB]

I have to say that after hearing the prosecutor rant at his press conference that I was expecting something very different than what that video shows. I don't think it was anything like what he made it out to be.

 

[wsenefeld]

I have to say that after hearing the prosecutor rant at his press conference that I was expecting something very different than what that video shows. I don't think it was anything like what he made it out to be.

Absolutely. Prosecutor Deters went on a 15 min rant before showing the video to the public. With as blatant as he described it, you would have thought Officer Tensing just walked up and immediately shot Sam DuBose in the head.

 

[churchmouse]

Absolutely. Prosecutor Deters went on a 15 min rant before showing the video to the public. With as blatant as he described it, you would have thought Officer Tensing just walked up and immediately shot Sam DuBose in the head.

This case is a career maker.

 

[jamil]

Ok, I will just throw in my .02. The video certainly doesn't show murder, a lesser charge perhaps. Here locally, I've seen the prosecutors up charge officers for things that a non-LEO would NEVER have been charged with. The reason that non-LEOs don't get up charged is because the charges would never stick. However, I have a feeling that in Cincy, like Indy, politics is overriding common sense. This officer "may" have been wrong but he will be used by the politicians to show "they " are responsive to the minority community. Bad position to be in. As far as the dragging goes, I have seen this at the range, have something in your hand when the SHTF and you will likely clamp down on it without even realizing it. This is the main reason we teach to keep our gun hands empty when we can. It is plausible that he reached in (not a good tactic) and when the driver started to drive off, the officer involuntarily clinched down, making it feel like he was trapped. If the officer felt like he was trapped, he acted how HE felt he had to. The video will not show that. Was it right? That will be for a jury to decide I guess. Did he place himself in that position, yes. Is that enough to support a criminal recklessness (or whatever Ohio calls it), maybe, maybe not.

That's a pretty fair assessment worth much more than .02.

You'd think that the politicians would learn that up-charging at best only creates a temporary peace. It just makes it harder to prove the charge. Even if there's still a conviction for a lesser charge, the public is no longer appeased when they're expecting a guilty verdict on the higher charge. The result: riot.

I still want the people who say the video indicates that it's murder, to point out the exact moment on the video where the cop shows an intent to kill. Up to the point where the guy tried to flee, the cop was very professional. I do question why the cop drew his weapon, but in that situation I don't see how that can be called murder. It seems, especially from the things other cops here have identified that he did wrong, that it may have been more an issue with training. I still don't rule out the possibility that when the car took off, it jarred the cop enough that he accidentally discharged his weapon.

 

[j706]

What is to be learned from this entire story is DO NOT BE the next guy they (State) sink their fangs into.

 

[steveh_131]

Ok, I will just throw in my .02. The video certainly doesn't show murder, a lesser charge perhaps. Here locally, I've seen the prosecutors up charge officers for things that a non-LEO would NEVER have been charged with. The reason that non-LEOs don't get up charged is because the charges would never stick. However, I have a feeling that in Cincy, like Indy, politics is overriding common sense. This officer "may" have been wrong but he will be used by the politicians to show "they " are responsive to the minority community. Bad position to be in. As far as the dragging goes, I have seen this at the range, have something in your hand when the SHTF and you will likely clamp down on it without even realizing it. This is the main reason we teach to keep our gun hands empty when we can. It is plausible that he reached in (not a good tactic) and when the driver started to drive off, the officer involuntarily clinched down, making it feel like he was trapped. If the officer felt like he was trapped, he acted how HE felt he had to. The video will not show that. Was it right? That will be for a jury to decide I guess. Did he place himself in that position, yes. Is that enough to support a criminal recklessness (or whatever Ohio calls it), maybe, maybe not.

I agree with your assessment. It would be unfortunate if he received more punishment than justice requires because of politicians. I'd rather risk riots and mob retaliation.

 

[chipbennett]

Is being dragged by a car deadly force/risk of sbi? Does anyone faced with deadly force/risk of sbi have the right to use lawful force in return? Or are you advocating having a duty to retreat?

No. My contention is more that, once he had the wherewithal to unholster his firearm and take a clean shot (i.e. both hands now outside of the moving vehicle), the moment of threat of death or serious bodily injury had passed. He was not in such danger at the moment he pulled the trigger.

No, if you reach into somebody's car and try to yank them out and they try to drive away, it does not give you the right to shoot them.

I'm also not arguing this. The officer had every right to remove DeBose from the vehicle. He has that authority implicitly during a traffic stop, and further, *clearly* had probable cause of perhaps multiple unlawful acts. I just don't think that the facts of this specific incident justified the use of deadly force. Change the scenario - such as DuBose grabbing the officer's arm, and preventing him from freeing himself from the moving vehicle - and the evaluation changes commensurately.

Reaching into the car may have been tactically unwise, but it wasn't legally improper.

Murder, doubtful. Voluntary manslaughter, probably. Imo, it doesn't appear the officer was dragged. I think that's a bunch of bunch. I think he was probably running alongside the vehicle. I saw, nothing to indicate the officer's left hand was caught in the vehicle, preventing him from easily pulling it out.
Where's the other officer's vid?

This is mostly my take, as well. "Dragged" is relative here. Did the officer move from point A to point B? Clearly. Did he do so not under his own power? It doesn't really appear so. From what I can make of the video, all he had to do, at any point, was let go - which is what he did, when he drew his firearm to take a shot.

Never the best at physics, but I decided to look at some other vids of officers being dragged. All of them, when disengaged from the dragging vehicle, fall forward, falling on their chest, or rolling several times. In this instance, the officer appears to fall backwards, onto his back. Am I seeing this wrong, or does perpetual motion not apply in Cincinnati?

Well, for one, the vehicle couldn't have been moving that quickly in the first second or two from ignition. And for another, it sure seems like the officer has his feet underneath him while he's being "dragged" (for lack of a better term) those several yards or so.

 

[Lebowski]

Even more alarming is reading comments on articles and videos about this. If that is any indicator of how the African American community feels about police officers, it would appear that they honestly believe that encountering a police officer that they have a 50/50 chance of being killed for simply no reason. Apparently all white cops are racist and will murder you just because you're black and because they just feel like it. While the comments are actually kind of comical to me, even if a 1/4th of those commenting legitimately feel that way it puts the actual officers who have to deal with them if need be at great risk because, "Oh no, white cop. Need to do something to protect myself." mentality.


Saw some interview earlier where the officer pled not guilty and afterwards, outside the courthouse or whatever some African American lady was going on a rant about how people need to get their guns ready because she was going to go crazy if he gets off and that they'll have to put a bullet in her head too. Said she was ready to die if need be. I don't even know who she was or how she was related to the case in any way shape or form, but according to her, things are gonna get crazy in Cincy.

 

[chipbennett]

You bring up a good point. The stress could very well been a factor in his memory, and defaulted to "fill in the blanks" mode. It's not uncommon.

Isn't it sort of a rule of thumb that eyewitness testimony is always suspect, not for any nefarious reasons, but simply because that's the way the human brain works - especially in stressful situations? Time and space are expanded, or contracted. What we see is exaggerated, or subject to tunnel vision. Point of view, distance, adrenaline, and psychological factors all filter what we remember seeing.

Just consider the Michael Brown case (ignoring the "witnesses" who were obviously lying): there was much testimony that was contradictory, not because of intentional lying, but because of all the factors above. The prosecutors, and the grand jurors, had to weigh all eyewitness testimony against the actual, physical evidence, and then draw conclusions.

I think it's the same here. The officer felt like he was being dragged, and that was probably a reasonable feeling. The other officer saw the car go from point A to point B, with the officer "attached". There's no lying going on here, as far as I can tell - and certainly, not time to concoct a story to be captured on each other's body cams. Rather, it's merely contemporaneous utterances based on their actual, imperfect perception at that moment.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

This case is a career maker.

Or a Nifong maker... we shall see. That said, I agree with your point.

 

[chipbennett]

But do you not see the possibility the weapon was drawn due to the suspects reaching around the car and assuming a combative stance by pulling the door shut and then reaching around the cabin of the car. I believe that justifies a drawn weapon.

Personally, I think there are some police officers who are far too quick to draw their firearms*. Was Tensing too quick in this instance? I think that will be one of the key questions for the jury to consider at trial. Other than the possibility of being dragged by/pulled under a moving vehicle (which isn't even a given, since it doesn't appear that DuBose was trying to trap Tensing in/on the moving vehicle, but rather was merely trying to flee an arrest), I saw nothing that I would inherently justify the use of deadly force against DuBose.

( * Note: I don't say that to be critical of police officers. I know you have to make split-second escalation-of-force decisions, and for many reasons, I don't envy you many of the things you have to do and decisions you have to make. That said, there are some officers who will draw their firearm far too quickly, and think that they have the authority to do so for any reason, at their own discretion.)

 

[drillsgt]

What is to be learned from this entire story is DO NOT BE the next guy they (State) sink their fangs into.

Good point, a good friend of mine in the MSP was recently involved in a shooting and he said the only thing the COC was interested in was what color the guys were.

 

[KLB]

This is mostly my take, as well. "Dragged" is relative here. Did the officer move from point A to point B? Clearly. Did he do so not under his own power? It doesn't really appear so. From what I can make of the video, all he had to do, at any point, was let go - which is what he did, when he drew his firearm to take a shot.

It looks from the stills previously posted that he was holding onto the seatbelt when the shot was fired. It also looks like the gun is in the car when it goes off. I wonder if he intentionally fired, or if he drew the gun and had his finger on the trigger.

 

[jamil]

It looks from the stills previously posted that he was holding onto the seatbelt when the shot was fired. It also looks like the gun is in the car when it goes off. I wonder if he intentionally fired, or if he drew the gun and had his finger on the trigger.

His lawyer claimed that he was well trained and that the shot was not accidental. But I wonder.

 

[Denny347]

That's a pretty fair assessment worth much more than .02.

You'd think that the politicians would learn that up-charging at best only creates a temporary peace. It just makes it harder to prove the charge. Even if there's still a conviction for a lesser charge, the public is no longer appeased when they're expecting a guilty verdict on the higher charge. The result: riot.

I still want the people who say the video indicates that it's murder, to point out the exact moment on the video where the cop shows an intent to kill. Up to the point where the guy tried to flee, the cop was very professional. I do question why the cop drew his weapon, but in that situation I don't see how that can be called murder. It seems, especially from the things other cops here have identified that he did wrong, that it may have been more an issue with training. I still don't rule out the possibility that when the car took off, it jarred the cop enough that he accidentally discharged his weapon.

Certainly possible.

 

[mkress77]

It looks from the stills previously posted that he was holding onto the seatbelt when the shot was fired. It also looks like the gun is in the car when it goes off. I wonder if he intentionally fired, or if he drew the gun and had his finger on the trigger.

Agreed. This is a very good point. The video is not clear if he did have his finger on the trigger when he drew.

 

[Denny347]

I saw nothing that I would inherently justify the use of deadly force against DuBose.

It is NOT what WE can see, but what the officer PERCEIVED at the time of the incident that he will be judged on. Graham v. Connor is what he will be judged by.

Use of force: Defining 'objectively-reasonable' force

1.) Judged through the perspective of a reasonable officer
a. Officer with same or similar training and experience
b. Facing similar circumstances
c. Act the same way or use similar judgment
2.) Based on the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied
a. No matter how compelling the evidence is to be found later
b. No hindsight evaluation
3.) Based on the facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation
4.) Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time

 

[Peter Potamus]

It is NOT what WE can see, but what the officer PERCEIVED at the time of the incident that he will be judged on

Best info that we all need to remember. What happens at a real trial is nothing like what you see on TV shows. Case law, precedents, procedural rules.....it's a very involved, confusing dance that takes place in a real case of this type. If Tensing's defense team can convince the jury that Tensing PERCEIVED that his life was in danger, then under the rules that will be so very carefully spelled out to them before and during the trial, they will have no choice but to find him not guilty of murder. In fact, they likely would not find him guilty of anything. It will come down to what is known in legalese as the "reasonable man" test. Given what Tensing's legal team presents to counter the prosecution, would a reasonable man conclude that Tensing did indeed PERCEIVE that his life was in danger (or was he in danger of "great bodily harm.") If the jury concludes that Tensing did indeed perceive so, whether he actually was in such danger won't matter much at trial.

Given everything we actually know so far, I can see how Tensing may prevail. He also may not. This one is not clear cut either way. The testimony of Kidd will be crucial.