No, I'm not moving the goalposts at all. My point has always been the same. The examples you gave were ones of mistaken identity.
If it's OK for a cop to shoot someone through the head and then plead panic, why can a member of the public not do the same in the circumstances I described?
Why should one be manslaughter and the other murder?
Indeed, the guy whose house is being broken into by the cops, probably has more reason to panic than Tensing, who really has no reason to "panic" at all.
Because murder requires some kind of malice. Manslaughter doesn't as such and has mitigating circumstances.
That still makes no sense. How do you argue that the one has malice and the other doesn't?
Its all down to the intent at the time he was fired the shot. If he shot him to prevent him getting away it's murder. If his intent was to shoot him because he was half in the vehicle and believed he was going to be dragged then it's either manslaughter/aquittal due to self defence.
Classic straw-man. I don't know that he is racist, and you don't know that he isn't. My default position is that race COULD in some way have been a factor, yours is that without any evidence it COULDN'T. One of those default positions is stupid, would you like to guess which?
Ooh, I know this one - I'm going to go with 'the one that you pulled out of your backside'. Because not once have I said, on either this or the Bland thread, that the situations couldn't have had racial overtones - I have simply said that we cannot assume racism to be a factor with no evidence, an 'innocent until proven guilty' stance if you like. So through snarking at me for using a straw man argument, you are not only completely wrong, but have used, well, a straw man argument.
It really is becoming tiring dealing with posters who insist on distorting the truth.
Its all down to the intent at the time he was fired the shot. If he shot him to prevent him getting away it's murder. If his intent was to shoot him because he was half in the vehicle and believed he was going to be dragged then it's either manslaughter/aquittal due to self defence.
DuBose, an unarmed 43-year-old black man, was shot dead by white University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing on 19 July. The officer claimed he was “dragged” by DuBose’s vehicle following an altercation during a routine traffic stop, and was therefore forced to open fire, shooting DuBose once in the head.
On Wednesday, Tensing was indicted for murder after Hamilton County prosecutor Joseph Deters said body-camera footage, which he released at a press conference announcing the charge, showed the officer was not dragged during the encounter.
“It is our belief that he was not dragged. If you slow down this tape you see what happens, it is a very short period of time from when the car starts rolling to when a gun is out and he’s shot in the head,” Deters told reporters on Wednesday.
The footage shows that Tensing falls back, after DuBose is killed instantly by a single shot to the head and immediately chases after the vehicle. Deters said that DuBose’s limp body probably caused the car to accelerate.
It's about his perception at the time and what he believed was happening/about to happen.
As I said I personally believe this is manslaughter at best but I'm happy to be proved wrong.
He said he was actually dragged, but wasn't. He therefore outright lied.
Tensing repeats, multiple times throughout the footage, the claim that he was dragged by DuBose’s vehicle. But at five minutes and 44 seconds into the video, he states: “I think I’m OK. He was just dragging me.”
To which a second officer, who stands out of the frame, replies: “Yeah, I saw that.”
Tensing continues: “I thought I was going to get run over. I was trying to stop him.”
Then, at six minutes and 54 seconds into the footage, while Tensing is seemingly conversing with the same officer, he states: “He was dragging me, man.”
The officer replies, “Yeah.” To which Tensing continues: “I got my hand and my arm caught inside.” The officer then replies, “Yeah, I saw that.”
He said he was actually dragged, but wasn't. He therefore outright lied.
There is evidence that he was dragged, however I personally believe this happened after he shot the guy and that being caught in the car he gets dragged along with it. Hence why he ended up on the floor and further down the road.
As for him lying, it's his perception at the time of an event that occurred very quickly. I will be interested to see if his testimony is different to what he states then. It's only then you can be convinced he was lying.
There is evidence that he was dragged, however I personally believe this happened after he shot the guy and that being caught in the car he gets dragged along with it. Hence why he ended up on the floor and further down the road.
This is complete footage from Tensings body cam before he switches it off. Can you state precisely at what point it shows Tensing being dragged?
The vital seconds to note are from 1:56 to 2:02....just six seconds, and at 2:02 Tensing can clearly be heard and seen running.
There is evidence that he was dragged, however I personally believe this happened after he shot the guy and that being caught in the car he gets dragged along with it. Hence why he ended up on the floor and further down the road.
As for him lying, it's his perception at the time of an event that occurred very quickly. I will be interested to see if his testimony is different to what he states then. It's only then you can be convinced he was lying.
No, I'm not moving the goalposts at all. My point has always been the same. The examples you gave were ones of mistaken identity.
If it's OK for a cop to shoot someone through the head and then plead panic, why can a member of the public not do the same in the circumstances I described?
Why should one be manslaughter and the other murder?.
Because of the circumstances surrounding it, as has already been explained to you. If you remove the circumstances and just look at specifics e.g "Man 1 shoots Man 2 in the head" as you are doing, then you won't be able to understand the differences.
The US puts firearms in the hands of their police and says to them "Right, out you go. Fight crime" amongst a society of civilians and criminals which are often armed themselves. It's little wonder that mistakes and / or split-second misperceptions will happen.
Because of the circumstances surrounding it, as has already been explained to you. If you remove the circumstances and just look at specifics e.g "Man 1 shoots Man 2 in the head" as you are doing, then you won't be able to understand the differences.
The US puts firearms in the hands of their police and says to them "Right, out you go. Fight crime" amongst a society of civilians and criminals which are often armed themselves. It's little wonder that mistakes and / or split-second misperceptions will happen.
and I've already explained why that isn't the case. I suggest you go back and read the relevant posts.
On Wednesday, Tensing was indicted for murder after Hamilton County prosecutor Joseph Deters said body-camera footage, which he released at a press conference announcing the charge, showed the officer was not dragged during the encounter.
“It is our belief that he was not dragged. If you slow down this tape you see what happens, it is a very short period of time from when the car starts rolling to when a gun is out and he’s shot in the head,” Deters told reporters on Wednesday.
The footage shows that Tensing falls back, after DuBose is killed instantly by a single shot to the head and immediately chases after the vehicle. Deters said that DuBose’s limp body probably caused the car to accelerate.
If you take the silver car parked some 20 feet in front of them at the time Of the stop. At 1.56 when tensing gets up after falling backwards, he is significantly closer to that silver car further down the road. How did he get there? That's what has been suggested.
Because of the circumstances surrounding it, as has already been explained to you. If you remove the circumstances and just look at specifics e.g "Man 1 shoots Man 2 in the head" as you are doing, then you won't be able to understand the differences.
The US puts firearms in the hands of their police and says to them "Right, out you go. Fight crime" amongst a society of civilians and criminals which are often armed themselves. It's little wonder that mistakes and / or split-second misperceptions will happen.
You're offering up excuses for one to panic, but not the other, which leads me to think that maybe you place a cop's life above that of an ordinary person.
You're offering up excuses for one to panic, but not the other, which leads me to think that maybe you place a cop's life above that of an ordinary person.
No just the circumstances are different.
As mentioned above if you give someone a gun and tell them to go fight crime against people often armed equally, there will be a degree of human error.
Which is why few police officers get convicted of murder because the majority of shootings are a reactive strike to something that is happening, rather than intent to kill outright.
As mentioned above if you give someone a gun and tell them to go fight crime against people often armed equally, there will be a degree of human error.
Which is why few police officers get convicted of murder because the majority of shootings are a reactive strike to something that is happening, rather than intent to kill outright.
Manslaughter doesn't require the same intent.
Yes, there's a degree of human error with the other situation as well. But you are calling that murder ergo: you're cutting slack for the cop.
What is a reactive strike for? What has he got to fear. In this case for reactive strike. read trigger happy moron.
You're offering up excuses for one to panic, but not the other, which leads me to think that maybe you place a cop's life above that of an ordinary person.
The unique circumstances surrounding a civilian shooting a police officer may well tease out the facts that the panic and subsequent shooting was reasonable (e.g an officer entering a house but failing to identify himself etc) but I imagine such a scenario would be very rare, and thus can't really be used as a blanket comparison.
If a person is engaged in unlawful activity and shoots an officer trying to carry out law enforcement by claiming he "panicked", then he isn't going to get much leeway, and the reasons for that I thought would be obvious.
Police officers in the US live in a huge country where every traffic stop, every incident, every arrest has the potential for them to be shot at whilst carrying out their duty, so prevalent are guns there. Do you not see therefore why there are going to be incidents where jittery officers are going to be seen to be shooting first, asking questions later? It's a completely different culture.
If you take the silver car parked some 20 feet in front of them at the time Of the stop. At 1.56 when tensing gets up after falling backwards, he is significantly closer to that silver car further down the road. How did he get there? That's what has been suggested.
I'm trying to explain how the law works, it's the same for everyone.
You can explain till the cows come home. It does not negate one jot what I have said, and it also validates why Tensing has been charged with murder - although you're even trying to downplay that as being the result of pressures from elsewhere.
From what I have read elsewhere not on this forum. It's a plausible explanation when you watch the video unless you have an alternative method of how he ended up further down the road?
You can explain till the cows come home. It does not negate one jot what I have said, and it also validates why Tensing has been charged with murder - although you're even trying to downplay that as being the result of pressures from elsewhere.
It does, as another poster has explained in some detail above.
It does, as another poster has explained in some detail above.
I don't accept what has been said by you. Not one jot.
Also, Tensing has been charged with murder for "purposeful killing" - it was not reactive due to panic.
Have a look at the video of the press conference. It explains everything, and the allegation of dragging is strongly refuted. I submit they know a lot more than you do.
Comments
Because murder requires some kind of malice. Manslaughter doesn't as such and has mitigating circumstances.
That still makes no sense. How do you argue that the one has malice and the other doesn't?
Its all down to the intent at the time he was fired the shot. If he shot him to prevent him getting away it's murder. If his intent was to shoot him because he was half in the vehicle and believed he was going to be dragged then it's either manslaughter/aquittal due to self defence.
Ooh, I know this one - I'm going to go with 'the one that you pulled out of your backside'. Because not once have I said, on either this or the Bland thread, that the situations couldn't have had racial overtones - I have simply said that we cannot assume racism to be a factor with no evidence, an 'innocent until proven guilty' stance if you like. So through snarking at me for using a straw man argument, you are not only completely wrong, but have used, well, a straw man argument.
It really is becoming tiring dealing with posters who insist on distorting the truth.
He lied about being dragged - link
It's about his perception at the time and what he believed was happening/about to happen.
As I said I personally believe this is manslaughter at best but I'm happy to be proved wrong.
He said he was actually dragged, but wasn't. He therefore outright lied.
There is evidence that he was dragged, however I personally believe this happened after he shot the guy and that being caught in the car he gets dragged along with it. Hence why he ended up on the floor and further down the road.
As for him lying, it's his perception at the time of an event that occurred very quickly. I will be interested to see if his testimony is different to what he states then. It's only then you can be convinced he was lying.
The vital seconds to note are from 1:56 to 2:02....just six seconds, and at 2:02 Tensing can clearly be heard and seen running.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPI1kz2Emds
There isn't any evidence he was dragged.
Because of the circumstances surrounding it, as has already been explained to you. If you remove the circumstances and just look at specifics e.g "Man 1 shoots Man 2 in the head" as you are doing, then you won't be able to understand the differences.
The US puts firearms in the hands of their police and says to them "Right, out you go. Fight crime" amongst a society of civilians and criminals which are often armed themselves. It's little wonder that mistakes and / or split-second misperceptions will happen.
and I've already explained why that isn't the case. I suggest you go back and read the relevant posts.
Indeed - quite the reverse in fact:-
He was not dragged. Fact.
If you take the silver car parked some 20 feet in front of them at the time Of the stop. At 1.56 when tensing gets up after falling backwards, he is significantly closer to that silver car further down the road. How did he get there? That's what has been suggested.
Thanks
You're offering up excuses for one to panic, but not the other, which leads me to think that maybe you place a cop's life above that of an ordinary person.
No just the circumstances are different.
As mentioned above if you give someone a gun and tell them to go fight crime against people often armed equally, there will be a degree of human error.
Which is why few police officers get convicted of murder because the majority of shootings are a reactive strike to something that is happening, rather than intent to kill outright.
Manslaughter doesn't require the same intent.
Yes, there's a degree of human error with the other situation as well. But you are calling that murder ergo: you're cutting slack for the cop.
What is a reactive strike for? What has he got to fear. In this case for reactive strike. read trigger happy moron.
The unique circumstances surrounding a civilian shooting a police officer may well tease out the facts that the panic and subsequent shooting was reasonable (e.g an officer entering a house but failing to identify himself etc) but I imagine such a scenario would be very rare, and thus can't really be used as a blanket comparison.
If a person is engaged in unlawful activity and shoots an officer trying to carry out law enforcement by claiming he "panicked", then he isn't going to get much leeway, and the reasons for that I thought would be obvious.
Police officers in the US live in a huge country where every traffic stop, every incident, every arrest has the potential for them to be shot at whilst carrying out their duty, so prevalent are guns there. Do you not see therefore why there are going to be incidents where jittery officers are going to be seen to be shooting first, asking questions later? It's a completely different culture.
I'm trying to explain how the law works, it's the same for everyone.
By whom?
You can explain till the cows come home. It does not negate one jot what I have said, and it also validates why Tensing has been charged with murder - although you're even trying to downplay that as being the result of pressures from elsewhere.
From what I have read elsewhere not on this forum. It's a plausible explanation when you watch the video unless you have an alternative method of how he ended up further down the road?
It does, as another poster has explained in some detail above.
I don't accept what has been said by you. Not one jot.
Also, Tensing has been charged with murder for "purposeful killing" - it was not reactive due to panic.
Have a look at the video of the press conference. It explains everything, and the allegation of dragging is strongly refuted. I submit they know a lot more than you do.
link