University police officer charged with murder for shooting of Samuel DuBose

10 of 13

blueblade

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“Not legally, it would depend on the circumstances of the shoot as to whether it was legal or not. There is a difference though between intent and human error, both of course could lead to a conviction.

That's why we can't apply our circumstances in this country to that of America. There police rightly or wrongly are naturally more paranoid due to the different risks they face compared to ours.

I'm not saying it's right because it isn't.”

No, what you're saying is that it's excusable for a cop to panic, but not anybody else.

mrtdg82

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by blueblade:
“No, what you're saying is that it's excusable for a cop to panic, but not anybody else.”

No I'm not, where have I said that? In the circumstance you gave it didn't apply.

blueblade

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“No I'm not, where have I said that? In the circumstance you gave it didn't apply.”

Yes, in effect that's what you're saying.

It's OK for a cop to panic and plant a bullet through an innocent man's head, but it isn't OK for anybody else to panic.

mrtdg82

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Yes, in effect that's what you're saying.

It's OK for a cop to panic and plant a bullet through an innocent man's head, but it isn't OK for anybody else to panic.”

No never said that, human error is allowed and often leads to manslaughter charges rather than murder as they did not forsee what would happen or reacted to a specific event.

blueblade

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“No never said that, human error is allowed and often leads to manslaughter charges rather than murder as they did not forsee what would happen or reacted to a specific event.”

So if a cop breaks into a house with one of those hammer things they use, and the occupier shoots him through the head as he comes in, and says "Whoops, soz, I panicked", that's OK for a manslaughter charge in your eyes?

mrtdg82

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by blueblade:
“So if a cop breaks into a house with one of those hammer things they use, and the occupier shoots him through the head as he comes in, and says "Whoops, soz, I panicked", that's OK for a manslaughter charge in your eyes?”

Not one of my favourite sources however this link covers that exact scenario. Most are convicted of manslaughter but some have been acquitted entirely;

http://theantimedia.org/man-shot-kil...-will-charged/

Fappy_McFapper

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by tiggosaurus:
“Not really the best choice of terms to use on this subject... ”

Oh I have no doubt that he knew full well what he was doing posting that.

Axtol

01-08-2015

By "break in" I assume you mean carry out a legitimate raid. It would be pretty hard to mistake a raid as someone breaking into your house unlawfully.

blueblade

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“Not one of my favourite sources however this link covers that exact scenario. Most are convicted of manslaughter but some have been acquitted entirely;

http://theantimedia.org/man-shot-kil...-will-charged/”

Most of them should never have faced charges as they would have had no idea that it was police they were shooting at, and the use of deadly force against intruders smashing your door in, is usually treated with sympathy in the USA. .

The Magee result was fair.

What about the circumstance when the occupier knows it's the police but still panics and shoots?

mrtdg82

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Most of them should never have faced charges as they would have had no idea that it was police they were shooting at.

The Magee result was fair.

What about the circumstance when the occupier knows it's the police but still panics and shoots?”

Then it's murder

blueblade

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“Then it's murder”

Which brings us right back to Tensing - why is it OK for him to panic and it's not murder when he plants a bullet in an innocent man's head?

Sorry, I'm not getting why he gets a free pass to maybe just manslaughter, for panicking, but the guy who panics when the cop breaks in, doesn't.

mrtdg82

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Which brings us right back to Tensing - why is it OK for him to panic and it's not murder when he plants a bullet in an innocent man's head?

Sorry, I'm not getting why he gets a free pass to maybe just manslaughter, for panicking, but the guy who panics when the cop breaks in, doesn't.”

You are moving the goalposts.

You gave an example of when people will shoot in panic and I gave examples of manslaughter or aquittal to support why I said it should be manslaughter but could potentially be found not guilty.

You then ask IF someone know it's police but panic and shoot anyway. That would be murder as the very fact they knew it was a police officer would mean they knew the act was unlawful thus providing intent and making it murder. It would be an active shot rather than a reactive one.

blueblade

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“You are moving the goalposts.

You gave an example of when people will shoot in panic and I gave examples of manslaughter or aquittal to support why I said it should be manslaughter but could potentially be found not guilty.

You then ask IF someone know it's police but panic and shoot anyway. That would be murder as the very fact they knew it was a police officer would mean they knew the act was unlawful thus providing intent and making it murder. It would be an active shot rather than a reactive one.”

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.

mrtdg82

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by blueblade:
“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.

blueblade

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“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?

mrtdg82

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by blueblade:
“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.

kaybee15

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by Pee:
“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.

blueblade

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“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.”

He lied about being dragged - link

Quote:
“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.”

mrtdg82

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by blueblade:
“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.

blueblade

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“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.

Quote:
“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.””

mrtdg82

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by blueblade:
“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.

Bulletguy1

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPI1kz2Emds

anne_666

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by mrtdg82:
“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 isn't any evidence he was dragged.

idlewilde

01-08-2015

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.

blueblade

01-08-2015

Originally Posted by idlewilde:
“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.

10 of 13