You said:-


Which is not the same thing the officer messed up, panicked and fired - that's one very lenient explanation. Nor whether his defence is questionable.

But to wonder whether the shooting itself was justified is beyond belief.

Also, you say he "may get manslaughter", which sounds like the complacency of cops who feel they are virtually untouchable. The truth is, you don't know.

My belief is that he panicked and fired. I believe he grabbed him as he started to try and drive away, panicked and shot him. Thats my belief.

I haven't been shown any evidence to suggest otherwise.

The reason it's questionable is because is defence is plausible, all be it unlikely and as the law works on beyond reasonable doubt I can see him Potentially being found not guilty.

No I don't but neither do you... That's the idea of a forum, to discuss. It's not being Complacent it's trying to view it from a legal standpoint and by applying the law.

So you believe that the use of deadly force to a guy whose car rolls away following a non heated exchange over a missing front licence plate is merely "questionable"

What was he panicking over? That (shock horror) the guy might escape with only one number plate?


Of course, but you are stating virtually as fact, as though you think the outcome is pre-determined, and it isn't. It's totally open.

Agreed with the above.

You have already stated if he gets less than murder it's 'downgraded'.

I do state it's what I believe or think will happen. Not once have I stated it as fact.

I can confidently say it as fact that it was not racial, as any thought it was is just speculation.

Yea I believe he panicked, the alternative to that is that he thought he would just should him in the head, I personally don't believe he displayed the intent or malice for that and the shooting was a reaction rather than an action.

Yes, that's my opinion. I'm not touting is as the actual outcome.


It sounds like you do.


It may or may not be racist, but you cannot possibly state it was not, as a fact. Sure, it's speculation on a possibility.


Which makes it extremely dangerous for such loose cannons to hold firearms which they can then use on an innocent member of the public.

Whether manslaughter or murder, I hope he goes down. "Panicking" in such a banal and innocuous situation is pathetic. Let's never ever lose sight of the fact that an innocent guy was shot through the head and killed as a result.

If a criminal - say like Harry Roberts - had used "I panicked" as a defence after shooting dead the policemen he shot in 1966, I very much doubt you'd have lent that much credence.

But when it's the other way on, it's excuses for the boys all round.

You can speculate absolutely anything, but with no evidence it doesn't in any way make it fact.

Your above example is ridiculous and bares no similarity to this one. When you consider the Oscar pistorius trial though and what he was convicted of despite shooting into a closed room, he will didn't get murder and shows you the burden of proof is often very difficult.

I don't disagree that he shouldn't have a gun, but you give a human a gun and mistakes are made. That's an issue for their culture and unless America are willing to change this will continue to happen.

If I gave you a gun and put you in certain scenarios, your interpretation at the time could lead you to shoot at times you shouldn't have.

That's at least three FMs who have stated - or agreed with - that other posters don't 'know' that Officer Tensing isn't a racist. I'd like to know why we should start from a default position that he IS racist, because he showed no signs of prejudice in the encounter? Is it because all cops are racist, all white males are racist, all white people are racist - which?

Because anything that can be speculated will be, regardless of if there is no evidence of it. You can consider it but it must almost immediately be dismissed on the basis of there being no evidence what so ever.

However as I've learnt if you state anything other than This was murder then you have an agenda, I'm Just pleased the legal system doesn't work that way.

Why is it ridiculous? Logically it could be argued to be virtually identical. Except in the one case the shooter was inside the car, and in the other, outside.

If this cop can legitimately argue that he panicked, then by logical extension, so could Harry Roberts have done. Both involve a vehicle related confrontation, and both involve shooting an innocent man in the head.

For this reason;

Roberts opened fire on the officers when he feared they would discover the firearms his gang were planning to use in an armed robbery. He shot dead two of the officers, while one of his accomplices fatally shot the third.

It carries no resemblance what so ever to this case.

It isn't identical in circumstance, I agree. But if he'd said he panicked, how is that any different in principle to Tensing panicking?

Why should one get a free pass, whilst the other is banged up for 48 years? - as he would still have been even if he'd said he panicked.

So in other words, if both said they panicked, why would you accept one and not the other?

I'm sorry, but you're just talking nonsense. I've not once claimed it was racial or assumed so. I don't know if it was, but I do know that it's a possibility. The only one talking in absolutes is you, who are completely dismissing the possibility of race being any sort of factor just because it can't be proven. Which is stupid.

You clearly do have an agenda, and the fact you're claiming it's because you refuse to condemn him - as opposed to you just trying to find any reason to defend him or partially mitigate his actions - just confirms this further.

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?

The issue being of course is that if you were on the jury you would find him guilty without hearing any evidence. The trial would be irrelevant. I've discussed his defence, given my thoughts, that's it. Luckily the justice system doesn't work in a way where the person is sentenced prior to trial.

Having an agenda would be to condemn before trial as that's to Judge an incident prior to all the evidence being heard.

As for race, if we turn every incident involving a white and black person into a race issue then it creates issues that aren't there. The is nothing to suggest it's a race issue. Some have made it into one.

Are you on a wind up?

You don't know this. At all.


It's pretty clear what your agenda is, as the only making making statements as fact is yourself, yet you claim to be being objective.

As for race, it's obvious your understanding is limited if you genuinely believe there is no issue here, or that this has been made into a race issue rather than it already being part of a wider race issue. Does that mean that I think every cop is a racist? Of course not. But at this point, it would be incredibly naive not to consider what part, if any, race is playing in these incidents that are happening all too frequently. Instantly dismissing it due to "lack of evidence" shows either said naivety or an agenda IMO, as even you must know it's pretty much impossible to prove someone's attitude to race.

No, can you answer the question?

But in a case of law there is no evidence of race being an issue here. That is a fact. Whether someone chooses to interprate that there is shows more of an agenda then if someone doesn't. It doesn't get instantly dismissed, you look at the case on its own merits and decide from there.

You have decided I have an agenda simply because I won't condemn him if murder and I'm looking at both sides from a legal perspective. How you can determine that is beyond me.

I can just by considering the intent immediately prior to the shooting. One was legally carrying a gun as an enforcer of the law the other was carrying a gun to carry out an unlawful act.

The very presence of a gun in Roberts case suggests intent.

By your very argument any member of the public could shoot an officer simply because they panicked if they were legally carrying a gun.

You have asserted that these two comparison situations are virtually identical, and technically, maybe the incidentals of the occurrences are.

When you look at the enveloping circumstances however, ie the wider picture, these two scenarios are anything but. Harry Roberts was engaged in criminal behaviour, and the police are trying to undertake their duty to uphold and enforce the law, a role we expect of them as a society.

We wouldn't lend credence to Harry Roberts trying to use "I panicked" to mitigate the shooting because of the fact that he was responsible for the situation he found himself in, and acted in order to prevent detection by the law.

I can't make you see the point, especially as you're evidently determined not to, so I'll just leave it there.

By your argument any member of the police force could shoot a member of the public simply because they panicked if they were legally carrying a gun.

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.