Cincinnati preparing for riots after viewing bodycam footage of fatal UC traffic stop

a reply to: diggindirt

I've met Joe Deters on several occasions.

The man is a preening, sneering, elitist snob. He is a carrion eater of a man. A cold soulless evil specter that walks among the living.

Well, maybe not that bad, but he is an unpleasant person.

If he wanted to calm the growing anger, he would jail the University of Cincinnati Campus Police Officer to await a hearing or trial.

That's what would happen to anyone else.

In protective custody of course, and this would also help ensure the officer's safety.

This is murder we're talking about,even I get pissed when I see police get a free pass on murders.

Am I insane in thinking that EVERY murder should at least go to trial?

Am i being overly paranoid in thinking this is by design to rile up the people so even harsher laws can be enacted in the interest of "our safety" ?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

You know maybe it is too much ATS lately, but I can see where you are coming from.

What other purpose would releasing statements like that serve?

That said, let us look at what was said by the chief and I think the city manager.

"It doesn't look good." It doesn't look good for who exactly, the officer or for the deceased? Does the video show evidence against the cop or the deceased? In reality, that statement could be taken either way.

"A man was killed that didn't have to be." Does that mean the officer didn't have to kill the man, or does it mean that the man didn't have to do what he did to justify the shooting?

Who knows.

a reply to: abe froman

It sickens me that law enforcement would rather risk a city in flames and untold casualties rather than arrest, jail, and prosecute one of their own.

I got the impression that the rationale of not releasing the video was to keep the residents from rioting, not to avoid prosecuting the officer.

A campus cop blows away an unarmed suspect over failure to display a front license plate and the residents of the city will have to face dire consequences because of the "thin blue line"?

I highly doubt the cop was so pissed the guy didn't have a front license plate that he shot him. I really hate it when people make statements like that, they're engineered to make the situation seem even worse than it already is. The city is going to face dire consequences because one guy screwed up, shot someone who I'm betting was black, and that seems to create a situation where certain elements like to burn things. Not releasing the video to the public (which I don't think is a great idea in most circumstances until after a trial) is not the same as covering for the officer. If anything it sounds like they are going to throw the guy under the bus.

You took, the gun, the badge, and the power- man up and take the responsibility cowards.

It sounds like they are. Part of protecting the public is not giving them a video that looks bad and will probably set people off. No one is saying the officer did the right thing, and choosing to release the video is not at all the same as protecting the officer. It's not like they destroyed the tape. When this goes to court, the thing will be shown, and the people that need to see it will, with context.

I'm all for good cops, but putting the city at risk to cover for your buddy is sickening.

Considering what certain elements in society do when any black person is killed, even when it's pretty apparent the cop was in the right, I think not showing the video is probably the best move. At least having more time to prepare for protests that will probably turn violent/riotous makes sense. This isn't protecting the cop, it's protecting the community.

I certainly think there is a lot of BS blue line protection going on, but I don't agree that choosing not to release a video is the same. It seems prudent to wait.

If they're saying "the video is not good" that's a pretty clear indication that they are not going to be protecting the officer. It's unprofessional for them to be saying anything really. If you have people saying things like that, you release the video and people start rioting, how is it possible to have a fair trial?

I have a feeling I'm going to be highly upset by the video. I really hate crappy cops, probably more than the people that just sort of universally hate all cops. They ruin trust, they tarnish the badge, and they abuse a power that is incredibly sacred. Still not seeing anyone protecting the cop that did the shooting. Respect your opinion, you're not prone to falling for the emotional BS or having the very ATS typical knee jerk reaction, just disagree.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

What other purpose would releasing statements like that serve?

This is where i am struggling with all this,there is no benefit to releasing a statement other than to give the people something to get angry about....ffs they are releasing just enough info to get people pissed but not enough for a conclusive answer.....

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

"A man was killed that didn't have to be." Does that mean the officer didn't have to kill the man, or does it mean that the man didn't have to do what he did to justify the shooting?

This quote?

"It's a tragic situation, someone has died that did not necessarily need to die."

I took it to mean that there were better options than shooting. It's a weird statement for sure. If it wasn't just a poor choice of words I think it indicates that the officer had better options than the gun.

a reply to: Domo1

Dude, I coudl give a # less about the video being released.

MY beef is that the University of Cincinnati Campus cop isn't sitting in a cell waiting for at the very least a bail hearing.

If the University of Cincinnati Campus cop was sitting in a cell right now, people would be a lot more patient in waiting for said tape.

But, let's put that aside, it's not the tape people are mad about. People are mad because another unarmed civilian was killed

and once again the shooter doesn't even have to post bail.

Is there an actual law that allows this or is it manipulation of the law that allows this?

a reply to: Domo1

Yes, that one.

It most likely means what you think it means.

That said, it could possibly mean that if the man would of cooperated, took the citation, and not dragged/attempted to run over/or whatever may have happened, he wouldn't of had to have deadly force used against him.

However, I think the key word is necessarily. To me that hints at wrongdoing on the officers part.

a reply to: abe froman

Maybe the video shows the incident was not as cut and dry as some think it is.

Maybe they haven't developed sufficient probable cause yet.

Who knows.

a reply to: abe froman
Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that the perp should be in jail awaiting a grand jury if there is evidence in that video that this was an unlawful act.
I can only guess why he wouldn't already be charged, other than the uniform he wears. Simply charging someone leaves them with a public record, regardless of the outcome of the charges. While these guys have no problem writing up pages of charges for the least infractions on civilians, obviously they don't want their blue brothers to have to submit to that sort of "justice."
I was simply explaining the probable legal reasons for not releasing the video to the public. So far as I am aware provisions for holding materials pertaining to criminal investigations exist in all Sunshine laws in the US.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

Normally I would agree with you however, didn't a judge rule this very week that pro-police bumber stickers and air fresheners in cars constitute PROBABLE CAUSE to pull you over?

So given the new ruling, if an air freshener is PROBABLE CAUSE then " a dead body with it's head blown off in a f@#$%g car", to quote Samuel L. Jackson, is PROBABLE CAUSE.

a reply to: abe froman

Ahh, I thought perhaps I was misunderstanding your point.

I'm not sure why cops aren't arrested after a shooting if it appears to be a bad one. I may look into that a little tonight, and it's a very good point.

I have a feeling that someone with 60 arrests and 12 kids may not have the best impulse control, and very well may have done something stupid. It's also possible the cop saw the record and did something stupid. Until I know more, I'm going to remain fairly neutral on this one. I suspect that I will end up agreeing that the cop did something horrible, but things change with more information.

K, so here is a narrative I just read...

According to a Local 12 report, the incident happened at around 6:30 p.m., local time. It started when officer Tensing spotted Dubose driving in a vehicle that had the front license plate missing. He asked Dubose to pull over. However, he refused to comply and went on to drive a mile further down the road before finally stopping the vehicle. Once the car was stopped the officer approached Samuel and asked for his driver’s license. Dubose again refused to comply and instead, handed over a bottle of alcohol to the officer. It was after this that officer Tensing asked Samuel to get out of the vehicle. Following this, a struggle between the two men ensued. Cincinnati Police Lt. Col James Whalen described the incident to reporters.

With officer Tensing still holding on to the car, he used his weapon and fired a single shot at Samuel which hit him in the head. The officer fell to the ground as he fired the fatal shot.

If it actually turns out that's what happened, I'm guessing they didn't arrest him because it's hard to say if the officer made the wrong call.

Considering that the video probably shows a guy getting his head shot from close range, I now really get why they don't want to show it.

You can bet they are being planned.

The authorities are paranoid, they should be.

originally posted by: intrptr

You can bet they are being planned.

The authorities are paranoid, they should be.

Yeah, SOME people act like assholes if they have the slightest excuse. Especially a certain segment of society.

I like how potential riots are being blamed on the cops, instead of on the dirt bags that are so ready to burn their own neighborhoods. Apparently not releasing a video is now akin to protecting someone, even though past experience suggests that a certain element will use anything as an excuse to destroy their own neighborhoods.

originally posted by: Domo1

originally posted by: intrptr

You can bet they are being planned.

The authorities are paranoid, they should be.

Yeah, SOME people act like assholes if they have the slightest excuse. Especially a certain segment of society.

I like how potential riots are being blamed on the cops, instead of on the dirt bags that are so ready to burn their own neighborhoods. Apparently not releasing a video is now akin to protecting someone, even though past experience suggests that a certain element will use anything as an excuse to destroy their own neighborhoods.

That is quite a disingenuous statement considering it is fairly obvious that the rioters are from towns close by......how stupid do people need to be to destroy their own town....?.....are people from these town actually this stupid or are they portrayed in this way ?

a reply to: Domo1

I like how potential riots are being blamed on the cops, instead of on the dirt bags that are so ready to burn their own neighborhoods.

Yah, thieves having nothing to do with events take advantage of the police being distracted to break in and steal and then burn the place to cover their tracks.

Then others collectively blame the protestors or demonstrators for that in order to destroy the protesters credibility.

Nooo, not the complicit media, covering the fires to the exclusion of the real peaceful demonstration occurring a few blocks away. This happened in Ferguson, by the way.

Fires are easier to film at night and more exciting than bland peaceful marches.

a reply to: abe froman

Am I insane in thinking that EVERY murder should at least go to trial?

It isn't "murder" when the police do it, remember?

Besides, how can they in good faith prosecute each other?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

That is quite a disingenuous statement considering it is fairly obvious that the rioters are from towns close by

Which one?

Fine, even if the rioters are from towns close by, the riot and destroy using someone's death as an excuse to vent frustrations (and that is me being kind, I think they just want an excuse).

how stupid do people need to be to destroy their own town....?

The same amount of stupid destroying a neighboring town...

are people from these town actually this stupid or are they portrayed in this way ?

I think it's a mix, and I think it's more complicated than that. I think you have a group of people that have a poor lot in life that want to rebel against where they are, so they take anything as an excuse and burn things that represent (to them) "the man". They're not well educated, they don't know how to think critically, so a store is something that should be burned because they don't know how to empathize with a store owner. I don't think they're bright, but I don't think they would be what they are if they had a different upbringing. More and more it's becoming accepted that nature and nurture are both incredibly important in development. They aren't exclusive, they interact.

An easer way to put it is that they are stupid, but it's not entirely their fault. The media seems to be doing what the media does. It's incapable of committing because it doesn't want to risk making anyone mad, just mad at each other because that will sell.

Try hard to remove yourself from the situation and look at it dispassionately. Every profession makes mistakes, and people with lengthy criminal records are not exactly the kind of people you should expect to make good choices during a traffic stop. I'm betting this incident was a very sad comedy of errors committed by both parties. it doesn't give anyone else a right to break laws. One person screwing up doesn't give everyone with the same pigmentation as the "victim" a right to go berserk.

a reply to: abe froman

This is now becoming a self-perpetuating problem, and I have a feeling that even the DHS is going to be increasingly involved in these cases because the threat of response by the public is considered a threat to national security.

Now, generally, that's a sensible way to see it, clearly having massive social unrest in a city is a threat to national security. But - and this is the important thing - they are doing almost nothing to prevent this from happening again and again.

The Federal gov is talking about making changes and putting in new procedures and standards, but it is not getting the dedication it desperately needs. This should already have been done immediately after Ferguson, there should have been an instant response from the Federal gov forcing all police departments across the country to comply with strict new standards and policies. They should have instantly started a national effort to hire new officers with PROPER TRAINING to replace the officers with daddy issues, mental instability, ignorance of their own laws...

This is all a natural response to massive injustice and the increasing perception of the police being an organized criminal entity in America. This is only going to get worse unless the federal gov does its damn job and forces all police departments to comply with proper procedures across the nation.

I said in a post just yesterday that you are one video away from a national problem. I swear I had no clue that this story would then break today, but I said exactly what is now being feared here.

Link

The US gov has allowed this situation to become what it now is, through complete inaction and lack of motivation to change things. The civil rights movement should have been a starting point, instead it was seen as a watershed moment and just expected that society would evolve normally after that. It clearly didn't, many of the practices, attitudes and beliefs of those in positions of authority have not changed one little bit in that time, and it's been reinforced by the demonization of an entire racial group, primarily because of the continuation of ghettoisation.

People can argue all they like about the politics of all of this, but there is no denying that black Americans have it worse off than white, and that HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE.

Unfortunately, maybe it's going to take a massive riot on the scale of LA for your lazy ass government to actually pull their finger out and make all of this the priority it should have been 50 years ago, and every year since?

a reply to: Domo1

I really cannot argue with any of what you are saying....what it comes down to is maybe i have too much faith in people ..