It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cincinnati Campus Cop Kills Unarmed Black Man

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
Fyi
Utter BS...you dont have to display a front plate in the state of Ohio.

a reply to: SlapMonkey



How's that? It seems that there was legislation introduced in April this year to make Ohio a one-plate state, meaning that there is a mandate to have a plate on both front and rear.

From what I can tell, the bill is at the "refer to committee" state, and has been stalled there since April 28.

The Ohio Legislature




posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Find a post before mine that is filled with hate.


And honestly, stop complaining about speculation Slap...

Threads like this survive via speculation until the evidence surfaces...

If we waited for evidence the thread would be empty, post-less and forgotten by the time the evidence arrives.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ah no, I was more curious about the whole 'carrying documents because the law says I have to' thing.
Alien concept to me in the UK, I'm attempting to author a thread about it so I don't go off topic here.
Interesting thread though, I'm just glad the worst I'll expect from any cop in my area is an extendable baton or a tazer, different nations as I said earlier.
Thanks for the interesting read.


I know right?

I was shocked in California when they told me you had to carry ID.


Papers please......



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Find a post before mine that is filled with hate.


And honestly, stop complaining about speculation Slap...

Threads like this survive via speculation until the evidence surfaces...

If we waited for evidence the thread would be empty, post-less and forgotten by the time the evidence arrives.


Hate= Opinion ones disagrees with on ATS.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: BlueJacket
Fyi
Utter BS...you dont have to display a front plate in the state of Ohio.

a reply to: SlapMonkey



How's that? It seems that there was legislation introduced in April this year to make Ohio a one-plate state, meaning that there is a mandate to have a plate on both front and rear.

From what I can tell, the bill is at the "refer to committee" state, and has been stalled there since April 28.

The Ohio Legislature


I had asked about that earlier in the thread but didn't get an answer. Looks like you found the same info I was able to. Who knows, maybe they forgot to update its status?



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Here is a good link with some good cases that discusses the rulings and the logic behind when an officer is capable of using deadly force on a person fleeing from a vehicle stop.

Th e Ohio Patrolman's Benevolent Association


Whether an officer is permitted to use deadly force against an apparently fleeing felony suspect remains one of the most critical judgment decisions facing law enforcement officers. Title 42, section 1983 of the United States Code imposes civil liability on an individual who, acting under color of state law, deprives a citizen of, among other things, his or her federally guaranteed constitutional rights. The shooting or killing of a fleeing suspect is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore subject to constitutional complaints.

Under U.S. law, the “fleeing felon rule” has been limited to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). In Garner, the Supreme Court held, “The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” 471 U.S. at 11-12. The Court reasoned that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.” Id. The Court affirmed the decision of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if “reasonable.” The Tennessee statute failed as applied to this case because it did not adequately limit the use of deadly force by distinguishing between felonies of different magnitudes – “the facts, as found, did not justify the use of deadly force under the Fourth Amendment.” Officers cannot resort to deadly force unless they “have probable cause . . . to believe that the suspect has committed a felony and poses a threat to the safety of the officers or a danger to the community if left at large.” 471 U.S. at 5.

“Further, the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight; in other words, “[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989).

In Williams v. City of Grosse Pointe Park, 496 F.3d 482, 486 (6th Cir. Mich. 2007), the evidence fully supported the conclusion, as a matter of law, that an officer’s conduct was “objectively reasonable” at the time he fired his weapon...

(much more follows)


Read it, folks. It's at least a bit of info that can aid in intelligent conversation...court rulings and precedence is funny like that.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6Who knows, maybe they forgot to update its status?


LOL...this is the legislative process, and it's not midnight on Christmas Eve in Congress; nothing gets passed quickly otherwise.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
And honestly, stop complaining about speculation Slap...

Threads like this survive via speculation until the evidence surfaces...

If we waited for evidence the thread would be empty, post-less and forgotten by the time the evidence arrives.


That's a preferable fate than how this instance is getting bastardized at the moment.

I won't stop complaining about speculation in legal issues like this--it's how I've been trained and how I continue to conduct myself, even outside of my 9-to-5(ish) job. Speculation is what leads to Al Sharpton's NAN showing up and instigating riots and hashtags that are based on nothing except factless emotion.

Do you prefer that instead?



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Ah no, I was more curious about the whole 'carrying documents because the law says I have to' thing.


Driving--at least the way it works in the US--is a privilege, one which someone needs to be licensed to do. If you do so without the license, it is a legal infraction and you can be charged with a petty crime. Most of the time, however, people are let off with a warning in that instance.

If you're trying to pretend that we need to carry an ID just to walk around and survive in the US, that's not the case at all.

I don't need a permit/license to open carry a pistol, either, but you can't even own one where you live. Like you said--different countries (or states) necessitate different things for different actions.

I'll be interested to read your thread when you're done.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

That's all well and good but it may be irrelevant to this incident.


At some point, Tensing fired a single shot and Dubose - who was shot in the head - was able to restart the car and begin to drive away, Whalen said.


Sounds like there is a possibility that the shot came before the driving away. During what is being described as a struggle over the car door when Dubose refused to exit the vehicle.

Source Updated: Jul 21, 2015 1:57 PM CST



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Officers cannot resort to deadly force unless they “have probable cause . . . to believe that the suspect has committed a felony and poses a threat to the safety of the officers or a danger to the community if left at large.”


I would argue that a combative suspect that is about to drive under the influence of alcohol, with no regard for a person's safety next to the vehicle, does in deed pose a threat to him as well as anyone else he may encounter in a drunken escape in a motor vehicle on a public road.

Did he have to shoot him in the head? I dunno, I was not there...and in that scenario a split second decision was made to do that. I do believe that had the suspect escaped, drove down that road and hit and injured or killed someone, folks would be shouting for an investigation why he did NOT stop him when he fled.

Put yourself in that position to make that life and death decision in about 2 seconds...go....time's up. Will you be responsible if the suspect killed someone else in his road escape?



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Slightly off-topic may I ask is it the law that you guys have to carry license and insurance when you're driving?
We don't have to here in the UK, not even ID. We get 7 days to produce the license at a police station nominated by the driver...can be anywhere in the UK.


The why behind it is probably keep us from needing to drive to a police station within seven days to produce it.

But honestly, I think it's for two reasons: (1) So that the officers know that you are of age and licensed to be behind the wheel of a vehicle...as in, you have passed a driver's test and are capable of properly(ish) operating something that can easily kill many people, and (2) because it gives the local municipalities and the states money revenue for an infraction.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
codes.ohio.gov...


2923.162 Discharge of firearm on or near prohibited premises.
(A) No person shall do any of the following:

(1) Without permission from the proper officials and subject to division (B)(1) of this section, discharge a firearm upon or over a cemetery or within one hundred yards of a cemetery;

(2) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, discharge a firearm on a lawn, park, pleasure ground, orchard, or other ground appurtenant to a schoolhouse, church, or inhabited dwelling, the property of another, or a charitable institution;

(3) Discharge a firearm upon or over a public road or highway.



Now I'd hazard a guess that barring a firefight involving law enforcement and a gunman(men), this law also applies to officers in a non-life threatening circumstance firing at a moving vehicle "on or over a public road or highway"...

ie when a vehicle is fleeing the scene...


There is a case for unlawful discharge and reckless endangerment.


We shall see.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Put yourself in that position to make that life and death decision in about 2 seconds...go....time's up. Will you be responsible if the suspect killed someone else in his road escape?


Of course, the converse is..."Hey, he's drunk, I think I'll take out my sidearm and start blazing away at his head", which is a lot more direct way to look at it.

I think the only way you'd make THAT decision, sans being dragged down the road by an arm, would be due to "he disrepected mah authoritah!" turned up to 11.

It will be interesting to see the video, if they ever let it out. If it clearly supported the cop's point of view, I'm sure the prosecutor would have it on the news already. We'll see, I suppose.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

That....

Is speculation.

I would suggest that comments like "he was summarily executed" and "he deserved it because he got arrested a lot" aren't so much speculation as they are standard hyperbole for any shooting.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Put yourself in that position to make that life and death decision in about 2 seconds...go....time's up. Will you be responsible if the suspect killed someone else in his road escape?


Of course, the converse is..."Hey, he's drunk, I think I'll take out my sidearm and start blazing away at his head", which is a lot more direct way to look at it.

I think the only way you'd make THAT decision, sans being dragged down the road by an arm, would be due to "he disrepected mah authoritah!" turned up to 11.

It will be interesting to see the video, if they ever let it out. If it clearly supported the cop's point of view, I'm sure the prosecutor would have it on the news already. We'll see, I suppose.


That is possible, but the phrase "blazing away" that you use is a bit over-the-top don't you think? One shot can hardly be construed as "blazing away".

ETA
Definition of "blazing away" in regards to use of a gun


2. blaze away - shoot rapidly and repeatedly; "He blazed away at the men"



edit on 7/21/2015 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Absolutely, personally I try to pay no mind to such comments.

They're neither informative or interesting enough to be rebutted...

Even borderline sociopathic.
But I can't judge that, it's just an observation.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You put the wrong emphasis on the wrong syllable:


2923.162 Discharge of firearm on or near prohibited premises.

(A) No person shall do any of the following:

(1) Without permission from the proper officials...


You do understand that law enforcement has the authority to fire their weapon--if necessary--anywhere within their jurisdiction, right?

The question that must wait for further evidence is, was the discharge of the firearm necessary, or perceived to be necessary by the LEO when all facts of the interaction are taken into account?


edit on 21-7-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
That is possible, but the phrase "blazing away" that you use is a bit over-the-top don't you think? One shot can hardly be construed as "blazing away".


If the cop got a head shot in one while on his ass shooting at a moving vehicle, I'll buy you a virtual coke.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Easy to prove either way, as they always take account of the rounds in the firearm, so we'll know how many he had and how many he didn't...

...again, once the facts come out.

On a side note, I wonder if they have a Coke bottle that says, "Share a Coke with Krakatoa."
edit on 21-7-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join