Cincinnati Campus Cop Kills Unarmed Black Man

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Actually you don't seem to understand legislation structure...

If "without permission of the proper officials" also pertained to sections 2 & 3 it would have been part of the subheading A.

What you highlighted has nothing to do with A2 & A3.

No, I do understand legislation and how to read and interpret laws...that's been a part of my job one way or the other for nearly a decade now, and I've been formally trained to do so.

My interpretation is absolutely correct, otherwise an LEO would never be able to discharge their firearm when necessary.

originally posted by: lovebeck
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There's no angry riots...yet. Cincy learned a lot and grew a lot from the 2001 riots. And I'm in a position to know...

Yeah, I've read and listened about what happened back then, so it's in the back of my mind, too. FOX19 was just on last night reporting on the story after interviewing some of the Black Lives Matter people who had a meeting about this, and they're "demanding" answers (as if no one else is, too). Hopefully they don't add a bail of straw to the camel's back.

This whole story stinks though! I know the area very well where he was pulled over. If a UC cop tried to stop me? I'd probably keep going. Not sure the "general public" knew that they had such powers, to pull over non-UC students/drivers TOTALLY OFF CAMPUS.

Especially for not having a front license plate!!

I'm with you on the UC police--they obviously haven't publicized it enough that they are actual officers, although I think at my age I would just assume that they were until shown otherwise. As for the front license plate, I was pulled over for that a few times in California when I used to live there--it's not unheard of, and apparently (other than the shooting) was a good thing, because he was allegedly drinking/drunk and driving on a suspended license. I just wish things could have happened smoothly.

BUT the LEO's side of the story isn't even out there yet since they're giving him "24-48 hours" to submit his statement. That's policy, btw. When did this happen again?

Yeah, it was Sunday night, but I'm quite certain that the timeframe is for an official statement, on paper, handed to the chief. When that will be made public will be anyone's guess, and they specifically said that they're waiting for the statement in order to compare it to the video footage, so that will add even more time before they make it public, I assume.

I'm glad Deters is getting ahead of it by investigating along with the Cincy PD. This LEO was a University of Cincinnati "policeman". I honestly thought they were like security guards, in all honesty. Has no idea they were actual police.

Those are some GREAT cops (Cincinnati PD) and are some stand up guys and gals. I've never had an issue with them, nor has anyone I know. They put up with a lot down there, believe that. The Queen City is quite violent, truth be told. It beautiful on the riverfront but go north a few blocks, that's a different story.

Yeah, I'm just south of Cincy in Erlanger, so I know the area quite well, too, although not as well as you do, it seems. I agree, the CPD folks are great--with all of the damn shootings and everything that I hear about on the news, I'm amazed they're not more paranoid and prone to squeezing a trigger.

As for all of the violence in Cincinnati, I've come to discover that it's a good rule of thumb to avoid living in or visiting areas that end in "Hill" around there.

a reply to: lovebeck

I have not tried to make any definitive statements at all on the happenings. And repeatedly in this thread have said I await my decision based upon the videos when released. The comment I made regarding being combative related to the mentioned struggle. A struggle with a LEO is considered combative behavior....so that statement stands. As for the comment regarding driving under the influence, that is based upon the story (so far) that when repeatedly asked for a license/ID, the suspect produced a bottle of alcohol to the LEO. Why in the WORLD would you do that if not impaired in some way? Seriously....why?? And, compared to his past NUMEROUS drug convictions, it's a high probability that his actions, combined with his past, indicate an impairment while driving (without a valid license BTW).

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: lovebeck
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There's no angry riots...yet. Cincy learned a lot and grew a lot from the 2001 riots. And I'm in a position to know...

Yeah, I've read and listened about what happened back then, so it's in the back of my mind, too. FOX19 was just on last night reporting on the story after interviewing some of the Black Lives Matter people who had a meeting about this, and they're "demanding" answers (as if no one else is, too). Hopefully they don't add a bail of straw to the camel's back.

This whole story stinks though! I know the area very well where he was pulled over. If a UC cop tried to stop me? I'd probably keep going. Not sure the "general public" knew that they had such powers, to pull over non-UC students/drivers TOTALLY OFF CAMPUS.

Especially for not having a front license plate!!

I'm with you on the UC police--they obviously haven't publicized it enough that they are actual officers, although I think at my age I would just assume that they were until shown otherwise. As for the front license plate, I was pulled over for that a few times in California when I used to live there--it's not unheard of, and apparently (other than the shooting) was a good thing, because he was allegedly drinking/drunk and driving on a suspended license. I just wish things could have happened smoothly.

BUT the LEO's side of the story isn't even out there yet since they're giving him "24-48 hours" to submit his statement. That's policy, btw. When did this happen again?

Yeah, it was Sunday night, but I'm quite certain that the timeframe is for an official statement, on paper, handed to the chief. When that will be made public will be anyone's guess, and they specifically said that they're waiting for the statement in order to compare it to the video footage, so that will add even more time before they make it public, I assume.

I'm glad Deters is getting ahead of it by investigating along with the Cincy PD. This LEO was a University of Cincinnati "policeman". I honestly thought they were like security guards, in all honesty. Has no idea they were actual police.

Those are some GREAT cops (Cincinnati PD) and are some stand up guys and gals. I've never had an issue with them, nor has anyone I know. They put up with a lot down there, believe that. The Queen City is quite violent, truth be told. It beautiful on the riverfront but go north a few blocks, that's a different story.

Yeah, I'm just south of Cincy in Erlanger, so I know the area quite well, too, although not as well as you do, it seems. I agree, the CPD folks are great--with all of the damn shootings and everything that I hear about on the news, I'm amazed they're not more paranoid and prone to squeezing a trigger.

As for all of the violence in Cincinnati, I've come to discover that it's a good rule of thumb to avoid living in or visiting areas that end in "Hill" around there.

From this article from the Enquirer, sounds like this will be presented to the grand jury. Lots of reading between the lines in this one...

Enquirer

a reply to: Shamrock6

The oddest thing, is that even though I see the legislation from 2014 as if it hadnt passed yet...the BMV has not issued the front plate since I moved here 3.5 years ago...literally saying that it is no longer required

a reply to: Krakatoa

Correct, you do...but probable cause to pull the man over...shouldnt of been the front license plate now should it? Perhaps he should of gone with the ol "broken tail light?"

originally posted by: Bedlam
Is it standard procedure to shoot someone to death who's driving away from a traffic stop without permission?

In the good ol' US of A simply arguing with a cop is enough to "justify" execution, didn't you know?

Past crimes are important too, when you're a black person killed by a cop.
The number of kids you have is important, killing someone you think is irresponsible makes it easier to forgive.
Employment is also important, it allows you to deem the black person as "lazy".
The music they listen to is a great way to justify their killing too, if they listen to rap then surely they're also a gun-toting drug pusher!
They dared to speed away? They can't be scared, surely, regardless of the many black people killed by white cops every year.

Rest assured there will be plenty of people claiming all kinds of things are perfectly adequate reasons for shooting a man in the head over a traffic violation - but only if the person happens to be black.

And, those same people don't think they're racists either, and if you dare to point it out to them you're usually a "politically correct liberal progressive".

I'm sure most of these people don't think they're racist when they're wearing their pillow case at the weekends either.

a reply to: HawkeyeNation

So by your logic anyone driving in an unsafe manner should be shot and killed because these drivers have made their cars "weapons which could kill many" ... Speeding? You're executed. You "could" kill many...not will or have, just "could" ... right?

That is some BS logic.

And applauding the killing of a citizen for something like this is just sickening. This guy is not H.H. Holmes.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
The initial pulling over is baloney...front plates are not required in Ohio...so they need to come up with a better reason for pulling him over in the 1st place.

So there may be some fault here

a reply to: Shamrock6

What you are missing here is "probable cause". The lack of front plate was the legal method by which the UC cop could make a stop. He had suspected that more was to play than the missing license plate. He may have been right in that assumption. With 75 arrests, he may have been known to local law enforcement in the area. No one is perfectly innocent!

I am not trying to justify being shot just looking for answers like everyone else.

No im not missing anything...front plates are not required in Ohio. It is not illegal hence not probable cause.
reply to: buddah6

originally posted by: BlueJacket
No im not missing anything...front plates are not required in Ohio. It is not illegal hence not probable cause.
reply to: buddah6

I live in Ohio and have two plates. Ohio wouldn't issue two if it wasn't the law. I have lived in Cincinnati since 1964 with the only exception of the time on military active duty.

I not in favor of shooting people fleeing a traffic stop if their crime is no license or such. Police need to stop being so willing to shooting anyone over anything. It's getting beyond reasonable.

Go pick the person up later. Is this the biggest crime around that needs immediate attention?

a reply to: roadgravel

I agree you about the shooting part. If the cop let him go in an intoxicated stupor and he had an accident where someone was killed, the cop would be in just as such trouble.

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: SlapMonkey

13 kids? Holy smokes, that's a lot of mouths to feed!

It's a shame the headline didn't read, "Darwin candidate dies as a result of stupidity".

What the hell is so difficult about providing your drivers license? Simply hand over your ID and insurance card and go from there. I'm not saying the officer should have shot the guy in the head, but damn, common sense could have prevailed here and the situation wouldn't have escalated to this degree.

From initial reports, this guy committed suicide by cop. IMO.

I completely disagree. Completely.

What the hell is so difficult about providing your drivers license?

Under what authority does a College Campus Security Officer have to stop me for any reason, let alone a traffic violation that he/she has no authority to uphold? I wouldn't have given him a license either, but that is here nor there. This is actually completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Weather or not the man driving away was being stupid, "Stupid" is not punishable by death. If it was, you wouldn't be able to post this incredibly stupid comment onto ATS.

Fact is, this Officer fired a fatal shot to a person who posed no threat to him. Was the victim here driving away? According to the article he did. Keyword: AWAY. That means he was not advancing on the Officer or making any attempt to run him over. Which means, there is no threat to this Officers life. Which means the man, although defiant, was not a threat who meets the standard for use of deadly force.

It is only suicide by Cop when you are doing something that forces an Officer to kill you. In this case, that did not happen. This Officer killed him because he was too lazy to have to stop him and killing him was easier.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: roadgravel

I agree you about the shooting part. If the cop let him go in an intoxicated stupor and he had an accident where someone was killed, the cop would be in just as such trouble.

No, not at all.

The Cop would not be in trouble over a person who flees from him, weather that person is sober or drunk. People run from the cops every day.

Youre wrong. Check the state law. ..I live here too


a reply to: buddah6

originally posted by: BlueJacket
Youre wrong. Check the state law. ..I live here too


a reply to: buddah6

ORC 4503.5 and 4503.19 says two plate except motorcycles, trailers and mobile homes. It was proposed in 2014 to reduce it to one plate but it failed in committee. Unless you have a red triangle on your John Deere or horse-drawn buggy.

originally posted by: MoreBeer
How do you know the cop didn't need to shoot him?

I'll side with a cops judgement over a man that has been arrested 75 times.

So I take it that you don't believe in the constitutionally protected right to due process?

originally posted by: Answer
I'm sorry, did I cheer his death?

I must have missed where I did that...

Are you people really getting butthurt over me calling this guy a scumbag?

He was arrested A RIDICULOUS NUMBER OF TIMES over the last 20 years for a variety of reasons, including domestic violence and assault.

He is a scumbag. Plain and simple. Does that mean he deserved to be shot? I don't know. I guess the videos will tell that story.

So he was arrested, which means he was charged with a crime. How many of those was he actually found guilty of? An arrest without a conviction is nothing more than an accusation. Considering the number was 75 and he was free, I would be willing to bet a huge number of those charges were never proven.

I checked again and you are correct. I apologize albeit I have some choice words for my county bmv.

However. ..no reason to pull him over as I never am and im white. ..definitely no reason fo a non adjudicated killing.


a reply to: buddah6