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.

 

Second mistrial for Ray Tensing, ex University of Cincinnati cop

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
As some may recall, back in 2015 (then) University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing pulled Samuel DuBose over for a traffic stop. During the stop things escalated and Tensing wound up shooting and killing DuBose. Tensing was indicted on a couple of counts after the shooting, and over the last year and a half has been in and out of court. The family has since received a multi-million dollar settlement last year from the university over the killing and Tensing was fired. (As a side note, part of the settlement includes 100% free under-graduate education for DuBose's children, which I thought was at least a somewhat silver lining) The shooting was the subject of at least a couple of threads here on ATS.

Yesterday the judge in the case declared a second mistrial after another jury became deadlocked. According to the court, the jurors are evenly split between not guilty (four votes), manslaughter, and murder. Apparently the prosecutor attempted to get a lesser charge of reckless homicide added to the indictment but the judge rejected the motion, as the prosecution had already rested their case. It remains to be seen if the prosecution will attempt to get it added in any future trial.

The family has stated that they're pleased with the way the prosecution is handling the case but expressed disappointment and frustration with the jurors. They've asked the prosecution to re-try the case a third time.

Interestingly, it appears that Tensing's story has changed slightly again, in that he testified DuBose pinned his (Tensing's) arm inside the car and then accelerated, and that is what caused Tensing to shoot him.

I'll link to a local source, as many of the major outlets that are carrying the story have laced their coverage with a lot of rhetoric and hyperbole rather than reporting on the actual trial.

WCPO article about mistrial

That site has an autoplay video, FYI.




posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

This is a local issue for me.

As always, these situations are not black and white (pun intended). It won't be possible for 12 fairly chosen jurors to convict this officer. When you research all the facts of the case it just doesn't add up to murder. Sure, he might have been an idiot or careless, but that is at best a lesser charge.



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Agreed. I think the prosecutor likely went for the murder indictment in the hopes that they could secure a conviction on a lesser charge.

I think one can make an argument for voluntary manslaughter, but you'd have to prove Tensing's state of mind. Reckless homicide should have probably been included from the beginning, as it seems to be an easier case.



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
As some may recall, back in 2015 (then) University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing pulled Samuel DuBose over for a traffic stop. During the stop things escalated and Tensing wound up shooting and killing DuBose. Tensing was indicted on a couple of counts after the shooting, and over the last year and a half has been in and out of court. The family has since received a multi-million dollar settlement last year from the university over the killing and Tensing was fired. (As a side note, part of the settlement includes 100% free under-graduate education for DuBose's children, which I thought was at least a somewhat silver lining) The shooting was the subject of at least a couple of threads here on ATS.

Yesterday the judge in the case declared a second mistrial after another jury became deadlocked. According to the court, the jurors are evenly split between not guilty (four votes), manslaughter, and murder. Apparently the prosecutor attempted to get a lesser charge of reckless homicide added to the indictment but the judge rejected the motion, as the prosecution had already rested their case. It remains to be seen if the prosecution will attempt to get it added in any future trial.

The family has stated that they're pleased with the way the prosecution is handling the case but expressed disappointment and frustration with the jurors. They've asked the prosecution to re-try the case a third time.

Interestingly, it appears that Tensing's story has changed slightly again, in that he testified DuBose pinned his (Tensing's) arm inside the car and then accelerated, and that is what caused Tensing to shoot him.

I'll link to a local source, as many of the major outlets that are carrying the story have laced their coverage with a lot of rhetoric and hyperbole rather than reporting on the actual trial.

WCPO article about mistrial

That site has an autoplay video, FYI.


Dubose tried to drive off. It appeared Tensing thought/was caught on door when Dubose pulled off. Dubose's actions are the sole reason he got shot. Once you put an officer in a position where they think you may kill them, it may not wind up a good day for you.

I am not saying Tensing was the best cop, but the facts of the case are clear as day along with the video of the incident.



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Metallicus

Agreed. I think the prosecutor likely went for the murder indictment in the hopes that they could secure a conviction on a lesser charge.

I think one can make an argument for voluntary manslaughter, but you'd have to prove Tensing's state of mind. Reckless homicide should have probably been included from the beginning, as it seems to be an easier case.


The problem is prosecutors and politicians are responding to the SJWs demands that someone be prosecuted in these questionable cases. As a result they are over charging to appease a mob and then these cases either get thrown out, hung juries, or not guilty. The track record is not great for any of these cases.

The BLM types are desperate to prove that black men are being unjustly killed/assaulted by police. They are failing miserably at proving this...



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

If the facts were "clear as day" then the jury wouldn't be deadlocked. Much less twice.

I'm not really interested in parsing through the evidence again, as I did that at great length when the incident happened. This thread is simply an update for anybody interested in the case, not a jumping off point for you to talk about BLM.



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Edumakated

If the facts were "clear as day" then the jury wouldn't be deadlocked. Much less twice.

I'm not really interested in parsing through the evidence again, as I did that at great length when the incident happened. This thread is simply an update for anybody interested in the case, not a jumping off point for you to talk about BLM.


The jury is deadlocked because the facts are clear. He shouldn't have been charged to begin with... Prosecutors typically don't charge unless they know they are going to win. However, when you get politicians and SJWs demanding someone be charged, they often bow to political pressure even though they know there is no case.

Dubose attempted to drive off with the officer at the door of the car. Officers have been killed or injured when this occurs. A car is a weapon. If you don't believe so, go look at any number of liveleak videos and see what happens when a half ton hunk of steel hits a human body whether intentional or not.

A local man in my community was killed a few weeks ago when a car jacker stole his car and he was accidentally run over trying to stop the guy in a similar position as this officer.

Look, I am not arguing that police are infallible, but all of these cases are questionable and usually the "victim" is the one who instigated to the point that resulted in their death. We have cause and effect and personal responsibility.

I'm a black guy. When I get pulled over by a cop, I was taught by my father (who was also black and a cop for nearly 30 years) to STFU, not argue, keep my hands on the steering wheel, take my ticket or whatever and deal with it later. It doesn't matter if I think I am right or wrong. You don't argue with an armed cop on the side of the street. It is not going to end well for you.

This is common sense which is something too many of us seem to be lacking these days...



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

That doesn't even make sense. "The jury is deadlocked because the facts are clear." Then why do 8 of the 12 jurors support a conviction?

I'm pretty well versed in what can be considered a weapon. And the dangers involved in a traffic stop.

I'm also well versed about not reaching into cars during traffic stops, for any reason, because you put yourself at an increased risk of injury and death. It's repeated so often that one would think it would be common sense to not do it.

DuBose could've complied and prevented the incident. Tinsing could've also not reached into the vehicle to create the situation in which deadly force was an option.



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

The slow motion frame-by-frame video of the incident that the prosecution used as evidence clearly proves that Dubose DID NOT restrain or hold Tensings arm - it also proves that the car BARELY MOVED AT ALL until Tensing blew the guys head off and his limp body accelerated the car.

Go and watch the prosecutors evidence if you still don't believe it:



In any other western nation, including my own, that officer would already be in jail for murder after only a single, short trial.



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

One has to wonder if those supporting conviction are doing so based on the facts of the case or are they doing it because they know when its over with they are going to be targeted by media / sjw...

These groups who demand charges should be looked at for jury tampering if jurors feel compelled to vote a certain way based solely on retribution from certain groups.



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well yea, if somebody tampers with the jury then they should be looked at for jury tampering. That's not exactly rocket science.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well yea, if somebody tampers with the jury then they should be looked at for jury tampering. That's not exactly rocket science.


Not to normal people no but to the "above the law" left it may come as a shock.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I would be considered "left" (based on the metrics established here by others on ATS) and I absolutely agree that jury tampering should be dealt with harshly and swiftly. Remember: not everyone falls into the same category just because they share similar beliefs about unrelated topics.

My judgement is based on the evidence presented by the prosecution as posted above.
edit on 25/6/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well yea, if somebody tampers with the jury then they should be looked at for jury tampering. That's not exactly rocket science.


Not to normal people no but to the "above the law" left it may come as a shock.


Neat. Should we also look at those groups like the FOP that immediately push for no charges and the dropping of charges? Or is that different? Is the FOP part of the "above the law left" or...nah?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well yea, if somebody tampers with the jury then they should be looked at for jury tampering. That's not exactly rocket science.


Not to normal people no but to the "above the law" left it may come as a shock.


Neat. Should we also look at those groups like the FOP that immediately push for no charges and the dropping of charges? Or is that different? Is the FOP part of the "above the law left" or...nah?


Based on the context of my original post, you tell me. If the FOP threatens jurors to the extent they voted in a certain manner because of fear of retribution from said groups then yes, the FOP would be just as guilty as the left wing groups who do it.

Voicing / taking a position on charges based on a legal argument is acceptable, from both sides of the spectrum. Its when that position, from either side, interferes with a persons due process rights that it becomes a massive problem.

A jury of your peers is the standard... Not a jury composed of people who are threatened. It would be like threatening to take a persons kid because the person is refusing to cooperate. A forced outcome based on coercion is illegal.

Finally, being in law enforcement yourself, you know the standards required when reviewing an officers use of force. I think we can safely say certain groups have no clue what that standard is or why it is applied in the manner it is.
edit on 26-6-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh please. Let's not pretend for a second that the FOP is categorically right every time they come out and support an officer's actions, and let's not pretend that the FOP waits for all the evidence to be gathered and presented before it comes out with a statement, every single time. FOP has it's share of toolbags, just like any other organization.

The question was, sadly, necessary given that you seem inclined to go on about left-leaning groups and people with nary a mention of anybody else.

Yea, we can agree that jury tampering is bad. Unless you've got some sort of information that that's the case here, it's an irrelevant political statement. Tensing has nobody but himself to blame for how that stop went, regardless of the outcome.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You are the one who asked the question... I provided you a response based on the context of my original post. My response holds the FOP accountable the very same as if they acted like some of these left leaning groups so im not sure what part of my response confused you to the point you missed that.

As for my inclinations maybe I missed something but in pretty much the bulk of officer involved shootings where the officer is white and the person shot is black, it is in fact the left leaning groups who bitch and make demands based on anything but the actual law and scotus rulings - like BLM, no justice, no peace etc.

If you have info to the contrary by all means post it so I can get up to speed.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join