OH - Samuel Dubose, 43, killed by Cincinnati LE during traffic stop, 19 July 2015

[Tssiemer]

I don't think he's going to retry. I'll settle for Tensing never being a cop again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[i.b.nora]

Experts discuss mistrial of ex-UC cop Tensing in DuBose death
The Cinncinnati Enquirer
Chris Graves
10:55 p.m. EST November 12, 2016

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...rial-ex-uc-cop-tensing-dubose-death/93725802/

“Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said at least three jurors voted to convict Tensing of murder. Eight voted to convict him on the manslaughter charge. Those were the only charges the jury of six men and six women had to consider. It was unclear Saturday if Deters or Tensing's lawyer, Stew Mathews, had spoken with jurors. If not, experts said, Deters will certainly want to as he works to determine if he will re-try the case. Jurors are not, however, required or obligated to discuss their experience with anyone.

But only those 12 people know why they couldn't reach unanimous agreement on either charge.

"As a community, we give the police a lot of latitude," said Douglas Keene, president of Keene Trial Consulting in Austin, Texas. "The standard of proof for convicting a police officer is higher than for anybody else.

"It's very tough," said Keene. "The implications are so profound."”

*

“Philip Stinson, an associate professor of criminology at Bowling Green State University, has the statistics to back that up. Just one police officer charged with either murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting death in the nation since 2005 was convicted of murder. That officer was sentenced to 16 years in prison.”

*

“In similar cases Stinson's research has indicated that officers are either never convicted, or convicted of lesser crimes, including misdemeanors. And he said when an officer is convicted in an on-duty shooting death, they spend on average of between 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years in prison.

Deters said Saturday he will assess the case, looking closely at the likelihood of success at a re-trial. That decision is likely to come on or before Nov. 28, when Tensing is next due in court.”​

 

[ZooSleuth]

Does anybody know if the 3 that voted to convict on murder are also included in the 8 that voted to convict on voluntary manslaughter? It's not very clear to me.

 

[i.b.nora]

For Cariis, as promised. I watched the entire 1 hour 29 minute video labeled Tensing's testimony. I was a little annoyed that over 1 hour of the video was devoted to watching another video of Tensing's 3 other traffic stops he was involved in that day prior to the Dubose stop. The sound quality of the video in video was such that I really couldn't discern what was actually being said. Had I been a juror, I am fairly certain I would have found the tactic of showing those 'nice' traffic stops both insulting and a huge waste of my time on the part of the defense.

(Were the videos of the other not so nice arrests or stops he made, shown in court?)

From his testimony, I found Tensing to be a man who lives in a very small insulated bland world, who lacks curiousity and compassion about the world, about others, and who simply wears blinders. He is very goal-oriented, "best in class". He was proactive ONLY in looking for violations.

Nothing regarding his testimony about his 'sense' and 'fear' of being dragged under the car hit home for me. The most important reason being that what he described did not match the timing on the official video.

My impression is that the gun was fired a split second before the car actually took off or started moving and that it was the shot to the head that caused Dubose's foot to firmly attach itself to the gas pedal. I think it is possible that Tensing's propelling backwards was initially caused by a recoil of his weapon which was fired with one non-dominant hand.

His fear of being dragged under the car may well have been a thought but I believe it was in his after thoughts and was not the reason he fired his gun because, in fact, the car hadn't moved yet.

Regarding the video "Case for Ray Tensing": I assume that was not shown in court. I am very pro visuals. I love maps and pictures and photos, etc. and truly believe in their ability to tell a story. HOWEVER, for me, that video is less convincing than a Road Runner cartoon. I assume you are somewhat familiar with what is called Tromp L'oeil (Trick of the Eye) art. That's what that video is. It's like a sight gag. While entertaining perhaps, I don't concur with its totally unscientific conclusions.

And, if Mr Dubose acted squirrely, what does that really mean in a Ray Tensing world?

Those are my thoughts, and although I don't think he started out his day with a plan to kill someone, I think he wilfully did so and not out of fear.

I am disappointed that the jury was unable to reach a decision. I hope that the DA chooses to retry the case.

 

[i.b.nora]

For illustration purposes:

Road Runner - invisible ink

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cjdqEon7rZk

 

[CARIIS]

For Cariis, as promised. I watched the entire 1 hour 29 minute video labeled Tensing's testimony. I was a little annoyed that over 1 hour of the video was devoted to watching another video of Tensing's 3 other traffic stops he was involved in that day prior to the Dubose stop. The sound quality of the video in video was such that I really couldn't discern what was actually being said. Had I been a juror, I am fairly certain I would have found the tactic of showing those 'nice' traffic stops both insulting and a huge waste of my time on the part of the defense.

(Were the videos of the other not so nice arrests or stops he made, shown in court?)

From his testimony, I found Tensing to be a man who lives in a very small insulated bland world, who lacks curiousity and compassion about the world, about others, and who simply wears blinders. He is very goal-oriented, "best in class". He was proactive ONLY in looking for violations.

Nothing regarding his testimony about his 'sense' and 'fear' of being dragged under the car hit home for me. The most important reason being that what he described did not match the timing on the official video.

My impression is that the gun was fired a split second before the car actually took off or started moving and that it was the shot to the head that caused Dubose's foot to firmly attach itself to the gas pedal. I think it is possible that Tensing's propelling backwards was initially caused by a recoil of his weapon which was fired with one non-dominant hand.

His fear of being dragged under the car may well have been a thought but I believe it was in his after thoughts and was not the reason he fired his gun because, in fact, the car hadn't moved yet.

Regarding the video "Case for Ray Tensing": I assume that was not shown in court. I am very pro visuals. I love maps and pictures and photos, etc. and truly believe in their ability to tell a story. HOWEVER, for me, that video is less convincing than a Road Runner cartoon. I assume you are somewhat familiar with what is called Tromp L'oeil (Trick of the Eye) art. That's what that video is. It's like a sight gag. While entertaining perhaps, I don't concur with its totally unscientific conclusions.

And, if Mr Dubose acted squirrely, what does that really mean in a Ray Tensing world?

Those are my thoughts, and although I don't think he started out his day with a plan to kill someone, I think he wilfully did so and not out of fear.

I am disappointed that the jury was unable to reach a decision. I hope that the DA chooses to retry the case.

As always wonderfully written and interesting!

I think so much of it as time went by hit me as "intent"! The pot helped!! Is it logical to conclude that someone who starts a car and puts it in drive "intent" to move the car?

Just have been unable to come up with anything to counter his belief that the car was being prepared to "go"!

"Intent" IMO, is 99.5% of what we try to figure out here at WS!

Although we disagree - that's what makes the place interesting !!!

 

[CARIIS]

Does anybody know if the 3 that voted to convict on murder are also included in the 8 that voted to convict on voluntary manslaughter? It's not very clear to me.

That is neat question.

I can't link, but my "sense" in reading about it - it was all felt he was guilty - and that the difference was murder or involuntary

That could be just the way I read the articles, but I recall thinking , gosh how could none of them believe starting a car means you are going somewhere, I have never started my car and planned on not moving !!.

 

[CARIIS]

I don't think he's going to retry. I'll settle for Tensing never being a cop again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Either do I - there was a clip of him (right after) talking about costs.Careful way IMO, of dodging I did not do this correctly"!!

I think some of this decision will depend on how community and nation "behaves" in the next week or so.

Scary times huh??

 

[Tssiemer]

Either do I - there was a clip of him (right after) talking about costs.Careful way IMO, of dodging I did not do this correctly"!!

I think some of this decision will depend on how community and nation "behaves" in the next week or so.

Scary times huh??

It seems ok around here. The BLM movement still has a presence here. Apparently there's a protest later today or something. I'm just avoiding downtown as much as I can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Indy Anna]

Prosecutor Joe Deters announced he will retry Ray Tensing

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sam-dub...osecutor-to-retry-ray-tensing-after-mistrial/

 

[0101ABA]

The murder retrial of a former University of Cincinnati police officer has been scheduled for May 25, and a judge said Monday she intends to keep the racially charged case in Cincinnati.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/samuel-...e-sets-date-for-retrial-date-for-ray-tensing/

 

[LibraStarr]

Closing arguments live now:
http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/live-stream-1/

 

[Rocco]

Closing arguments live now:
http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/live-stream-1/

This is the 3rd day of deliberations. I don't see how 12 people are ever come to an agreement. If Tensing had jumped back to just let the car leave,it's possible he could have fallen, in which case he probably would have been run over by the rear wheels of the car since the car had to pull out to the left where he was standing.

 

[KaaBoom]

This is the 3rd day of deliberations. I don't see how 12 people are ever come to an agreement. If Tensing had jumped back to just let the car leave,it's possible he could have fallen, in which case he probably would have been run over by the rear wheels of the car since the car had to pull out to the left where he was standing.

That makes no sense. He was beside the car. The car could not have traveled sideways, and shooting the driver doesn't stop the car anyway. If he jumped back, there would have been more space between him and the car, and the chances of him getting run over would have been reduced. Shooting a driver from the side of the car is not self defense.

Of course, if you believe that LEOs are always right, no matter what, then you will believe whatever you want to believe anyway to back up that conclusion.

 

[Rocco]

That makes no sense. He was beside the car. The car could not have traveled sideways, and shooting the driver doesn't stop the car anyway. If he jumped back, there would have been more space between him and the car, and the chances of him getting run over would have been reduced. Shooting a driver from the side of the car is not self defense.

Of course, if you believe that LEOs are always right, no matter what, then you will believe whatever you want to believe anyway to back up that conclusion.

He was right beside the car. The car couldn't go straight and pull out because there was a car parked in front of him. So he turned the wheels to the left, or sideways if you want to put it that way.

Sure, he could have jumped back---and maybe fallen down when he did so. As it was, he fell down and was lucky the car didn't run over him.


Once Dubose re-started the car, put it into gear and stepped on the accelerator, nothing good was going to happen. He could have tried to get away and hit another vehicle at a high rate of speed, he could have hit kids playing in the street, he could have run over Tensing. Any of those things could have also have happened after he got shot but it all came down to what he did---started the car, put it into gear, tried to accelerate.


If you believe that there is no reason for LE to ever shoot someone, you'll believe whatever you want to believe to back up your conclusion that they're always the bad guys, out to kill people because they're arrogant and don't care about human life. I was all for someone being held accountable for the death of Freddie Gray---he was alive when he got into the van and dead when he got out. One or more of the LE officers involved in that incident should have been held accountable and I said so at the time. I don't ALWAYS agree with LE.

Tensing made a split second decision based on Dubose's actions with his 2 ton lethal weapon.

 

[Rocco]

#BREAKING : Jury is dismissed until tomorrow morning. Nothing is on the record. They'll be back at 8:30a @WCPO #TensingTrial
3:05 PM - 21 Jun 2017

 

[Tssiemer]

Dismissed back to sequester right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rocco]

Dismissed back to sequester right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right

 

[KaaBoom]

If you believe that there is no reason for LE to ever shoot someone, you'll believe whatever you want to believe to back up your conclusion that they're always the bad guys, out to kill people because they're arrogant and don't care about human life. I was all for someone being held accountable for the death of Freddie Gray---he was alive when he got into the van and dead when he got out. One or more of the LE officers involved in that incident should have been held accountable and I said so at the time. I don't ALWAYS agree with LE.

Tensing made a split second decision based on Dubose's actions with his 2 ton lethal weapon.

Now you are misrepresenting what I said. There is no good reason for a cop to ever shoot at a moving car, unless it's to stop someone in the car who is shooting at them. I never said there is no reason for a cop to ever shoot someone. Shooting the driver does not stop the car from moving, as this case has proven. So doing so is not a legitimate self-defence. Dozens of police departments have changed their policies to prohibit shooting at moving vehicles as a direct result of this case. So many police experts agree with what I'm saying, and have changed their policies to reflect that. You believe that the police should always be justified in shooting someone no matter what. I get that, I get it. But hopefully there are at least a few people on the jury who are more objective than you. Though I'm not holding my breath.

Typically in shootings like this, police say that the the vehicle itself is being used as a deadly weapon, justifying the use of deadly force. Experts, however, say that shooting at moving vehicles is ill-advised for a number of reasons. For one, it is extremely difficult to hit a moving target, and officers waste time aiming and firing that could be spent getting out of the way.

Secondly, shooting at a car is no guarantee that it will stop. In many cases, for example the shooting of Samuel DuBose in Cincinnati in 2015, shooting someone behind the wheel of a car leads to the vehicle driving unguided until it hits something, potentially endangering bystanders.

Most large police departments in the country, including those of New York, Los Angeles, Houston and Denver, prohibit officers from shooting into cars.

Police shooting of Texas teen in moving car violated federal guidance

 

[Rocco]

Now you are misrepresenting what I said. There is no good reason for a cop to ever shoot at a moving car, unless it's to stop someone in the car who is shooting at them. I never said there is no reason for a cop to ever shoot someone. Shooting the driver does not stop the car from moving, as this case has proven. So doing so is not a legitimate self-defence. Dozens of police departments have changed their policies to prohibit shooting at moving vehicles as a direct result of this case. So many police experts agree with what I'm saying, and have changed their policies to reflect that. You believe that the police should always be justified in shooting someone no matter what. I get that, I get it. But hopefully there are at least a few people on the jury who are more objective than you. Though I'm not holding my breath.



Police shooting of Texas teen in moving car violated federal guidance

I have NEVER said police should always be justified in shooting someone no matter what so no, you don't get it. You just made that up and I don't appreciate it. Speak for yourself, not me.