- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2nd mistrial in police shooting- Cincinnati shooting
Posted on 6/23/17 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 6/23/17 at 5:41 pm
abc news
1st trial=
should there be a 3rd trial?
quote:
A second mistrial was declared Friday in the case of a white University of Cincinnati officer who killed an unarmed black motorist during a traffic stop. It's the latest racially charged police shooting case to show the reluctance of U.S. jurors to convict officers. Hamilton County Judge Leslie Ghiz declared a mistrial after more than 30 hours of jury deliberations over five days. The jurors had said earlier Friday that they were unable to reach a verdict in Officer Ray Tensing's trial, but Ghiz had sent them back to try again on the counts of murder and voluntary manslaughter.
Instead, they sent her another note some three hours later, saying: "We are almost evenly split regarding our votes."
The note said they didn't foresee reaching a unanimous verdict. Tensing looked down, his hand on his face, as the judge announced the mistrial over the death of 43-year-old Sam DuBose, who was shot in the head while driving away from the traffic stop on July 19, 2015. Tensing and his family left quickly without comment.
1st trial=
quote:
Four jury members wanted to convict Tensing of murder, according to Hamilton County Prosectuor Joe Deters.
The remaining eight elected to acquit him on the murder. The majority of jurors, eight total, voted to convict Tensing of voluntary manslaughter. Four wanted to acquit on that charge.
should there be a 3rd trial?
6
Posted on 6/23/17 at 5:43 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
should there be a 3rd trial?
Nope, unless it's a civil suit.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 5:48 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
should there be a 3rd trial?
No.
Even if you think he's guilty, nearly split juries indicate the case just isn't there
This post was edited on 6/23/17 at 5:52 pm
Posted on 6/23/17 at 5:50 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:No.
should there be a 3rd trial?
Go ahead and just strap him to the gurney. He's a murderer.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 5:53 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Go ahead and just strap him to the gurney. He's a murderer.
You'd be a good juror!
Posted on 6/23/17 at 5:59 pm to ShortyRob
Glad I'm not on that jury or one in that scenario.
The law is so slanted towards cops that it is truly the victims ignorance that gets him dead.
So, as a juror I would jaded by the fact I may see a case where the officer shouldn't have killed him, but the law allows it. Like the Castile case. Dude kept reaching for his wallet where his gun was and didn't stop when the cop told him to although Castile calmly told him that he had a weapon and needed to tell him. It got him killed. The cop was jumpy, but the law allows his action to be justified.
That is what makes these cases so hard to prosecute. You are asking jurors to convict cops based on their--attitudes; actions based on outcome (should he have used his weapon or not?); etc.. when almost 90 something % of the time the law protects the action unless blindly obvious.
They better draw clearer lines in the law towards police action, but if you do that it becomes like attempting to litigate war. I know it isn't the same, but the concept is similar. You start telling a cop what he can and can't do by LAW you could get the opposite scenario where bad guys know they won't be shot and can take advantage of situations.
So what do you do?
The law is so slanted towards cops that it is truly the victims ignorance that gets him dead.
So, as a juror I would jaded by the fact I may see a case where the officer shouldn't have killed him, but the law allows it. Like the Castile case. Dude kept reaching for his wallet where his gun was and didn't stop when the cop told him to although Castile calmly told him that he had a weapon and needed to tell him. It got him killed. The cop was jumpy, but the law allows his action to be justified.
That is what makes these cases so hard to prosecute. You are asking jurors to convict cops based on their--attitudes; actions based on outcome (should he have used his weapon or not?); etc.. when almost 90 something % of the time the law protects the action unless blindly obvious.
They better draw clearer lines in the law towards police action, but if you do that it becomes like attempting to litigate war. I know it isn't the same, but the concept is similar. You start telling a cop what he can and can't do by LAW you could get the opposite scenario where bad guys know they won't be shot and can take advantage of situations.
So what do you do?
Posted on 6/23/17 at 6:02 pm to reo45
quote:
So what do you do?
The opposite of jury nullification...
Edit: by this I mean convict, shitting on the unjust pro cop statutes.
This post was edited on 6/23/17 at 6:10 pm
Posted on 6/23/17 at 6:04 pm to reo45
quote:
So what do you do?
Well. You do what you believe is right.
Unfortunately, you can't force 11 other people to agree with you
Posted on 6/23/17 at 6:14 pm to TigerintheNO
That one was bad. I'm generally a supporter of police in these situations because I give a lot of leeway for heat-of-the-moment responses, but this particular case is hard to justify.
He shot the guy for driving away.
He shot the guy for driving away.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 8:29 pm to TigerintheNO
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/19/17 at 12:22 am
Posted on 6/23/17 at 8:52 pm to Negative Nomad
quote:And that's a terrible indictment on our justice system in a number of cases (like the South Carolina one).
They aren't going to convict these officers.
quote:Sure, but this is unacceptable to use as justification for the actions when they are clearly unreasonable (like the South Carolina one).
Some of you guys better pay attention to what police say and take note
Posted on 6/23/17 at 8:57 pm to buckeye_vol
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/19/17 at 12:22 am
Posted on 6/23/17 at 9:06 pm to TigerintheNO
Perhaps the DA's overcharge on these cases. The one in Baltimore did.
Even if every single one of the cops in these cases was found guilty that is still a very small rate of them.
What are there? a handful a year? out of a million cops?
Even if every single one of the cops in these cases was found guilty that is still a very small rate of them.
What are there? a handful a year? out of a million cops?
Posted on 6/23/17 at 9:06 pm to Negative Nomad
quote:
Dude the only thing you should be saying to police is yes sir/no sir, here's my ID. After that shut the frick up and do as your told
Posted on 6/23/17 at 9:09 pm to buckeye_vol
It's just too damn difficult to convict a cop by jury.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 9:10 pm to Negative Nomad
quote:And "should" is fine, death is not a acceptable alternative for less than should.
Dude the only thing you should be saying to police is yes sir/no sir, here's my ID.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 11:09 pm to reo45
quote:
So what do you do?
The change doesn't happen on juries. It happens with other reforms. There won't be any reform without them driving it. Make it in their interest to police themselves.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 11:10 pm to Negative Nomad
quote:
Dude the only thing you should be saying to police is yes sir/no sir, here's my ID.
You'll take what you get and like it.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 11:11 pm to gthog61
quote:
What are there? a handful a year? out of a million cops?
There's a handful of bad police shootings that result in death. There's plenty of other bad shite going on.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 11:13 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
That one was bad. I'm generally a supporter of police in these situations because I give a lot of leeway for heat-of-the-moment responses, but this particular case is hard to justify.
We should've noticed after the Kelly Thomas case. But no one even really knows who he was.
If the jury couldn't convict those POS cops, it's very unlikely they convict any cop.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News