We see him starting off from the side of the car when 90% of people thought he approached the hood.

 

Doesn't matter. What matters is what happened that we do not see.

Irrelevant.

 

Not even close to irrelevant, when 90% of us heard the story, we thought he approached the hood and suddenly had to get on top of it. Why do you think everyone was so shocked when they first saw the video? When in reality, he got in front of the car and on the hood after it took off. There is a difference there.

 

Not even close to irrelevant, when 90% of us heard the story, we thought he approached the hood and suddenly had to get on top of it. Why do you think everyone was so shocked when they first saw the video? When in reality, he got in front of the car and on the hood after it took off. There is a difference there.

 

But what is important and unseen is why he ended up on the hood, not how.

 

Did she steer towards him?

Doesn't matter. What matters is what happened that we do not see.

 

For the most part I agree, however, the video does show things that match the officer's testimony. It is clear she begins accelerating, and that there is about 45 seconds between that occuring and the car reversing to it's end position. What happened in those 45 seconds is key, but regardless, it's clear she was not obeying the command to stop. As a juror, I'd find it hard to look past that. Her actions led to the following actions. If the officer felt he was in danger, he had a right to do what he did. I'm sure it wasn't his intent to kill. It was a split second decision. This was a horrible tragedy that could have been avoided, but actions by the deceased seem, in my opinion, to have directly led to the ending.

 

It's not the officer's job to move out of her way and let her go (presumably down a back road with other kids walking down it and people driving down it). It's her job to stop. Period. It'd be a shame to see an officer charged criminally for doing what he felt he had to do in seconds notice to protect his own life, and that of other innocent teens.

Not even close to irrelevant, when 90% of us heard the story, we thought he approached the hood and suddenly had to get on top of it. Why do you think everyone was so shocked when they first saw the video? When in reality, he got in front of the car and on the hood after it took off. There is a difference there.

 

You have to convict on evidence, right?

 

Tell me what happened in the 20 or so seconds where we see nothing.

For the most part I agree, however, the video does show things that match the officer's testimony. It is clear she begins accelerating, and that there is about 45 seconds between that occuring and the car reversing to it's end position. What happened in those 45 seconds is key, but regardless, it's clear she was not obeying the command to stop. As a juror, I'd find it hard to look past that. Her actions led to the following actions. If the officer felt he was in danger, he had a right to do what he did. I'm sure it wasn't his intent to kill. It was a split second decision. This was a horrible tragedy that could have been avoided, but actions by the deceased seem, in my opinion, to have directly led to the ending.

 

It's not the officer's job to move out of her way and let her go (presumably down a back road with other kids walking down it and people driving down it). It's her job to stop. Period. It'd be a shame to see an officer charged criminally for doing what he felt he had to do in seconds notice to protect his own life, and that of other innocent teens.

 

Agree with a lot.

 

However, the fact she didn't obey his command doesn't make her a free target. Evidence still matters.

But there is video and eye witness testamonies. You have to sort out the truth there.

 

So the testimonies will come from a law officer and kids that were in the car? One kid had an outstanding warrant from what I remember hearing. I'm guessing the kids in the car did not have to be drug/alcohol tested like the officer and the deceased driver of the car.

You have to convict on evidence, right?

 

Tell me what happened in the 20 or so seconds where we see nothing.

Agreed! People want to assume things on what they saw on the video and/or what they want to jump to in their own theory. There is, like all cases, evidence and facts that the public knows nothing about. As you asked, what happened in the 20 seconds or so when we saw nothing?

You have to convict on evidence' date=' right? Tell me what happened in the 20 or so seconds where we see nothing.[/quote']

 

All of the bystanders will have to tell you and the jury what happened.

You have to convict on evidence, right?

 

Tell me what happened in the 20 or so seconds where we see nothing.

 

While that is true we all know juries guess at times right?

Agree with a lot.

 

However, the fact she didn't obey his command doesn't make her a free target. Evidence still matters.

 

True but I don't think her ignoring the command is what made her a target. It was her ignoring the command AND proceeding down a road with kids walking and other cops/cars driving, making her a danger to other's safety. A car is a weapon, I know we've all heard that. And if the officer perceived her actions to be that of someone impaired, he had a right to do what he had to do to prevent harm to other innocent people.

Officers from Ft Thomas, Florence, and Campbell County are assisting.

Officers from Ft Thomas, Florence, and Campbell County are assisting.

 

Assisting with what?

Assisting with what?

 

Investigation.

Officers from Ft Thomas, Florence, and Campbell County are assisting.

 

Local investigating local, makes no sense.