I can see the family not wanting the video released' date=' but it needs to be available fort those who want to see it. I hate to say that, but there was no big outcry about releasing video with the UC officer when he killed that guy. If the videos can be released of a non officer being killed, then video should be released when an officer is killed. The family has a choice to watch the video or not, no one will force them to watch it.[/quote']

 

I disagree with you for once, nobody 'needs' to see it.

I can see the family not wanting the video released, but it needs to be available fort those who want to see it. I hate to say that, but there was no big outcry about releasing video with the UC officer when he killed that guy. If the videos can be released of a non officer being killed, then video should be released when an officer is killed. The family has a choice to watch the video or not, no one will force them to watch it.

 

 

Someone is still alive to face charges in the UC shooting. This case is closed. We know how he died; I don't need to see it.

I disagree with you for once, nobody 'needs' to see it.

In part I agree with you, but I am sure some will want to see it to put to rest what happened. Will I watch it? No. But if they allow any camera footage to be released they have to release all of them, when requested. A judge will see that they are required to be released. If anything to shut some people up who will claim that officer Kim was in the wrong. Anything short of not releasing all video when requested will end in an argument of what criteria needs to be met for video to be released.

 

I am not following this at all at the moment, but does the family of the other guy want it released?

In part I agree with you, but I am sure some will want to see it to put to rest what happened. Will I watch it? No. But if they allow any camera footage to be released they have to release all of them, when requested. A judge will see that they are required to be released. If anything to shut some people up who will claim that officer Kim was in the wrong. Anything short of not releasing all video when requested will end in an argument of what criteria needs to be met for video to be released.

 

I am not following this at all at the moment, but does the family of the other guy want it released?

 

Haven't heard. The guy's mother witnessed the entire thing and even called for help on Officer Kim's radio while trying to help him. I'm thinking she doesn't need to see it again either.

I can see the family not wanting the video released, but it needs to be available fort those who want to see it. I hate to say that, but there was no big outcry about releasing video with the UC officer when he killed that guy. If the videos can be released of a non officer being killed, then video should be released when an officer is killed. The family has a choice to watch the video or not, no one will force them to watch it.

 

The victim's family wanted the video released in UC officer's case. The victim's family in this Sonny Kim's case does not want it released. What good can come of releasing this video. The murderer called 911 to ambush the officer.

In part I agree with you' date=' but I am sure some will want to see it to put to rest what happened. Will I watch it? No. But if they allow any camera footage to be released they have to release all of them, when requested. A judge will see that they are required to be released. If anything to shut some people up who will claim that officer Kim was in the wrong. Anything short of not releasing all video when requested will end in an argument of what criteria needs to be met for video to be released. I am not following this at all at the moment, but does the family of the other guy want it released?[/quote']

 

Discretion should be used. If people wanna see people get murdered, ISIS has it all over the net.

There's no reason this should be released and the media outlets pushing it should be ashamed.

In this case, unlike the DuBose case, I lean against the release because there has not been a question of it being unjustified. I assume Deters looked at the video and decided it either a)did not need to go before a grand jury or b)it did but no indictment was returned. Both of those make me say it doesn't need to be released.

The victim's family wanted the video released in UC officer's case. The victim's family in this Sonny Kim's case does not want it released. What good can come of releasing this video. The murderer called 911 to ambush the officer.

 

Not to sound callous but Kim's family's desires are secondary.

Common decency and common sense no longer exist.

What purpose does the release of the video serve? There isn't a point of law to argue or understanding of the events needed.

If I was on the Enquirer's editorial board, I'm not one hundred percent sure what I would do. In that position I would probably lean toward putting in a request because I would want free access to all information.

 

I guess what I am saying is I understand them asking for the tape, but I don't really get why they had to put out this editorial and assuming it shows what we think it does, will be disappointed in them if they post it on their site or even link to it.

The Enquirer is dying. It needs something...anything to keep itself relevant and hopefully keep readers and advertisers. It's no longer a NEWSpaper in my opinion. It's a magazine with sensational crap and not real journalistic news, again in my opinion. If you work for the Enquirer, I'm sorry for my opinion but that is the way I feel.

Joe Deters says he expects to release his findings regarding this case on Wednesday.

 

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/2015/11/30/sonny-kim-press-conference-may-come-wednesday/76591468/

Question for @theguru, other officers, legal experts, or people who think they know(like me):

 

Let's say the second officer rolls up on Sonny Kim's cruiser and sees Kim down on the ground and a man standing next to him. The male raises his hands hands above his head with no weapon in a "don't shoot/I give" motion.

 

Can an officer shoot him? If the officer did shoot him would the officer be subject to arrest/