And then there is this, today, in about 3 hours.

 

 

So, do they want justice? Or do they think anything short of firing, arresting, indicting, and throwing the officer in prison will not be justice?

 

To some, no matter what the evidence proves, including the video, these people won't be happy unless THEY get what THEY want.

I don't like how WCPO's website quoted the events Facebook page by including the word "murder". It's unknown at this point of what happened, they shouldn't have quoted that sentence.

 

It is very interesting that the video hasn't been released yet, and that the mayor of Cincy and the president of UC have already talked about reform? A preemptive strategy? They know it will not look good so when the video is released they can say "look, we have already changed policy and the officer is already fired and indicted"?

I found this interesting, the family hired lawyer who defended George Zimmerman

 

"No justice, no peace, no racist police" - Cincinnati News, FOX19-WXIX TV

 

"It's a beautiful experience. It's peaceful. It's positive. But I challenge the president. President Ono, I challenge you as an alumni 1996. Let's sit at the table and come up with a strategy that is going to best serve the students, the citizens and the city,” said one Black Lives Matter organizer.

 

According to Bishop Bobby Hilton, the Dubose family has retained an attorney Mark O'Mara of Florida who represented George Zimmerman in the Travon Martin murder case from 2013."

City Manager says while he has not seen the video he is "told" that it's "not good."

City Manager says while he has not seen the video he is "told" that it's "not good."

 

I'm assuming that since it's the City Manager, that means not good for the police?

I'm assuming that since it's the City Manager, that means not good for the police?

 

That's the way I took it as he also said a man died who didn't need to die.

City Manager says while he has not seen the video he is "told" that it's "not good."

 

I think that's a bad move on the City Manager's part. He's using his office's clout to disseminate hearsay.

I think that's a bad move on the City Manager's part. He's using his office's clout to disseminate hearsay.

 

I thought the same. Needs to be smarter.

City Manager says while he has not seen the video he is "told" that it's "not good."

 

I'm assuming that since it's the City Manager, that means not good for the police?

 

That's the way I took it as he also said a man died who didn't need to die.

 

I think that's a bad move on the City Manager's part. He's using his office's clout to disseminate hearsay.

 

I thought the same. Needs to be smarter.

 

All this is exactly why the video needs to be made public before the case goes to the Grand Jury.

 

I am not sure if we are there yet but this incident is about to give several Cincinnati/Hamilton County officials a black eye and major strike against their credibility moving forward.

 

Release the video, let the chips fall where they may.

I think that's a bad move on the City Manager's part. He's using his office's clout to disseminate hearsay.

 

Agreed. I even posted early this morning that the delay was odd, and with UC and the city saying "we will change procedure". Like they are getting things ready before the video is released.

 

Are they possibly talking to the Feds? Or planning with other local agencies to prepare for when the video is released? Either way the video shows, there will be trouble. Either way the potential trial of the officer goes, there very well may be more trouble.

The city manager needs to keep his mouth zipped and worry about the budget. Let the big boys do the police work.

The city manager needs to keep his mouth zipped and worry about the budget. Let the big boys do the police work.

 

I now see that the CPD chief has said the same thing.

Tempers are rising,

Temperatures are rising,

I am really afraid that All hell is about to break out.

Doesn't sound good right now. It seems as though Deters might be trying to decide what charges to present to the grand jury "if" they indict the officer, "after" they view the video. It's ironic how information is leaked out when an officer is justified using force, but when its the other way around they want to be "fair" with the officer as to not change the impartiality of a grand jury.

Is the body camera issued/ approved by the department? Sounds to me, Deters would like a determination by a higher court if a body camera is an approved device. I'm assuming if it's not approved he wouldn't show it to the jury, but time is not on his side. Either way a ruling will not be sent down by the time the grand jury views the video.

Dont understand why many of you want the video released before everything is presented to grand jury. Ive been on grand jury before, everything they are doing makes sense to me. Once the video is out witness stories will change, by not releasing the video to public, you get everyone's statements and testimony before they can formulate a story based on the video.