Gotta love how any questioning of the series of events automatically implies that someone supports the police officer.....

Slowly rolling doesnt get you down the road 30-40 feet in 2 seconds.

 

Right. Because after the shot, is when the car accelerated. That's how he ended up down the road.

It was a FOP representative pointing out that Deters was bashing the police for doing their job using a law on the books that has been very productive in keeping many people safe.

 

I didn't see the comment but it was definitely irresponsible on the part of Deters. If he thinks something is chicken crap he should have been lobbying for change a long time ago and not taking a cheap shot at police officers when it suits his political agenda.

 

I don't disagree with you.

Gotta love how any questioning of the series of events automatically implies that someone supports the police officer.....

 

Kinda like how in previous cases questioning the police officer means you thought the other party was innocent?

 

Yeah, funny how that works.

My prediction is the jury is going to struggle with a murder charge. My guess is it will be something less.

 

So nobody really knows what a jury is going to do, especially when by definition, in court a police officer is usually the good guy.

 

With that said, the comparison between Tensing and another cold-blooded killer is essentially legally irrelevant. Of course any defense might apply, but there's a reason he was charged with murder 2 instead of murder 1.

 

If charged with murder one, we have a huge issue because of prior calculation. All that's required for the actual charge is a purposeful killing. "Purposely" of course has its own legal definition, but dude was objectively (I have no idea what subjectively was going through his mind in those split seconds) in no threat of death or serious bodily harm and point blank fired a bullet at the victim's head. A shot to the head at that distance is about as purposeful of a killing as I can think of.

 

I agree that an actual murder conviction might not happen, (and not necessarily that you are arguing this) but I don't think he was overcharged at all.

Edited July 30, 201511 yr by Bipsic

I'm not exactly sure what your talking about. Could you please find one of my posts where I have done what you say?

I'm not exactly sure what your talking about. Could you please find one of my posts where I have done what you say?

 

I wasn't talking about you specifically. But for those of us who have questioned police actions in the past, we have gotten the exact treatment you just described, except the shoe was on the other foot.

Sorry, cant speak for anyone else but myself on the message board.

 

Doesn't address whether or not UCPD are trained like CPD. Wonder if that was on purpose.

 

I thought that was already addressed.

Gotta love how any questioning of the series of events automatically implies that someone supports the police officer.....

 

I think it's more a matter of none of that stuff matters. A man was unnecessarily killed. Everything else is irrelevant.

I thought that was already addressed.

 

It may have been and I missed it.

 

It may have been and I missed it.

 

Pretty sure they go through the same basic training as CPD. Not 100% certain though.

Are you talking about the woman who shot the man in the middle of his attempting to rape her? Are you talking about the woman who was battling w/ the rapist over his gun and it went off and shot him? That case. How does that possibly relate to what you just watched on the video? How did you possibly compare those two situations?

 

They are completely different situations in the sense that he was obviously trying to hurt her. The analogy i was trying to make is that she did not know that prior to it happening. Just as the police officer would have no way of knowing why the guy pulled his door shut and put his car in gear. At that point all the officer knows is that he was trying to flee, so it becomes a tense situation where anything can happen. What if he was trying to flee because he had just killed someone, what if he intended to run the officer over? With tensions as high as they are right now if a police officer asks you to get out of your car, your an absolute idiot if you slam the door shut and speed away.

The officer should have never put his arm in the vehicle to begin with IMO and he certainly shouldn't have drawn his weapon and fired. He had his licence plate number already, all he had to do was call in that he was fleeing. Instead, the man is dead because of a traffic infraction and multiple mistakes by the officer. I'm certainly not a cop hater, in fact I strongly support them. In this case, the officer was clearly in the wrong and was correctly charged. We'll see if the charge gets lessened to manslaughter, but for now I have zero problems with what officer Tensing has been charged with.

 

The cars registration was in another person's name. Therefore the officer did not know the guys identity. Say he ran because he had a body in his trunk, I guess that would be ok since they would be able to locate the car, but would have no idea who the driver was?

I don't think he was slamming on the gas but I believe he was beginning to press on the gas. To be honest this could be argued all day but none of it changes the fact the cop messed up. Again, in my unexpert opinion and judging only by the video, the cop should have never pulled his gun. If someone in police work can explain why he would I may change my mind.

 

Is there any clear consensus that the shot was fired where the UC cop was standing at the point of when DuBose started the engine in what likely was his attempt to flee? I seem to view it as almost a split second from when the ignition was started that the shot was fired. I do believe the defense will attempt to suggest that the shot was only fired when the officer was somehow caught and dragged by the car speeding away. I think the conviction will hinge on a matter of a few seconds in dispute.