I definitely agree there are situations that doing so can be dangerous. This wasn't one of those. He refused his questions/commands about a drivers license. That's not dangerous.

 

There are different levels of danger. I don't think he should have immediately went for the gun, but when the victim held the door shot, started the car and put it in drive, the situation got a little dangerous.

 

Again, to be clear, I think the reaction to those things was wrong.

 

It absolutely can still be true. There are many situations that wouldn't turn dangerous from not following commands.

 

I'll give you the hands in the pockets. Still don't think it automatically warrants pulling a weapon, but you would definitely be very cautious.

 

DuBose's hands weren't in his pockets. In fact it doesn't seem there was ever a time Tensing couldn't see his hands.

 

Every situation is different but if you are talking to someone as an officer, on a call of some sort and they refuse to take their hands out of their pockets...What happens if they're holding a gun and you didn't have yours already out and pointed at them?

 

There's a video of an officer (Wisconsin maybe?) where he's talking to a man involved in a domestic dispute with his wife The man is being somewhat cooperative but has his hands in his pockets. The officer told him once or twice to take them out then decided pat the guy down since he wouldn't. When he grabs the guy, the man jerks away, pulls out a pistol and executes the officer with about 4 or 5 shots to the head.

 

My point is, if you think it's a bad idea when an officer pulls a gun on someone just because they had their hands in their pockets...bad things happen fast.

 

Sorry for getting off topic a little there.

There are different levels of danger. I don't think he should have immediately went for the gun' date=' but when the victim held the door shot, started the car and put it in drive, the situation got a little dangerous. Again, to be clear, I think the reaction to those things was wrong.[/quote']

 

So with that said you agree with us that the execution was unjustified?

 

So with that said you agree with us that the execution was unjustified?

 

I answered your question in the post you quoted. Re-read that last sentence.

I answered your question in the post you quoted. Re-read that last sentence.

 

Do you think he should be charged and face life? Or was he acting within police procedures?

I agree that he never had a reason to pull the gun out in the first place, but once he did, I wonder if it is possible that he shot him by accident in the scuffle.

 

I am not saying he should not be punished either way. It seems difficult for me to believe that he purposely shot the man in the head.

 

His own police report would seem to dispute that. He said that he fired his weapon because he was being dragged. That would indicate to me that he intended to fire it. He didn't say that it went off in a struggle.

Edited July 31, 201511 yr by AverageJoesGym

Serious question' date=' sort of related to this thread. If an officer is tangled in a car and the driver starts to drive off... How long does the officer have to be dragged before most would consider his life in danger?[/quote']

 

Fair question

Fair question

 

As soon as it begins he is justified in defending himself. We can't create a false narrative in this case though. Nobody is against self defense when it's justified.

Do you think he should be charged and face life? Or was he acting within police procedures?

 

I think I've answered all of those as well at some point.

I do not. I know Deters said something about Ohio not having a "degree" distinction in regards to murder.

 

For a large portion of this thread, people have often thrown around the phrase "cold-blooded murder" and compared a standard one to Ray Tensing. Others have insisted this was a murder, while others have opined that a jury probably couldn't convict him. I haven't included this link, but have discussed the actual charge multiple times and it has been glanced over.

 

Lawriter - ORC

 

Ohio doesn't have 1st, 2nd, etc.. degree murder, but if anybody looks at the statute, Tensing has been charged with "Murder" or as commonly called, "murder 2", not to be confused with "aggravated murder" or murder 1.

 

Deters has to prove that Tensing violated the following statute: "(A) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy."

 

Further, Ohio defines the word "Purposely" as: '(A) A person acts purposely when it is the person's specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the offender's specific intention to engage in conduct of that nature."

His own police report would seem to dispute that. He said that he fired his weapon because he was being dragged. That would indicate to me that he intended to fire it. He didn't say that it went off in a struggle.

 

That is the problem I have with the officer. He seems to have no remorse or at least did not show any immediately after it happened as captured on video. He went into self-preservation mode and how he was justified to use deadly force. He wanted all around him to believe he was dragged and was in a dangerous situation that resulted in him having to shoot to kill.

I would have much more sympathy for him had he simply admitted it was an accidental shooting after he pulled his revolver out and it went off without that being his intent. He killed a man and did not seem to be choked up about it. His actions and words were all to cover his own self.

Further, Ohio defines the word "Purposely" as: '(A) A person acts purposely when it is the person's specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the offender's specific intention to engage in conduct of that nature."

 

Here is the link for Ohio's definition of purposely: Lawriter - ORC - 2901.22 Degrees of culpability attached to mental states.

 

I don't think there would be any problem convicting if murder only required knowingly or anything less than purposely, and the second part of the definition of purposely sure is a mouthful of legalese.

 

At the same time, he literally had the gun pointed at Mr. Dubose's head and pulled the trigger. I honestly can't see how the elements of murdered aren't satisfied. At the same time, while I stand firmly on the side that Tensing should be convicted, I don't know what kind of defense his team will eventually come up with.

I think I've answered all of those as well at some point.

 

I haven't seen it but may have missed it, feel free to put the post #.

I haven't seen it but may have missed it, feel free to put the post #.

 

I don't know what post # or even what thread, and I'm not interested in doing the work to find out.

 

I'll help you out though. I agree with the grand jury's decision. I don't know what his sentence should be if he is found to be guilty. I doubt he acted within his agency's policy, since they fired him. With that said, I have zero insight into their policy.

I don't know what post # or even what thread' date=' and I'm not interested in doing the work to find out. I'll help you out though. I agree with the grand jury's decision. I don't know what his sentence should be if he is found to be guilty. I doubt he acted within his agency's policy, since they fired him. With that said, I have zero insight into their policy.[/quote']

 

Fair enough you seem to agree with the majority of us then that he should be indicted and charged. I know it might be harder for you because I believe you are in LE. Shows good character though, that you can put that aside and go with the facts.