Just to put the jurisdiction argument to bed here in this thread, UC and Cincy PD have a mutual-benefit agreement where Cincy PD assists UC in some ways and UCPD picks up patrols in areas off-campus. He was where he was supposed to be.

He was where he was supposed to be.

 

There was never a debate (at least on my end) about whether or not this officer was where he was supposed to be or not.

 

Someone said they believed they could patrol up to three miles away from campus. I said I believed that was too far.

Latest update;

People are demanding the release of the video.

Mayor says 'reform is in order' for UC police.

Tick tock, tick tock.

One description of the altercation said that when the officer and the victim were fighting/arguing about getting out of the car the officer fell when he was trying to pull the door open. Car took off. Officer then fired.

 

IF (KEY WORD HERE) that is the case I would struggle to see the shooting being justified.

Question: Let's say that when the officer pulled him over, it was obvious that he was drunk. Therefore, when he took off, the reason the officer shot him was to stop him and prevent him from causing accidents with other vehicles and pedestrians.

 

Does that ever happen? I mean if our police officers are here to PROTECT and to serve.....

Latest update;

People are demanding the release of the video.

Mayor says 'reform is in order' for UC police.

Tick tock, tick tock.

 

Of course they are, they want a reason to riot.

Question: Let's say that when the officer pulled him over, it was obvious that he was drunk. Therefore, when he took off, the reason the officer shot him was to stop him and prevent him from causing accidents with other vehicles and pedestrians.

 

Does that ever happen? I mean if our police officers are here to PROTECT and to serve.....

 

I'm sure in a country as big as ours, just about anything happens at least every once in a while, but if a drunk is leaving a bar, should we shoot them or just call the cops down the road?

I have to hand it to Mr. Deters. He is standing his ground in the interest of real justice IMO. He is not refusing to release the video ever, just refusing to release it until a grand jury sees it and due process, without public frenzy can occur.

 

The public does have a right to see it, but not immediately (Just my opinion. I don't know what the law says about the release).

It makes me angry reading the Enquirer where everyone is demanding the release of the video now! I always thought the Enquirer had a lot of bias, but it is the only paper in town. Seems like they are intentionally trying to stir the pot and escalate the situation.

I have to hand it to Mr. Deters. He is standing his ground in the interest of real justice IMO. He is not refusing to release the video ever, just refusing to release it until a grand jury sees it and due process, without public frenzy can occur.

 

The public does have a right to see it, but not immediately (Just my opinion. I don't know what the law says about the release).

It makes me angry reading the Enquirer where everyone is demanding the release of the video now! I always thought the Enquirer had a lot of bias, but it is the only paper in town. Seems like they are intentionally trying to stir the pot and escalate the situation.

 

Agreed. The public can wait until after the appropriate people see it first. I think that has been a mistake in other cases across the country. Releasing video prematurely.

The Enquirer quoted the man'a 9 year old child at a rally stating he wanted to see the tape. That's just pure propaganda to me to put that on a child like that. Let Deters and the police do their job properly. Answers will come.

CINCINNATI – A white University of Cincinnati police officer said a unarmed black motorist was dragging him with his car and he feared he wouid be run over when he fired a single shot that killed him, according to the police incident report.

 

UC police officer said motorist was dragging him, so he shot him - Story

We still need to see the video and I agree with the protesters/family/etc. that the video needs to be released before the case goes to the Grand Jury.

CINCINNATI – A white University of Cincinnati police officer said a unarmed black motorist was dragging him with his car and he feared he wouid be run over when he fired a single shot that killed him, according to the police incident report.

 

UC police officer said motorist was dragging him, so he shot him - Story

 

If that's how it happened, it was completely justified.

 

My only question is if they struggled and he was knocked to the ground, how was he being drug, and how was he able to fire a head shot?

We still need to see the video and I agree with the protesters/family/etc. that the video needs to be released before the case goes to the Grand Jury.

 

Why? Why let there be a chance the Grand Jury is influenced by public reaction?

There was never a debate (at least on my end) about whether or not this officer was where he was supposed to be or not.

 

Someone said they believed they could patrol up to three miles away from campus. I said I believed that was too far.

 

From the article;

Some community members have questioned what Tensing was doing away from campus. Goodrich said the traffic stop was initiated while Dubose was driving on campus and Dubose did not pull over until after he and Tensing were off campus.

 

A mutual-aid agreement, signed by interim city manager Scott Stiles in December 2013, allows University of Cincinnati police officers and a host of other law enforcement agencies to work outside of their jurisdiction.

If that's how it happened, it was completely justified.

 

My only question is if they struggled and he was knocked to the ground, how was he being drug, and how was he able to fire a head shot?

 

We agree on all counts here and that is exactly why we need to see the video before anything is set in stone.