- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
So they are adding a charge after their case fell through? Did I get that right? If so, why is that allowed? Why is the state not required to show up with the right charges from the start? If I was on the jury I would reject any late to the table charges the state adds on because they're about to get their ass handed to them. Show up with the right charges or GTFO.
Tensing's training was to NOT reach into anyone's vehicle; that has been established.
Tensing placed one round into Dubose's head & murdered DuBose, even when Tensing's life was clearly not in danger.
Tensing = another bad cop, killing unarmed motorists = Tensing = guilty ............
mis trial declared by Judge Ghiz. the jury apparently was split pretty evenly
He should have been convicted on the voluntary manslaughter charge.
after that clown was acquitted in St Pauls, I don't know how Tensing deserves to be convicted of anything
Tensing gave no order to Debose to exit the vehicle, but tried to open the car door and then climbed halfway through the window and assaulted him for not taking his seat belt off before shooting him in the head. There can be no doubt at all that Tensing went into this interaction looking for a confrontation, started one, then intentionally killed Dubose.
that's a really good question given the fact that the country prosecutor-Joe Deters was criticized by lots of us who understand this matter-for overcharging for political face time reasons. and it resulted in a hung jury last time round. Facts are, most citizens are going to have a hard time convicting someone of murder when they are a clean cut cop and the victim is a mope-a man with felony weight dope in his car, an empty bottle of gin under his car seat and several thousand dollars in the car as well. plus he's fathered 13 children with 8 women. stuff that the jury most likely knows. plus, the evidence suggests that Tensing made the decision to shoot the guy in less than a couple seconds-at MOST-
sort of hard to meet a murder spec there. and he had a legitimate reason to pull Debose over. plus Debose was acting squirrelly -probably because he had felony weight dope and a ton of cash in his car which would -best case scenario for him-be a year in jail plus the dope and cash being confiscated.
reckless homicide has some merit IMHO. Murder-no way I could make a finding of guilty based on the facts I I know them. BTW, the shooting of that guy in St Pauls seems even WORSE than this case and that cop walked.
I disagree and I suspect most of us who actually have professionally reviewed use of force cases would as well. The guy who was shot had felony weight narcotics in his car, a couple thousand dollars of narcotics proceeds and was acting squirrelly. That's not grounds to shoot him but if he had complied with the officer, he would be still dealing dope and fathering additional children with additional women. I said all along it was a bad shoot and civil damages are clearly justified. but not murder and not some sort of premeditated reason to kill the mope
Question..
Do you think its possible that the prosecutors in these cases are purposely overcharging in order to appear to certain groups that they are "trying to do something".. knowing that at the end of the day it will be acquittal or a hung jury and a mistrial.
Some of these cases.. like the Zimmerman case seem almost purposely sabotaged.
Much of which isn't particularly relevant and wasn't known until after the fact. DuBose was driving without a license. That is all Tensing knew at the time and it certainly was not a justification to assault DuBose through the window for not taking his seatbelt off let alone shoot him in the head. The murder charge was a stretch, but the voluntary manslaughter charge was spot on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?