Cincinnati campus officer shoots and kills unarmed black male

[*michaelsean*]

(07-22-2015, 11:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: Horrible. Seriously.  I don't want to see any officer injured or killed in the line of duty.  The person who did it should be strung up and treated like a pinata.  And I mean that with out my heart.

Its a dangerous job.

Nothing to do with this case.

I'm just saying that just because the person is the one who called doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.  

[*Nately120*]

(07-22-2015, 11:16 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: And because of that, I refute the notion of him being "unarmed"
Behind the wheel of a 2-ton bullet while intoxicated seems pretty armed to me....

Did he have a gun? No. But was he in a situation where he couldn't have caused harm to those around him? Absolutely not

WARNING: HYPERBOLE AHEAD

True, drunk drivers are more likely to kill you than a terrorist BUT doesn't this open the door for drunk drivers to be shot before they can potentially kill anyone?  I realize I'm intentionally slippery-ing up a slope here, but if I open fire on a guy who insists he is "Cool to drive" and then use his blood toxicology report along with statistics on drunk-driving homicides to back up my case that I was defending society from someone who could very well injure or kill innocents I wouldn't trust a jury to find me not guilty.

[GMDino]

(07-22-2015, 11:18 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm just saying that just because the person is the one who called doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.  

Yeah, you need to watch the video.  It was murder.  Even if they "didn't admit any wrong doing".

[*Nately120*]

(07-22-2015, 11:18 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm just saying that just because the person is the one who called doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.  

Friends I have in law enforcement hate domestic disturbance calls for this very reason.  A woman can call the cops on the guy and then as soon as the police start dealing with him suddenly she's on his side again and the couple unites in a common enemy of the police that SHE forced into the situation.  The dynamics of such situations are just volatile.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(07-22-2015, 11:24 AM)Nately120 Wrote: WARNING:  HYPERBOLE AHEAD

True, drunk drivers are more likely to kill you than a terrorist BUT doesn't this open the door for drunk drivers to be shot before they can potentially kill anyone?  I realize I'm intentionally slippery-ing up a slope here, but if I open fire on a guy who insists he is "Cool to drive" and then use his blood toxicology report along with statistics on drunk-driving homicides to back up my case that I was defending society from someone who could very well injure or kill innocents I wouldn't trust a jury to find me not guilty.

1. Never said he should be shot for being a drunk driver, which is kind of what you are insinuating here.

2. I just said he wasn't exactly unarmed. He was (as of now) reportedly drunk (why else hand a cop a bottle of booze?) and he tried to speed away after a struggle. 

Speeding away after producing a bottle of booze during a traffic stop, and potentially hurting the officer in the process (bruised legs) isn't unarmed. At that point he's a danger to the community. 

Remember that girl in Kentucky a while back, at a party and cops show up...tries to run from the cops in her car and pins a cop on it so he opens fire? 
Yeah a car is a weapon in these types of situations. 

[*Nately120*]

(07-22-2015, 11:29 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: 1. Never said he should be shot for being a drunk driver, which is kind of what you are insinuating here.

2. I just said he wasn't exactly unarmed. He was (as of now) reportedly drunk (why else hand a cop a bottle of booze?) and he tried to speed away after a struggle. 

Speeding away after producing a bottle of booze during a traffic stop, and potentially hurting the officer in the process (bruised legs) isn't unarmed. At that point he's a danger to the community. 

Remember that girl in Kentucky a while back, at a party and cops show up...tries to run from the cops in her car and pins a cop on it so he opens fire? 
Yeah a car is a weapon in these types of situations. 

I'm not disagreeing, nor am I saying that I am debating your specific post, hence the disclaimers.  A generic rant I always had was that people don't really understand statistics or the likelihood of things enough to allocate proper amounts of concern or prevention.  I know people who are inordinately concerned some terrorist is going to kill them but then they don't buckle their seatbelts (mostly because they totally KNOW someone who only survived a crash because he wasn't bucked up) and drive too fast, and drive and text, etc..

At any rate, a drunk driver is going to dangerously operate a multi-ton missile that can, and too often does, seriously injure or kill innocent people.  Maybe we should at least be able to beat that person into unconsciousness for the good of society.  Don't mind me, I just want everyone beating each other.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-22-2015, 10:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: I guess you didn't see the one where the guy was shot eight times?

I posted it with the settlement where they said its not an admission of doing anything wrong.

Of course you also ignore when I say if the officer's life was being threatened...which would mean an investigation needs to be done.  So, really, no surprise coming from you.

No, didn't see it.  I don't feel the need to comment on every single incident involving the police that you bring up.  The problem I have with you in regards to this issue is you're extremely disingenuous.  Your posts clearly indicate how you really feel but you hide behind verbage and feign innocence when called out.  I'd actually have a lot more respect for your opinions if you were simply honest about them.  In closing, you will recall that I have never claimed that abuse by LEO's does not occur so posting one incident in which it occurred does nothing to refute my prior arguments.  Thank you, drive through.

[GMDino]

(07-22-2015, 11:29 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: 1. Never said he should be shot for being a drunk driver, which is kind of what you are insinuating here.

2. I just said he wasn't exactly unarmed. He was (as of now) reportedly drunk (why else hand a cop a bottle of booze?) and he tried to speed away after a struggle. 

Speeding away after producing a bottle of booze during a traffic stop, and potentially hurting the officer in the process (bruised legs) isn't unarmed. At that point he's a danger to the community. 

Remember that girl in Kentucky a while back, at a party and cops show up...tries to run from the cops in her car and pins a cop on it so he opens fire? 
Yeah a car is a weapon in these types of situations. 

Totally agree that if they are a clear and present danger something needs to be done and in those circumstances someone may die, even accidentally.

In that KY incident the officer also kinda fibbed about the situation in that he jumped on the hood if I remember correctly.  But other than that I do agree its best to get them off the roads.

[GMDino]

(07-22-2015, 11:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, didn't see it.  I don't feel the need to comment on every single incident involving the police that you bring up.  The problem I have with you in regards to this issue is you're extremely disingenuous.  Your posts clearly indicate how you really feel but you hide behind verbage and feign innocence when called out.  I'd actually have a lot more respect for your opinions if you were simply honest about them.  In closing, you will recall that I have never claimed that abuse by LEO's does not occur so posting one incident in which it occurred does nothing to refute my prior arguments.  Thank you, drive through.

Well that's because you decided that because I point them out I must only think one way.  

If I wanted to post every incident where an officer appeared to abuse their power I wouldn't have time to hold a full time job.  

I want officers safe, and want them held to a very high standard because they are in a position of power over their fellow citizens.  I don't see how those two things are in conflict.

If I see an episode where the officer is wrong I will comment on it.  If I see where one is killed I will comment on it.  But pointing out one incident doesn't mean its wide spread any more than it means its an isolated incident.  It is what it is.

I love the Steelers but have no problem pointing out when they do something boneheaded.

I love my wife and kids but tell them when they do something wrong.

AND...I admit when I am wrong.  Something that isn't done enough here or in life in general.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(07-22-2015, 11:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: Totally agree that if they are a clear and present danger something needs to be done and in those circumstances someone may die, even accidentally.

In that KY incident the officer also kinda fibbed about the situation in that he jumped on the hood if I remember correctly.  But other than that I do agree its best to get them off the roads.

Getting pulled over for drunk driving is not cause for violence (despite what Nately is trying to push)...speeding off after being pulled over for drunk driving is. 

[*Nately120*]

(07-22-2015, 11:50 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Getting pulled over for drunk driving is not cause for violence (despite what Nately is trying to push)...speeding off after being pulled over for drunk driving is. 

Hey now, more than 0 people have been killed by drunk drivers.  If I had a wife/kids/family member killed by a drunk driver and I could go back in time and shoot him/her before he/she got in a car and decided to put innocent lives at risk I would.  Why I'd even shoot a drunk driver to save you.

Think about that one.  Think about it!

[*michaelsean*]

(07-22-2015, 11:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: Well that's because you decided that because I point them out I must only think one way.  

If I wanted to post every incident where an officer appeared to abuse their power I wouldn't have time to hold a full time job.  

I want officers safe, and want them held to a very high standard because they are in a position of power over their fellow citizens.  I don't see how those two things are in conflict.

If I see an episode where the officer is wrong I will comment on it.  If I see where one is killed I will comment on it.  But pointing out one incident doesn't mean its wide spread any more than it means its an isolated incident.  It is what it is.

I love the Steelers but have no problem pointing out when they do something boneheaded.

I love my wife and kids but tell them when they do something wrong.

AND...I admit when I am wrong.  Something that isn't done enough here or in life in general.

No you don't.

[GMDino]

(07-22-2015, 12:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No you don't.

More the kids than the wife.  

[*PhilHos*]

Quote:Police are reviewing footage from Tensing’s body camera and surveillance from a nearby building, Whalen said.

If only the police officer had a body camera, that would've prevented the black male's death.

[treee]

(07-22-2015, 12:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: If only the police officer had a body camera, that would've prevented the black male's death.

Good thing you're joking, because it would not make sense for someone to claim that body cameras wouldn't reduce the number of wrongful claims against police as well as providing protection to citizens against bad police testimony.

[GMDino]

(07-23-2015, 03:48 AM)treee Wrote: Good thing you're joking, because it would not make sense for someone to claim that body cameras wouldn't reduce the number of wrongful claims against police as well as providing protection to citizens against bad police testimony.

Did you see the edited video from the Bland case in Texas?  How someone thought that wouldn't be noticed is beyond me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/22/was-video-of-sandra-blands-traffic-stop-edited-texas-authorities-respond/

Sometimes its not just having a video...its having access tot he original video.

[GMDino]

Here is the transcript of the Bland arrest.

Make of it what you will based on what was recorded during the event and what the officer told some one on the other line after.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-bland-arrest-transcript_55b03a88e4b0a9b94853b1f1?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

[*michaelsean*]

(07-23-2015, 10:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: Here is the transcript of the Bland arrest.

Make of it what you will based on what was recorded during the event and what the officer told some one on the other line after.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-bland-arrest-transcript_55b03a88e4b0a9b94853b1f1?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

But she hung herself.  even if you think an arrest is unfair, hanging yourself is on you.

[GMDino]

(07-23-2015, 11:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But she hung herself.  even if you think an arrest is unfair, hanging yourself is on you.

If she hung herself. And maybe after three days in jail when she shouldn't even have been arrested something happened?

I guess we'l lwait for the investigation.

Nonetheless this officer shouldn't be one.

[*Nately120*]

(07-23-2015, 11:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But she hung herself.  even if you think an arrest is unfair, hanging yourself is on you.

Does this line of thinking work when you unfairly detain anyone against their will or just when the government does it?  I'm asking for a friend who may or may not have a number of people detained in his basement who might be stupid enough to think the situation is hopeless and commit suicide.