Cincinnati police officer who shot man during traffic stop charged with murder

It seems the police are now allowed to hand out their own judgment without accountability.

 

there is nothing wrong with my example...

drugs harm people, society has deemed thats bad... anyone who says drugs never hurt anyone, should ask why so many shootings occur in heavily urban areas where the fights are over drugs and territory to deal them in... and thats not including the social disasters as a result of addiction... we can ignore all that though...

and what do you mean people "wouldn't have to tint windows", simply because we made drugs legal? so people tint their windows simply because of drugs? thats the only reason? what are you trying to suggest here... so if we legalized drugs, nobody would tint their windows, so cops would magically see inside all cars now...

I never made the claim nobody is harmed in chases... I in fact acknowledge and state, thousands of people in this country have died as a result of police chases... (hows that for blowing up your assumption)

what I am proving with my example in my local community... is that even when police changed policy, not to chase vehicle, people STILL died from the criminals fleeing officers who STOPPED pursuing them... because the criminals learned if they get away quick enough, the cops will stop chasing... unfortunately the REALITY of this is that MORE people started to run from the police, and this increase in fleeing ultimately resulted in MORE people dying as a result of this... so the policy change did not achieve the expected results, it made things worse... thats why I say its a dumb policy and wrong...

sides if you're following this whole story... the cops still wouldn't be able to identify me with a plate... since as a criminal I would simply remove it, since you now have a policy against chasing me for a simple plate violation... so how can you identify me now... and lets assume I did have a plate on the vehicle, how can you be sure this is my car, or my plate... many drivers are pulled over and the plates don't match the driver... so now we just blame the plate owner despite the driver being someone else? but since we didn't pursue the person, we can't confirm the plate owner IS the person attached to it...

 

I disagree on shooting the dog too..... a barking dog is not a sign of danger, can see it now, postal carriers new motto, shoot at first bark..... better safe then sorry

.

 

The War on Drugs==Prohibition 2.0

The article you cited stated something about tinted windows. Tinted windows to hide what is going on in the car.

For the harmful remark, we agree on it. I read it from your post that according to the new policy no one was harmed when police decided not to give chase.

In this case the guy had plates, he just had no tags. If a cop comes across a car with no plates, he should call for backup.

 

What's the action for jaywalking a baton to the head, if the officer was acting under the law why did he lie about what happened?

 

Doesn't have to be to be considered as murder.

 

Going to start dressing like a Lion. That way cops know that if they kill me, white people will avenge me...



Might be the post of the year!

 

see you keep changing the rules and scenarios... you didn't say it was simply "a barking dog"...

you said the if the dog was attacking them... or coming at them... indicating they were in harms way and there was no fence, leash, or barrier to restrain the dog...

stop trying to change the examples after the fact... a barking dog doesn't present a danger...

an unrestrained dog charging at someone, DOES... and by law dogs must be restrained or they WILL be considered threatening... no matter how they look or act...

 

did you bother READING the ENTIRE article... or did you just skim for keywords and throw outrage at the first thing you spotted taking it out of context???

because that seems to be exactly what you did...

so once again....

in my city... we had problems, of innocent bystanders, being killed, as a result of criminals, fleeing from police officers... the lawmakers decided to solve this problem, changing police pursuit policy, to only chase criminals who have committed violent acts on others... they thought, this will stop bystanders, from being killed, when criminals flee from the police chasing them... turns out, MORE people now die from such events, since MORE criminals now flee from police, knowing they will stop after a minute or two... so now MORE people are dead, and MORE criminals get away, increasing ALL crimes in the city...

THAT is what the article is about... they are showing how this NO CHASE POLICY has lead criminals to adapt how they commit crimes... now instead of a criminal using a home, that can be watched, or standing on a street corner, that can be watched, they now put all their drugs into a car, and hand out phone numbers to all the druggies, delivering drugs right to their door... because if the cops see the transaction, and chase the vehicle, the criminals KNOW they have to stop chasing them after a minute or two, as long as they flee from cops and drive wreckless for those couple minutes in order to get away... stolen vehicles are not considered violent crimes either, as a result kids now steal cars just to get to school on cold winter days, rather than walk or wait for a bus... and since cops can't chase these cars, they often just patrol around schools to find many of them stolen in the morning hours... and guess what, the kids are never caught... because they never chase them... just like all the other criminals they never catch now... doing more and more crimes in the city making it worse and worse for all the citizens...

next time you want to fight and prove your right, read the information provided, don't just skim it and presume it means something else...

more people die as a result of this policy, and guess what, they have NO intention on changing it... what sense does that make... I don't know, ask a liberal... I can't figure it out for the life of me... change the policy, more people get hurt, maybe we should change it back, and punish criminals rather than innocents...

P.S. if you want to have a war on drugs argument that drugs don't hurt anyone, ask colorado how many more mexican mafia members they now see in their state, bringing in pot and selling it on the streets... I'm pretty sure you'd agree the mexican mafia is a violent horrific criminal organization that has harmed hundreds of thousands of people over their history... so how do drugs not harm people again?

 

according to da's, premeditation can happen in a instant... but I think he panicked too, got angry at losing control of situation

I might go with manslaughter if on the jury, depends on the evidence

would like to here how he explained it in reports and see him on stand re-explain it now

calm heads prevail... we really need a test to make sure a cop can control their temper when they lose control of a situation.... peoples lives depend on it

I would also teach traffic stop etiquette in drivers ed in schools and on the DL test, maybe have mock cops pull students over....
.

 

Yep. If you think "I'm going to kill this guy" and then kill him, that's premeditated murder.

 

I believe this should be no less than 2nd degree murder.

 

Yeah I saw it to with out the bias.

 

State your legal creds.

 

Could be manslaughter. It happened pretty quick and the driver was acting squirrely but I don't see anything that justifies pulling a weapon.

 

I stayed in a holiday end once, does that count.... seriously though most of my knowledge is from reading about past cases

 

had no bias when I watched it either.... I saw no reason for him to kill this man....

 

a barking dog coming towards them is not reason to shoot either... mail carriers should not have to deal with this, dogs should be restrained, but they seem to be able to handle it without killing dogs

"no matter how they look or act.."

well the first time someone shoots a little chiwawa on the attack, that will make news, looks do matter.... or should I say size matters

.

 

maybe I'm a little biased because I've been bitten by a dog that was coming at me barking... I thought it was just being friendly and happy... nope... I was wrong, still got the scars from the teeth to prove it... either way, and dog unrestrained, running at someone, to me is justification to shoot it... I don't care how nice they claim the dog was, or how well trained, or whatever excuse the owners give... usually the same excuses they give when a dog bites a kid...

so size matters? so a 100lb woman should be less threatening than lets say a 300lb 6'6 man? have you seen both pull a trigger before? seems both cause the same amount of damage... how about the difference in a 100lb woman and a 300lb man driving a car? is the car any less dangerous when started, put in drive, and pulling away? or are they all relatively the same level of threat when we get down to it?

at what point should officers use force... how much risk should they take before pulling a weapon? how many times should a criminal be allowed to hit or restrain them before they should shoot that weapon? should it be based on a certain number of seconds? number of hits? size of the person? should we wait until the officer is passing out before he's allowed to shoot? does he have to fall to the pavement and knock his head first? how much risk should officers have to take? how many cops should get hurt before we say cops should start using more force? 1:1 ratio criminal hurt cops hurt? after that we think not enough force is used? is 1 cop too many? is 1 cop not enough?

 

I don't have to the police, DA and court have already stated theirs.

 

I think most people would say a 50 lb child is less threatening then a 200 lbs adult

do you think if a cop killed a 50 lbs unarmed child, it would be treated the same by the public response?

just like dogs, beyond a certain size they are all about the same.... when they have a weapon they are as powerful as the weapon.....

cars can't go sideways... this car was not a weapon in this case

your picking the wrong cop as your poster boy for the valid use of excessive force

.

 

Someone catch me up to speed here. Are there any members defending this guy?

 

Yes, the usual.

 

that 90lb 12 year old waving around a pellet gun in public... sure got himself shot over his stupidity... does a 50lb person with a gun sound any less scary than a 300lb person with a gun? I don't want to be around either if given the choice... kids bring schools to gun all the time, even with metal detectors, is that 5th grader any less scary than the senior dropout? or any scarier than the 100lb frail elderly person who shoots a kid on his porch for disrespecting him?

so since the threat level is directly related to the weapon in potential... as you said at the end... does that not mean a 2500lb vehicle is in fact a deadly weapon? I mean those car things sure kill enough people every single day of the year, no matter what laws we have regulating them, folks die daily, so doesn't it stand to reason this killing contraption would justify the officer viewing it as a deadly and immediate threat when he was struggling with someone attempting to mobilize this device and make use of it?

 

No, I read the article hence my previous response about the amount of police interaction because of drug laws. The criminals are taking even more steps to keep from getting busted. The crimes cops should go after are violent/deadly crimes instead of tinted windows (drug related).

I never said drugs don't harm people. I did however equate the War on Drugs with prohibition. It is. The War on Drugs is not meant to be won either. Just not. The war has been waging for decades and the needle hasn't moved one iota against the trade. The best mayors and good police can do is punish violent crime appropriately. They won't do that either.