Sam Dubose/Cincinnati

[thetragichippy]

If that's what I said I said to me to me the video is clear as day. my point was who cares what the officer says in a situation like this. Why wouldn't he say he feared for his life. Just because he says it doesn't make it true. I'm sure the victim feared for his life.

So who gets to decide when a cops in fear of his life? Who get to decide when a civilian is in fear of his life?

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

So who gets to decide when a cops in fear of his life? Who get to decide when a civilian is in fear of his life?

​hippy, this the best post you ever typed on this board. 

 

Nobody has a clear answer on that. 

[PAMFAM10]

In America we have a justice system. I'm sure cops get trained on what and when its acceptable to use deadly force. All I'm saying is we shouldn't take the words of a man charged with murder. Why would he say anything different than I feared for my life. To me thats common sense. On the video and incident altogether I think he lied on several sites they have video extra slow motion and he appear to shot before the car accelerates. but thats up for debate(I guess) what is not is that he clearly lied about the incident. Maybe time to call it what it is murder. 

[smitty]

Did I understand this right that the cop was an University Of Cincinnati cop?

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

Did I understand this right that the cop was an University Of Cincinnati cop?

​smh yes. I know what you doing. Smh. 

[bullets13]

In America we have a justice system. I'm sure cops get trained on what and when its acceptable to use deadly force. All I'm saying is we shouldn't take the words of a man charged with murder. Why would he say anything different than I feared for my life. To me thats common sense. On the video and incident altogether I think he lied on several sites they have video extra slow motion and he appear to shot before the car accelerates. but thats up for debate(I guess) what is not is that he clearly lied about the incident. Maybe time to call it what it is murder. 

 As far as I can tell, he must have feared for his life.  This was a split second decision, and nothing in the interaction leading up to the shooting would indicate that he was irritated with the man he shot, or that he held any racial animosity.  While I am open to debate on whether he was correct to be afraid for his life, I don't see any other explanation.  This is a far cry from getting pissed off at a guy who tusseled with you and then ran off and shooting him 8 times in the back.  This was a panicked, reflexive decision.

[smitty]

​smh yes. I know what you doing. Smh. 

​Just curious why a U. of C. cop was making traffic stops.  Unless I'm not aware that this is normal.

[PAMFAM10]

I have a question for tvc or anyone who can answer what exactly is a university cop and do they follow command from the local pd or there own 

[BLUEDOVE3]

This "y'all" as you say, said he should be charged with murder and given the death penalty.  Puts a little wrinkle in you definition.

​Nope, more of a possible exception at this moment.

[BLUEDOVE3]

​Just curious why a U. of C. cop was making traffic stops.  Unless I'm not aware that this is normal.

​This is very normal for university cops making traffic stops.

[baddog]

Speed down MLK in front of Lamar and see what happens. University cops are employed by the university.

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

​Just curious why a U. of C. cop was making traffic stops.  Unless I'm not aware that this is normal.

​same thing I wondered Smitty. Yikes, im agreeing with you?  Whats going on. Key in the ignition and get shot in the head, lets send him to fight ISIS. 

[tvc184]

Every state has its own laws and what may be illegal in one state may be legal in another. Also in that caregory of state laws is rules of evidence, jurisdiction, definitions of a lawful arrest, who can be an officer, under what circumstances (if any) a citizen can make an arrest, etc. 

I can only tell TX law but here a university police officer is just like any other police officer. In fact most police officers in TX have the same authorities in most cases but there are some differences. They have their own police department and chief. There is no reason to follow a city police department's policy since universities sometimes have their own department. 

I am sure that OH has similar laws but that would be a guess. If they are like TX then a cop is a cop.  

 

Edited July 31, 2015 by tvc184

[thetragichippy]

​same thing I wondered Smitty. Yikes, im agreeing with you?  Whats going on. Key in the ignition and get shot in the head, lets send him to fight ISIS. 

​I knew there was something fishy going on.......

[thetragichippy]

You know, here is something to ponder. Like this case, the Sandra Bland case and almost all other cases, we tend to blame the police officers or the race of the victim or police officer. The fact remains most do not know the law. Maybe we need to educate the public what they have to do and what is legal. There has been a heated discussion on a Facebook page, and some people are saying if a cop pulls you over you do not have to get out of your vehicle. They claim it is an extension of your home and you don't have to "answer the door". There are too many self taught legal experts running around the internet giving false information that will get people killed. As for this particular case, the video is not clear enough for me still......I'm OK with letting the courts decide......The cop may or may not be guilty of murder, but this is one of those teaching lessons I talk to my 14 year old about.......do what the cop says......EVEN if he is wrong.....

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

​I knew there was something fishy going on.......

​smitty getting smart. Actually using his common sense. Now if I can only get him to be a Ned fan not hater………. 

[smitty]

​smitty getting smart. Actually using his common sense. Now if I can only get him to be a Ned fan not hater………. 

​Come on Buddy, you know TRUE fans tell the truth. 

[tvc184]

You know, here is something to ponder. Like this case, the Sandra Bland case and almost all other cases, we tend to blame the police officers or the race of the victim or police officer. The fact remains most do not know the law. Maybe we need to educate the public what they have to do and what is legal. There has been a heated discussion on a Facebook page, and some people are saying if a cop pulls you over you do not have to get out of your vehicle. They claim it is an extension of your home and you don't have to "answer the door". There are too many self taught legal experts running around the internet giving false information that will get people killed. As for this particular case, the video is not clear enough for me still......I'm OK with letting the courts decide......The cop may or may not be guilty of murder, but this is one of those teaching lessons I talk to my 14 year old about.......do what the cop says......EVEN if he is wrong.....

​Ignorance of the law is sometimes way out there and blogs, word of mouth and other social media does not help. I have heard and read so many times, "the cannot lawfully" blah blah blah. IT VIOLATES YOUR RIGHTS". 

Even on television news shows I hear even lawyers sometimes saying that probable cause is required for a valid detention. That is simply not true as it only requires reasonable suspicion. The standard, although very old, was made in case law from the US Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio almost 50 years ago. Then I hear that an officer cannot get you out of a car without a good cause or at least reasonable suspicion. Better read up on Pensylvania v. Mimms also from the USSC back in 1977 or almost 40 years ago. But we can't get passengers out without a good cause right? Oops, better read Wilson v. Maryland from 1997. We need a warrant for a car if we wish to search it without consent, right? We have to go way back to 1925 in Carroll v. United States where the USSC said that with probable cause, an officer can search a vehicle without a warrant. That has been reaffirmed by them several times since. What about arresting people on minor traffic charges for which jail cannot even be sentenced by a judge? You only have to go back to 2001 when the USSC in a Texas case said "oh well", don't break the law. 

If an officer says to you while you are walking down the road, "Do you might speaking with me for a minute", if you stop then you are unlawfully being detained unless he had reasonable suspicion. Well, wrong again. It might be a cop trick but if it is put in the form of a question and it isn't done with some other show of force (yelling, pulling a gun, etc.) then it is a stop with your consent and the officer does not have to explain the law to you like he does under Miranda for a full custodial arrest.

I could go on but the ignorance and what gets people often butt hurt if believing that their rights have been violated when the truth is that what happened might be completely lawful... even if the officer is butt hurt and that is why he acted like he did. 

Know your rights and uphold your rights..... actually knowing them might end a lot of the problem but I suspect that knowledge will not be known very soon as it is readily available by googling any topic and has been for many years but many people seem to not case. Many defense attorneys have their own websites and give almost the same answers that I have given above. 

[BLUEDOVE3]

Speed down MLK in front of Lamar and see what happens. University cops are employed by the university.

​LOL!!!  Yep!!

[thetragichippy]

​Ignorance of the law is sometimes way out there and blogs, word of mouth and other social media does not help. I have heard and read so many times, "the cannot lawfully" blah blah blah. IT VIOLATES YOUR RIGHTS". 

Even on television news shows I hear even lawyers sometimes saying that probable cause is required for a valid detention. That is simply not true as it only requires reasonable suspicion. The standard, although very old, was made in case law from the US Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio almost 50 years ago. Then I hear that an officer cannot get you out of a car without a good cause or at least reasonable suspicion. Better read up on Pensylvania v. Mimms also from the USSC back in 1977 or almost 40 years ago. But we can't get passengers out without a good cause right? Oops, better read Wilson v. Maryland from 1997. We need a warrant for a car if we wish to search it without consent, right? We have to go way back to 1925 in Carroll v. United States where the USSC said that with probable cause, an officer can search a vehicle without a warrant. That has been reaffirmed by them several times since. What about arresting people on minor traffic charges for which jail cannot even be sentenced by a judge? You only have to go back to 2001 when the USSC in a Texas case said "oh well", don't break the law. 

If an officer says to you while you are walking down the road, "Do you might speaking with me for a minute", if you stop then you are unlawfully being detained unless he had reasonable suspicion. Well, wrong again. It might be a cop trick but if it is put in the form of a question and it isn't done with some other show of force (yelling, pulling a gun, etc.) then it is a stop with your consent and the officer does not have to explain the law to you like he does under Miranda for a full custodial arrest.

I could go on but the ignorance and what gets people often butt hurt if believing that their rights have been violated when the truth is that what happened might be completely lawful... even if the officer is butt hurt and that is why he acted like he did. 

Know your rights and uphold your rights..... actually knowing them might end a lot of the problem but I suspect that knowledge will not be known very soon as it is readily available by googling any topic and has been for many years but many people seem to not case. Many defense attorneys have their own websites and give almost the same answers that I have given above. 

​The self proclaimed "Facebook lawyers" are the ones that crack me up...... 

[BLUEDOVE3]

​Ignorance of the law is sometimes way out there and blogs, word of mouth and other social media does not help. I have heard and read so many times, "the cannot lawfully" blah blah blah. IT VIOLATES YOUR RIGHTS". 

Even on television news shows I hear even lawyers sometimes saying that probable cause is required for a valid detention. That is simply not true as it only requires reasonable suspicion. The standard, although very old, was made in case law from the US Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio almost 50 years ago. Then I hear that an officer cannot get you out of a car without a good cause or at least reasonable suspicion. Better read up on Pensylvania v. Mimms also from the USSC back in 1977 or almost 40 years ago. But we can't get passengers out without a good cause right? Oops, better read Wilson v. Maryland from 1997. We need a warrant for a car if we wish to search it without consent, right? We have to go way back to 1925 in Carroll v. United States where the USSC said that with probable cause, an officer can search a vehicle without a warrant. That has been reaffirmed by them several times since. What about arresting people on minor traffic charges for which jail cannot even be sentenced by a judge? You only have to go back to 2001 when the USSC in a Texas case said "oh well", don't break the law. 

If an officer says to you while you are walking down the road, "Do you might speaking with me for a minute", if you stop then you are unlawfully being detained unless he had reasonable suspicion. Well, wrong again. It might be a cop trick but if it is put in the form of a question and it isn't done with some other show of force (yelling, pulling a gun, etc.) then it is a stop with your consent and the officer does not have to explain the law to you like he does under Miranda for a full custodial arrest.

I could go on but the ignorance and what gets people often butt hurt if believing that their rights have been violated when the truth is that what happened might be completely lawful... even if the officer is butt hurt and that is why he acted like he did. 

Know your rights and uphold your rights..... actually knowing them might end a lot of the problem but I suspect that knowledge will not be known very soon as it is readily available by googling any topic and has been for many years but many people seem to not case. Many defense attorneys have their own websites and give almost the same answers that I have given above. 

​And, (A) Some cops misusing their authority and perceived power

         (B) Some cops need more training

        (C) Some cops are bad seeds

        (D) Citizens need to chill and follow directions. Try not to panic and set them off.

 

[thetragichippy]

​And, (A) Some cops Citizens misusing their authority and perceived power

         (B) Some cops Citizens need more training

        (C) Some cops Citizens are bad seeds 

        (D) Citizens need to chill and follow directions. Try not to panic and set them off.

 

​(E) Citizens need to not drive off when cop has detained them

(F)  Citizens should not attempt to take a police officers weapon. 

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

​And, (A) Some cops misusing their authority and perceived power

         (B) Some cops need more training

        (C) Some cops are bad seeds

        (D) Citizens need to chill and follow directions. Try not to panic and set them off.

 

​all truth. 

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

​Come on Buddy, you know TRUE fans tell the truth. 

​lol

[tvc184]

​The self proclaimed "Facebook lawyers" are the ones that crack me up...... 

​But they slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night..........