• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge declares mistrial in of Cincinnati cop’s murder trial

From what I've read, this appears to be another case where prosecutors overcharged a case involving a police officer. Juries, naturally, are adverse to convicting a police officer for actions while in the line of duty. This jury, apparently, wanted to convict him of a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter but that option wasn't available to them. They only had murder as an option and there wasn't enough votes for that option.

Perhaps, if the prosecution decides to retry the case, they'll do it under charges that at least have a chance of returning a finding of guilt.
 
Excon said:
Being dragged by a vehicle is a life threatening situation that justifies the use of deadly force. The driver is solely responsible for that.
Click to expand...

Listen, we are not going to agree here, you are obviously supporting an agenda. From your past posts, I can see that no matter what the circumstances, you support the shooting, strangulation, and beating of unarmed citizens. So let's just go our separate ways.
 
CanadaJohn said:
From what I've read, this appears to be another case where prosecutors overcharged a case involving a police officer. Juries, naturally, are adverse to convicting a police officer for actions while in the line of duty. This jury, apparently, wanted to convict him of a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter but that option wasn't available to them. They only had murder as an option and there wasn't enough votes for that option.

Perhaps, if the prosecution decides to retry the case, they'll do it under charges that at least have a chance of returning a finding of guilt.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if there is a chance the DA overcharged for the specific purpose of getting a not guilty. It's not clear that's what happened. But it is suspicious. DA's don't usually try to overcharge white people. Sad but true fact.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Listen, we are not going to agree here, you are obviously supporting an agenda. From your past posts, I can see that no matter what the circumstances, you support the shooting, strangulation, and beating of unarmed citizens. So let's just go our separate ways.
Click to expand...
Your point of view in not objective.
Matter of fact, here it is objectively wrong.

As for you trying to make this personal?
I support the letter of the law.
My comments in other topics are not relevant to this topic, as each case has it's own set of circumstance.

Even in what you use to get personal and dismissive is not objective. There has been no strangulation and every case has it's own unique set of circumstances.
 
Excon said:
Your point of view in not objective.
Matter of fact, here it is objectively wrong.

As for you trying to make this personal?
I support the letter of the law.
My comments in other topics are not relevant to this topic, as each case has it's own set of circumstance.

Even in what you use to get personal and dismissive is not objective. There has been no strangulation and every case has it's own unique set of circumstances.
Click to expand...

Didn't realize there was a law on the books stating if you drag someone by a car they should shoot you instead of letting go (Count the seconds after the shot he stayed attached to the car, involuntarily dragged my behind). Can you point to these lettars of the law? How about a Precedent set by a previous court case? No? Then shut up.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Didn't realize there was a law on the books stating if you drag someone by a car they should shoot you instead of letting go (Count the seconds after the shot he stayed attached to the car, involuntarily dragged my behind).
Click to expand...
You are making up a narrative to believe, not going on the evidence in this case.

That evidence is his testimony and there exists no evidence to disbelieve it.


ThoughtEx. said:
Can you point to these lettars of the law? How about a Precedent set by a previous court case? No? Then shut up.
Click to expand...
This reply of yours is silly.
Either rely on the actual evidence or shut up.

Reaching in to remove the keys from the ignition is not a danger and does not create a dangerous situation. Driving away while the Officer is doing so does though
Being dragged by a vehicle is a danger to the Officer's life. The driver caused that danger.
 
Excon said:
You are making up a narrative to believe, not going on the evidence in this case.

That evidence is his testimony and there exists no evidence to disbelieve it.



This reply of yours is silly.
Either rely on the actual evidence or shut up.

Reaching in to remove the keys from the ignition is not a danger and does not create a dangerous situation. Driving away while the Officer is doing so does though
Being dragged by a vehicle is a danger to the Officer's life. The driver caused that danger.
Click to expand...

From Vehicle Stop Procedures
"6. Anytime suspects in a stationary vehicle ignore orders to exit, agents should
remain behind cover and treat the situation as a barricade."

So he put himself in danger, and shot someone for it. Now does this say reach in and turn off the vehicle? It does not. He endangered himself. And then shot someone, who was unarmed, so according to the law. He has committed a crime.
 
Last edited:
ThoughtEx. said:
From Vehicle Stop Procedures. It's a pdf that downloads and opens in browser. fyi.

"6. Anytime suspects in a stationary vehicle ignore orders to exit, agents should
remain behind cover and treat the situation as a barricade."

So he put himself in danger, and shot someone for it. Now does this say reach in and turn off the vehicle? It does not. He endangered himself. And then shot someone, who was unarmed, so according to the law. He has committed a crime.
Click to expand...
:lamo
1. You linked to a file on your computer. Doh!
2. That would be guidelines for their safety, and again, would not negate the danger the suspect caused jeopardizing the Officers life.
 
Excon said:
:lamo
1. You linked to a file on your computer. Doh!
2. That would be guidelines for their safety, and again, would not negate the danger the suspect caused jeopardizing the Officers life.
Click to expand...

Here ya, go

And your saying that anytime a cop just straight up wants to kill someone all they have to do is purposefully ignore procedure and put themselves in danger. And then it's ok for them to kill?

And your just ok with that. I'm not. Not in the slightest. If an officer places themselves in harms way with no other recourse, that is one thing. But getting cocky and violating procedure? And then shooting an unarmed person? No, and the officer wasn't being dragged, if he was he wouldn't have stopped til after the car did.

That man died because that officer put himself in danger when he didn't have to. That is not ok.

And despite my gaff, the fact that you can laugh about anything in this situation tells me all I need to know about you.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
I'm wondering if there is a chance the DA overcharged for the specific purpose of getting a not guilty. It's not clear that's what happened. But it is suspicious. DA's don't usually try to overcharge white people. Sad but true fact.
Click to expand...

I remember the Baltimore case with Freddie Gray and each of the six officers charged were overcharged, including the driver of the van who was charged with murder. That was a political prosecution and the juries found all of the officers not guilty, at least the ones that were tried, and then the prosecutors stayed the rest of the charges.

The Missouri case - I forget the young man's name - was also overcharged by the prosecution.

You really need a lot to convict a police officer of murder in the line of duty. And if there's even a hint of politics trumping up the charges, juries won't go for it.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Here ya, go
Click to expand...
iLOL

1. I have no need for that. It is not law but procedural guidelines, and as already pointed out, does not negate in any way whatsoever what the driver caused.
2. That does not place the blame for what happened on the Officer, nor could it. Do you really not understand that?
3. I just have to ask, how in the world do you even think guidelines have anything to do with whether a person legally used deadly force or not, AND just how in the world do you think guidelines from another police force, in another State, have anything to do with what occurred here? Doh!


ThoughtEx. said:
And your saying that anytime a cop just straight up wants to kill someone all they have to do is purposefully ignore procedure and put themselves in danger. And then it's ok for them to kill?
Click to expand...
Your argument is absolutely ridiculous.
That you even think this is a valid argument just speaks to how debased your thoughts are.


ThoughtEx. said:
And your just ok with that. I'm not. Not in the slightest. If an officer places themselves in harms way with no other recourse, that is one thing. But getting cocky and violating procedure? And then shooting an unarmed person? No, and the officer wasn't being dragged, if he was he wouldn't have stopped til after the car did.
Click to expand...
You are creating a narrative that isn't true.
Reaching in to grab the keys from the ignition does not create a dangerous situation. The driver by trying to speed of is what created the dangerous situation.
Do you really not understand these things?

And yes, he was dragged. It was why his body started at one point and ended up at another on it's back. The car dragged him.


ThoughtEx. said:
That man died because that officer put himself in danger when he didn't have to.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
The driver created the danger by driving off and dragging the Officer.
Nothing you can say will change those facts.


ThoughtEx. said:
And despite my gaff, the fact that you can laugh about anything in this situation tells me all I need to know about you.
Click to expand...
That you equate laughing at your gaff as having anything to do with this situation, is absurd, and just confirms your thoughts to be debased.
 
justabubba said:
good thing i wasn't on the jury

i saw no way in which that police officer could have been run over

there was no act of self defense
Click to expand...


The thing is, the threat of harm to oneself or potential harm to others or their property is in the mind of the beholder, the officer. The point is that sense of such danger has to be reasonable in the minds of the jury. The defense will always ask the jury what they would do in the officer's place. Take note of that the jury has best been winnowed to those who have bad experience with danger. Maybe one. What would you do and, if in a fit of fright, you hit the pedal while frantically changing gear. Oh well.
 
CanadaJohn said:
From what I've read, this appears to be another case where prosecutors overcharged a case involving a police officer. Juries, naturally, are adverse to convicting a police officer for actions while in the line of duty. This jury, apparently, wanted to convict him of a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter but that option wasn't available to them. They only had murder as an option and there wasn't enough votes for that option.

Perhaps, if the prosecution decides to retry the case, they'll do it under charges that at least have a chance of returning a finding of guilt.
Click to expand...
I do believe the officer was out of line, and most certainly deserving of charges, but the more I think about it the more I think murder was definitely an over-charge.
 
radcen said:
I do believe the officer was out of line, and most certainly deserving of charges, but the more I think about it the more I think murder was definitely an over-charge.
Click to expand...

the family claims they want the Prosecutor to only retry the MURDER charges. They said they would rather LOSE on the "correct" charge (Murder) than win on the wrong ones
 
TurtleDude said:
the family claims they want the Prosecutor to only retry the MURDER charges. They said they would rather LOSE on the "correct" charge (Murder) than win on the wrong ones
Click to expand...
To me this is a case of the immediate family members being too emotionally close to be rational.
 
radcen said:
To me this is a case of the immediate family members being too emotionally close to be rational.
Click to expand...

and unable to accept that the person killed was

1) a drug dealer with no legitimate employment

2) a dead beat baby daddy who was a lousy father

3) didn't follow instructions of the cop-guess what? every single shooting I have seen except perhaps a couple-the deceased "victim" of a police shooting would still be alive if they had done what the cops told them to do. The deceased in this case is a perfect example
 
TurtleDude said:
and unable to accept that the person killed was

1) a drug dealer with no legitimate employment

2) a dead beat baby daddy who was a lousy father

3) didn't follow instructions of the cop-guess what? every single shooting I have seen except perhaps a couple-the deceased "victim" of a police shooting would still be alive if they had done what the cops told them to do. The deceased in this case is a perfect example
Click to expand...
I get that people are upset when their loved ones die tragically, but c'mon...
 
TurtleDude said:
the family claims they want the Prosecutor to only retry the MURDER charges. They said they would rather LOSE on the "correct" charge (Murder) than win on the wrong ones
Click to expand...

Politics and the law in the US is far too entwined sometimes.
 
TurtleDude said:
and unable to accept that the person killed was

1) a drug dealer with no legitimate employment

2) a dead beat baby daddy who was a lousy father

3) didn't follow instructions of the cop-guess what? every single shooting I have seen except perhaps a couple-the deceased "victim" of a police shooting would still be alive if they had done what the cops told them to do. The deceased in this case is a perfect example
Click to expand...
he indirectly provided for them
... Sam DuBose’s 13 children will each receive nearly $218,000 for their share of a multi-million-dollar wrongful death settlement, a Hamilton County probate judge ruled Monday.
... he had 13 children with 11 different women. The children range in age from 4 to 23. ...
Click to expand...
additionally, each child is entitled to receive "undergraduate tuition at the university [of cinncinnati]"
Judge gives Sam DuBose's 13 children $218K each
 
justabubba said:
he indirectly provided for them

additionally, each child is entitled to receive "undergraduate tuition at the university [of cinncinnati]"
Judge gives Sam DuBose's 13 children $218K each
Click to expand...

Yeah, they should all send the Police Officer a big thank you. 13 children with 11 different women. Lets just think about that for a minute. Now that does not justify the shooting in any way but the guy killed was not exactly someone who was helping society through his existence.
 
calamity said:
I believe I would have acquitted the guy if I sat on that jury. I'm pretty much of the opinion that if you fail to do exactly as the cop says during a stop, you're cruising for a bruising. I will always give the cop the benefit of the doubt in that situation.

I'd vote not guilty in the Dennis Wilson matter, Eric Garner, and the latest shooting in Oklahoma, where the female cop blew away that guy hopped up on PCP.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do understand there are many authoritarians in the mix. As some see it, the system and police can do no wrong. We do have the government we deserve.

I'm rather the opposite. Definitely on a case by case basis, offending cops should be punished for their crimes. Nothing against cops, as my grandfather was a cop, but it's really bad when so few cops are punished for cold-blooded murder. And it's not going to change until the system stops protecting the offenders.
 
justabubba said:
the jury nullified the DA's over-charging the crime
in that manner, it upheld justice to prevent an injustice against the offending officer
Click to expand...

What should the officer have been charged with? Misdemeanor spanking?
 
justabubba said:
manslaughter
Click to expand...

Then the question would be whether the jury would have convicted for manslaughter.

I'm guessing the pro-government authoritarians in the crowd would also have acquitted the man, but who knows. Had Calamity been on the jury, he would likely have acquitted.
 
one of the problems with this case is that the guy the cop shot-probably improperly based on my understanding of the facts-is that the guy who was killed was pretty much a low life mope. He's fathered a swarm of children with a posse of different women, he was dealing drugs, he was a deadbeat dad,. Now that doesn't justify him being shot down but the fact is he didn't obey the cop and he probably didn't because he had felony-quantity drugs in his car. and the fact is, some members of the jury aren't going to jail a cop for shooting a scumbag even if the shooting wasn't kosher.

and it doesn't help that the protestors and the BLM types are acting like the guy who was shot was another Dr. King. They ought to own up to the fact that the guy was a douchebag
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom