• 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!

Developments in the Ray Tensing Trial (University Cop kills unarmed motorist)

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
the Defendant, former UC Cop Ray Tensing, testified today. I watched most of it live. The testimony by Tensing was pretty good from the Defense's perspective. Experts on several of the local channels including former Hamilton County Prosecutor, Michael Allen (now a prominent defense attorney and media talking head on legal issues) believed that Tensing helped his case substantially today.

A couple days ago, the prosecution-which many people thought overreached by trying this case again on a murder charge, asked presiding judge Leslie Ghiz to charge the jury with an alternative reduced charge. She refused to do this and denied for now, the Prosecution's request for "reckless homicide" but may revisit that decision after the defense rests (which I believe it did today)

Ray Tensing: The defense takes the floor and prosecution drops a bombshell: Day 6 of the Tensing retrial recap - WCPO Cincinnati, OH
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
Closing arguments today, Judge Ghiz charged the Jury and the Jury deliberated for about 3 hours. two leading criminal defense attorneys-both of whom I have dealt with and are pretty good-predicted another hung jury or mistrial. My prediction-I cannot see a murder conviction being handed down. Voluntary manslaughter will probably be supported by several jurors-even a majority. Unanimous? I don't see it but we will see.
 
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 ............
 
after 27 hours of deliberations-the jury claimed it was deadlocked and Judge Ghiz has just given the jury an "Allen charge" asking them to try to reach a verdict. its standard. this jury has now gone several hours past the first jury.
 
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 ............


Murder-not established

violated training-yes

if the guy who shot that man in St Pauls was acquitted, Tensing should be. What Tensing did was not nearly as bad as that other case
 
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
 
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 DuBose 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.
 
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.

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
 
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.

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.
 
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

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.
 
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.

that has been suggested. hamilton county is becoming more and more Democrat dominated-the city has been for years and the townships in the outlying parts of the county have seen lots of republicans move to warren, Clinton, Butler and Clermont counties and Deters might well be pandering to the black vote.
 
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.

I think reckless homicide-which is what Deters and Teiger tried to get the judge to charge the jury with in addition to the other charges, was the most appropriate charge
 
Eight jurors-NG on murder 4 jurors-Guilty

Seven Jurors NG on Voluntary manslaughter -5 Jurors-Not Guilty

Deters is losing support to retry this matter. He has pissed off the police union by attacking one of his own witnesses who didn't help the case

an unofficial poll by CBS Channel 12 showed 83% against a re-trial

Deters credibility is being diminished by this case and when the prosecutors and the police union start fighting-that's not good.

maybe Deters will get a clue and not try to pander to certain groups by overcharging this case
 
the Hamilton County Prosecutor just announced that he will not seek a third trial of UC police officer Ray Tensing.

after the twit who shot Castile was acquitted, probably a good move given that the person shot in this case was a dope dealer with felony weight dope in his car. while that does not justify the shooting in any way, many jurors aren't going to convict a cop for killing a mope.
 
another protest, mostly peaceful, of those who are upset that the County Prosecutor won't try Tensing again. A march in support of the now innocent police officer will take place shortly. The anti Tensing rally is hoping for federal involvement. I expect any decision will come from main DOJ rather than from the officer of acting US Attorney Ben Glassman (who is a hold over from the Obama administration because the Portman/Brown nominated Greg Hartman is being delayed due, allegedly , to Trump's displeasure with Rob Portman)
 
Back
Top Bottom