Chalk one up for body-worn cameras. “This is without question murder,” Ohio prosecutor Joseph T. Deters said at a press conference Wednesday after a grand jury indicted a University of Cincinnati campus cop for the July 19 slaying of an unarmed black man.
The victim, Sam DuBose, was stopped for a traffic violation that Mr. Deters is calling “chicken crap.” The officer, Ray Tensing, has been fired.
“It was a senseless, asinine shooting,” Mr. Deters said at the news conference, as he used stark terms to denounce the killing. The prosecutor released the video which clearly showed that Mr. Dubose did not act aggressively or pose a threat to Officer Tensing, and that Officer Tensing had lied about being dragged by Mr. Dubose’s car.
“This doesn’t happen in the United States, OK?” he said. “This might happen in Afghanistan. People don’t get shot for a traffic stop.” “This office has probably reviewed 100 police shootings, and this is the first time we’ve thought, ‘This is without question a murder,’ ” he said.
At the news conference the prosecutor said that this is the first time a law enforcement officer in Hamilton County, Ohio, where Cincinnati is the county seat, had ever before been indicted on murder charges for use of force while on duty.
Mr. Deters told the media that Officer Tensing “should never have been a police officer,” but he declined to elaborate.
Mr. Deters indicated that he thought Officer Tensing, all of 25, had tried to mislead investigators. Mr. Deters said, “Yeah, yes, I think he was making an excuse for the purposeful killing of another person.” Mr. Deters added, “I think he lost his temper because Mr. Dubose wouldn’t get out of his car.”
The video shows Officer Tensing asking repeatedly for Mr. Dubose to produce his driver’s license, which he was unable to find. The officer asks Dubose about objects on the floor of his car, and Dubose picks up an unopened pint bottle of alcohol and hands it to the officer for inspection.
Like many incidents, the situation rapidly escalates. Mr. Dubose does not appear to make any violent or threatening moves toward the officer. For reasons that are not clear, a matter of minutes into the incidents, Officer Tensing pulls out his service weapon and fires one shot into Dubose’s head. The car rolls away, and Tensing runs down the road after it.
“I think he lost his temper because Mr. Dubose wouldn’t get out of his car,” Prosecutor Deters stated on Wednesday. “When you see [the video] you will not believe how quickly he pulls his gun and shoots him in the head. It’s maybe a second. It’s incredible. So senseless. I feel so sorry for his family and I feel sorry for the community… This should not have happened.”
The city was bracing for protests or riots after the release of the footage. However, the protests were reported to be peaceful.
Mr. Tensing was taken into police custody shortly after the indictment was announced, and he is due to appear in court on Thursday. University of Cincinnati President Santa Ono confirmed Tensing has been fired, and that the school is currently reviewing its police department and policies.
Analysis: Cameras Are Changing the Way These Incidents Are Seen and Handled
The death of Mr. Dubose, a black man, at the hands of Officer Tensing, a white police officer, becomes the latest in a string of recent cases including those in Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland, North Charleston and Baltimore. All of these incidents, among others, have raised hard questions about law enforcement’s use of force and the role of race in policing.
This is yet another in a string of officer involved shootings of unarmed black men. But things are starting to change. Unlike in Ferguson, most of the recent episodes, including the nonlethal encounter that resulted in the arrest of Sandra Bland, have been recorded on video and therefore prosecutors and the public have been able to analyze them and see evidence of the confrontations that often contradict the accounts of those involved.
Unlike some of the other incidents, however, the death of Samuel Dubose was caught on a body-worn camera. That means that the officer perpetrated this act knowing that it was being filmed.
In the wake of these incidents, police departments have either implemented or, in the case in Davis, are in the process of implementing policies for body-worn cameras. While there is a hope these cameras might serve as a deterrent, the larger hope is that they will accurately capture the incidents – what leads to the escalation and who is to blame.
As the New York Times reports today, “Raw video has thoroughly shaken American policing. Grainy images of questionable police behavior, spread through social media, have led to nationwide protests, federal investigations and changes in policy and attitudes on race.”
“A lot of white people are truly shocked by what these videos depict; I know very few African-Americans who are surprised,” said Paul D. Butler, a law professor at Georgetown University and a former prosecutor. “The videos are smoking-gun evidence,” he added, “both literally because they are very graphic, which generates outrage, and figuratively, because people believe their own eyes.”
Something else has changed. In the early incidents, the officers involved in the killings of Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Tamir Rice (to date) have not been indicted and charged with murder. But that is changing.
When Walter Scott was shot and killed by white officer Michael T. Slager, he concocted a cover story that appeared to hold until a bystander released the video of the shooting showing Mr. Slager firing eight times as Mr. Scott fled on foot.
In Baltimore, Freddie Gray was chased and restrained by police officers, and suffered a spinal injury while in their custody. He died a week later. The six officers involved in his arrest were charged with crimes that included murder and manslaughter.
Now Samuel Dubose on July 19 became the latest casualty, and Officer Tensing the latest to be indicted based on body camera video.
It has been nearly 25 years since Rodney King’s beating was captured on a handheld video camera, almost by accident. The police were able to avoid conviction as the video was incomplete, but that acquittal was costly, resulting in several days of rioting in Los Angeles in 1992.
It is quite possible that in the future every encounter will be captured from multiple angles and multiple cameras, and then at least we can determine what happened and who is at fault. As the lesson of Samuel Dubose suggests, it may not deter conduct that happens in the heat of the moment.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“While there is a hope these cameras might serve as a deterrent, the larger hope is that they will accurately capture the incidents – what leads to the escalation and who is to blame.”
Actually as someone who believes firmly in the power of prevention, my greatest hope is embodied in your first clause, “there is a hope these cameras might serve as a deterrent”. If we prevent the escalation of these episodes from the initial stop to the perceived need for violent action ( be it on the part of the detainee or the police) by the participants awareness that their every act is being recorded, the best possible outcome of reduced violence ( no matter the job description of the perpetrator) might be achieved.
Looks like the prosecutor pulled a Mosby with his comments on the case to the media. I always thought that those types of comments were inappropriate in that he is tainting the jury pool. I am further concerned that the video was released prior to the trial for the same reasons. This is becoming a new trend with commentators opining about the evidence in the case prior to it being presented to a jury. This is a troubling trend.
I think having the video out in advance is helpful otherwise we have idle speculation. At least now we can each evaluate the video. You compared him to Mosby, but didn’t comment on the video itself.
It’s very unusual for a prosecutor, prior to trial, to public opine what the defendant was probably thinking, or that he was being deceitful. Comments going toward the motive or intent, or state of mind, of a defendant is not said publicly but presented later during the trial.
Doing this now, takes on the appearance of public posturing. More importantly, the defendant’s defense attorney has been cued in advance on how the prosecutor is going to construct his case, and have all that much more time to prepare a counter-argument. If the defense publicly discredits the prosecutor in the process, oh well.
The comment about the officer “should never had been hired,” should never have been said. It invited the suspicion that the prosecutor could have been influenced in the decision to charge based on information irrelevant to the murder charge. The very likely civil suit for wrongful death that will follow this trial, will probably find the prosecutor being deposed by the plaintiff, asking for all the particulars.
Most prosecutors follow the same axiom for any pending criminal prosecution, “I do all my talking in court.”
I believe the UK does the exact opposite – everything is confidential until the trial is concluded, and a verdict is rendered. That way innocent people aren’t tarred and feathered.
David,
Because the DA’s behavior is shocking. He is trying the case in the media in order to get in front of the story to convince he public that the cop is guilty. That is wrong. It is unethical and disgusting. He is pandering to the public to avoid riots and that is also wrong. This case should be tried in a court, not the media. The simple act of securing the indictment should have been enough to calm the community without going on the narrative the way he did. Instead the DA is going out of his way to attack the officer even by alluding that their is something in the officers background that should have disqualified him from ever being a police officer. Character assassination in the media of the defendant by the DA is just plain wrong. His conduct should lead to his disbarment.
Concerning the tape this driver refused to provide the officer with his driver’s license. He was screwing around with the officer. Probably because he did not have one or it was suspended. When the officer concludes that he has no license he directs the driver out of the car at which point the driver pulls the door shut. The driver turns the key starting the vehicle and the officer appears to reach into the car to turn it off. The driver puts the car in gear, the officer is partway in the car and shoots the driver. I cannot tell from the video if it is moving forward at the time of the shot or if the officer’s arm is pinned in the vehicle. The officer is dragged and falls backwards as the car in gear drives slowly down the road until it crashes.
In my opinion the driver would be alive today if he followed the officer’s instructions and got out of the vehicle. Further the officer made a poor tactical decision reaching into the vehicle to turn off the car. That put him in a vulnerable position directly caused the shooting. Instead the officer should have stepped away from the vehicle when the defendant started the car. Directed the driver to stop and pursued him if he didn’t. Hindsight is of course 100%. I suspect that the officer feared for his safety when part way in the vehicle when the driver put it in gear and then shot the driver.
I also heard the DA say that they did not let the officer see the video and kept him talking about the incident. I wonder if an investigating officer ever stated that he had viewed the video and watched the officer being dragged prior to the shot, in other words lying to the defendant officer who then adopted that story.
I am further shocked that the DA would refer to the traffic stop as “asinine” and “chicken shit”. Having been pulled over myself a number of years ago for not having my registration tag on my license plate (it was sitting on my kitchen counter) and getting the fix it ticket. It was irritating to get pulled over and receive the ticket. I on the other hand did not give the officer a hard time and provided my license, registration and proof of insurance and to took the ticket, all while following the officer instructions. I did not try to bullshit the officer like the driver in this case, refuse to exit the vehicle or try to drive away like the driver in this case. I am alive today and he isn’t. There is a lesson there that people are ignoring.
Very well said!
I think the city was presented with some pretty solid evidence of a white officer shooting a black suspect for no real apparent reason and realized that if they did not announce their intent to quickly and aggressively pursue prosecution and release the video the prospect of riots with tens of millions of dollars in in damage, possible further loss of life, and painting the city as a hub of out of control racist cops and city administration would be the most likely outcome.
i agree completely. i don’t understand why you would hold back when it’s very clear cut.
does anyone think the video shows otherwise?
“All of these incidents, among others, have raised hard questions about law enforcement’s use of force and the role of race in policing.”
Perhaps to you all of these incidents have raised the issue of race. But if you take a more objective look, some of these cases have nothing to do with race. For instance, the Baltimore case involved both black and white officers, and was about defendants of all ethnic persuasions being given “rough rides” by the police. In the case depicted in this article, I doubt this had as much to do with race as it had to do with not following orders from law enforcement and fleeing the scene.
What I find interesting is that based on the video footage I looked at above, it is not clear to me the officer “murdered” the driver of the car. It is true the actual killing does not appear on the video footage, so I cannot see precisely what happened. But when the driver starts to take off with the policeman part way in the car, there is certainly an argument to be made the driver was using his vehicle as a deadly weapon (depraved indifference). Now do I think proper police procedure was followed? No, I doubt it. I have seen enough cop shows to know how this traffic stop should have been handled, and this wasn’t it.
For me, the bigger issue is not so much of race, but police procedure when a citizen does not obey/appears not to obey/does obey the lawful orders of a police officer and the use of deadly force. For example, it was shocking to see a policeman shoot an unarmed driver who reached for his driver’s license when asked to do so. The driver was completely cooperative, but I guess made the cop nervous when reaching for his license. See: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/
IMO there needs to be some uniform (pardon the pun) policy on when a policeman has the right to draw his gun and shoot a civilian. Right now it seems to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, depending on the police department, some more aggressive than others, with not much commonality between them. Civilians, quite frankly, are not sure what to do when pulled over for a traffic stop by a cop. I know people who have said they make sure to put their hands on the top part of the steering wheel of the car, to make sure an office can see their hands, because the individuals I have spoken with are afraid of getting shot. My own personal interactions with law enforcement have been both good and bad. I did encounter one cop who, in front of his fellow officers, completely lost his composure as I remained completely calm in front of my three children. I was not issued a traffic ticket at the scene, but the out-of-control cop sent me one later in the mail. This cop was African-American by the way, but I doubt race had anything to do with the situation.
The media and the race hustlers play up this angle, even when there is none present. We get a distorted view of reality.
On the flip side, we can have video evidence of the “knockout game”, or of white victims being set upon by gangs or youth mobs which are predominantly minority, and they rarely get attention beyond youtube or drudgereport.
I agree that we can take a fresh look at police procedures, some which may be logical and prudent, some which aren’t.
The media and race hustlers have whipped up their own fury, and there appear to have been several officer executions which were a direct payback for this frenzy, as well as a spike in crime in a few large cities.
it’s funny how you always want to bring in extraneous and irrelevant factors to the discussion.
On the flip side, we can have video evidence of the “knockout game”, or of white victims being set upon by gangs or youth mobs which are predominantly minority, and they rarely get attention beyond youtube or drudgereport.
I think that the bar for the type of behavior that is expected of a teenager is a little lower than that of a public safety officer who receives an extensive background checks, psychological testing to ensure that they are suited for the job, extensive training, and is supplied with a bullet proof vest, hand gun, shotgun, pepper spray, baton, and in many cases an assault rifle for his daily duties.
When we are training cops as soldiers, giving them equipment like soldiers, dressing them up as soldiers, then they are going to pick up the mentality of soldiers. The job of the police dept is to protect and serve. A soldiers mission is to engage the enemy in close combat and kill him.
Much too often police responses to a call for assistance look more and more like a rollout in Falujah Iraq, and routine stops for what would be a misdemeanor look like they think they are making contact with a enemy combatant or probable terrorist.
it seems a lot of people don’t recognize the difference between bad conduct made by private citizens and bad conduct committed by police under the color of the authority.
I’ve never quite understood the phrase “color of authority”. What color does authority have? What shade is it?
Police have a license of authority while on duty; and as incidents like this video show, this license is sometimes abused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)
Don & DG–thanks for the definitions; guess I should have googled this myself–kind of like a camoflauge or cover, I see it now.
Well, I guess there’s little question that sometimes law enforcement acts under ‘color of authority’–and not only law enforcement, but other government employees and representatives!
anon:
you say some of these incidents have nothing to do with race – but you base it on the fact that in baltimore the officers were mixed race. but is that a fair assessment? could black officers end up submitting to the same racial stereotypes as white officers? my thirty years in the court room suggest that while black officers do have a broader view, there are times when you cannot distinguish the behavior.
moreover, you suggest, and correctly so, “The driver was completely cooperative, but I guess made the cop nervous when reaching for his license. ” i think you are correct, but is there racial loading for that nervousness?
overall i think you bring a good perspective here, i just wouldn’t be so quick to dimiss racial factors.
Yep DP, we know that’s something that you’ll never be accused of doing.
what you seem dismissive of is the experience of others.
No, I just don’t cry wolf at every drop of a hat.
i don’t think murder is the drop of a hat
Not talking about murder, talking about how you seem to have to put race into everything under the sun.
Anon
“I cannot see precisely what happened. But when the driver starts to take off with the policeman part way in the car, there is certainly an argument to be made the driver was using his vehicle as a deadly weapon”
When I first viewed the tape, I thought the same thing. However, something made me go back and watch it two more times. It now appears to me that there was a “pop” sound before the car starts moving. In retrospect, I believe that the policeman shot the driver as soon as he tried to secure his door and that the car only began moving after the possible shot had occurred. If this is the correct interpretation of the sequence of events, then there is no way that the driver could have been guilty of anything beyond not obeying a direct order and/or resisting arrest. Correct if true ?
The pop sounds to me sounds like it occurred just after the car started moving.
The viewpoint of the second camera wasn’t clear to me, lots of movement.
The video posted by the NY Times above is edited so the part of the tape where the officer raises his gun and shoots the victim in the head is edited out. This moment happens before the car starts moving. The car takes off and goes about a block and stops. It is unclear if the man was even still alive during this “chase.” If you find a site that shows the entire unedited version like the link below (and you can stomach watching it), it is clear that this was indeed an execution – murder. There doesn’t seem doubt in my mind. He could say that he meant to grab a taser, but then why did he point it at his head?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/07/30/former-university-of-cincinnati-police-officer-pleads-not-guilty/
I watched the video in the link you provided and it still looks to me the car is starting in motion when the shot goes of and then continues in motion.
OK. Does that really matter? Does this warrant the officer pulling his gun, aiming at the guys head and shooting him?
We don’t know all of the details do we? Possibly the car trying to speed away accidentally caused the cop to discharge the gun. But at least we determined that the car was indeed starting to move so it puts a little different slant on the story. It all happened pretty fast.
I completely reject your suggestions that this was caused by the victim or that the gun, pointed at the driver’s head, went off accidentally. He lifted the gun, pointed it at the head of the driver and pulled the trigger in one motion. And then when the car moved away and crashed a short block away, he followed the car with his gun out and approached the car with the gun pointed at the driver/car. The driver was unarmed and at no time was the officer in danger and after shooting him in the head, the officer should have known then that he definitely was not in danger.
But, your suggestions will be part of his defense, I’m sure.
Barak Palin – The officer apparently admits to purposely shooting him, so he’s not saying that it accidentally went off. He saying that the driver was going to run him over, so he shot him in self defense. Apparently, that is his defense, but we will have to see.
I hadn’t heard that. If the officer said he thought he was going to be run over and that’s why he shot him then the officer is lying because there’s no way he was going to be run over with where he was standing in correlation to the victim’s car.
Yep. He told the other officer that responded that first he thought he was going to be run over. Then he changed it to his arm being caught and that he was dragged for some feet before he shot the guy. His story changes and will probably change again.
I suspect that the defense will be that he thought he was going to be run over because he arm was pinned in the vehicle and that he would be dragged and fall under the wheels. Not an unreasonable thought process. I do not necessarily believe that being run over or dragged is necessarily inconsistent. We have yet to hear the officer’s description of what happened and his thought process during each step of the incident. All we are getting is the pieces that the DA has released that support the DA’s narrative which is disturbing.
Having just been to the funeral for the Hayward police officer that was shot during a “routine traffic stop” I think that putting an officer in that position and being noncompliant was a poor choice.
Sam, The man was clearly unarmed and afraid of the officer and not attacking the officer. If you are saying what you are saying that all appearances of non-compliance should be met with lethal force, I’m going to have to disagree. The officer was out of his jurisdiction and pulled the car over for not having a front license plate, tried to start an argument, reached into the car to grab him through the window and then shot the man. Very different scenario. I will take what you are saying with a grain of salt due to your attendance at the funeral. Very sad event.
“The man was clearly unarmed”
You only know that he was unarmed after they were able to search the car, after he was taken out of the car, after he was shot. My point is that do you want to bet your life every time you interact with someone that, by law, is suppose to comply with your directions and does not is unarmed?
At most jobs when you make a mistake you can make another pizza, redo a report or just say you are sorry. It is easy to say that Seattle should have handed the ball to Lynch and that is what you would have done, but you were not the coach in the Super Bowl.
Sam–agree, there is know way to know if the driver had a weapon on his person or within reach in the car until after a search is conducted; this is monday-morning quarterbacking.
Ryan–The case is pretty strong against this officer without the monday-morning quarterbacking; the overall argument against this officer loses some credibility when you engage in this type of rhetoric (because it makes people like me wonder what else is being distorted in your argument).
I have noticed in the media reports of officer-involved shootings the repeated emphasis on ‘shooting of unarmed suspect’ (often as part of the headline). Without a search of the suspect, how can you know whether or not he is armed? I think the to be on the safe side, a policeman must consider it possible that a suspect may have a concealed weapon, until a search shows otherwise.
The guy started his car and then the cop shoots him in the head. He did not start his car, pull a weapon out from under the seat and engage in a shootout with the officer, and then get shot in the head. The officer already had his name, make and model of the car and the license plate number from the rear plate. His offense would have been driving without a license at most.
I can see the report now….. “After observing the subject driving erratically I stopped the subject and observed him behaving in a confused and aggressive manner. He was sweating and appeared to be under the influence of drugs. He became agitated and combative while refusing direct commands to exit the car and used seemingly superhuman strength to overpower my attempts to open the car door. I became trapped in the open car door and observed him reaching for something under the seat while at the same time starting the ignition of the car. Fearing for my life that I would be run over or that he would have a firearm and kill me, I discharged my firearm to neutralize the threat.”
How about this hypothetical scenario in Davis. Officer stops a UCD student on a motorcycle on 3rd and D for not having plates on bike and finds out the guy does not have his license on him. Officer tells him to get off his bike. The student refuses and starts the ignition of his motorcycle and it appears like he is going to leave. Officer responds by shooting him in the head. Justified shooting for refusing a direct order?
I saw a guy with a bottle of Gin between his legs, reported on the floor. What else was in the car that has not been reported in this article?
I saw a guy start his car and try to keep the door from being opened, then a struggle, which apparently was an edited video?
This is like a guy standing beside an officer tensing up like they are going to run, except he was in the car, and reaching up to start his car was certainly not under the order of the officer.
So, are we to understand this is a racial thing, for blacks to annoy and disobey orders from police, or mouth off and run because “they are afraid”? Are Police being trained to take this disrespect and behavior?
What are the Asian behaviors, Hispanic behaviors, or White behaviors of disobedience to the law or officers, and are the consequences different for each? Let’s get a comprehensive study started? There must be some evidence someone has been keeping track in all these villages and hamlets across America?
WesC–yes I agree that it certainly does appear this was an unjustified shooting, regardless of whether or not there may have been a weapon somewhere in the vehicle. The question of whether he was armed (i.e. concealed weapon or within reach in car) or not is irrelevant in this case; the broader and more pertinent question is whether or not the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer–and in this case it appears that the suspect was not an immediate threat to the well-being of the officer.
A number of year ago a CHP officer was shot and killed in Yolo County during a routine traffic stop. He walked up to the vehicle, the driver pulled a gun and shot him. Officers never know that a person is “unarmed” until they have searched them and the area immediately around them. Stating after the fact that the driver was unarmed is not helpful.
My view watching many of these incidents is that most of them are two to tango situations.
The person who dies is often non-coooperative, however, the officer handles a tricky situation very poorly. They unnecessarily escalate it and overreact to people in general being non-cooperative but also not physically threatening or violence.
What does that tell us? Cameras are important but training is necessary.
Three to tango: liberal media, citizen (criminal), and officer.
There have been numerous cases were there wasn’t a shred of proof that there was “racism” as a component, but the liberal press jumps and propels that story line.
1. Duke Lacrosse case (fabrication)
2. Tawana Brawley case (fabrication)
3. Harvard professor (escalated the police questioning him as he didn’t have keys and / or ID).
4. Michael Brown – he attacked a clerk, then talked back and tried to kill a police officer, then ran at him a 2nd time.
5. Trayvon Martin – attacked a watch member. (Sad case, poor choices.)
6. Gentle Giant – another sad case, and one worthy of evaluation, but the supervising officer was an African American woman. Police procedures need to be looked at, but race doesn’t appear to be an overriding issue. His health and size were issues which made a bad situation worse.
The case here looks troubling, and he may need to have the book thrown at him, but nerves have been frayed with this never-ending racial pot stirring.
I agree w/ David G, and also appreciate Sam’s point of view. Btw, Sam, it is nice to see a fresh name in the comment section & hope you continue to contribute your opinion here.
It seems like these news stories are almost becoming a daily/weekly thing. Re: the woman who recently died in her cell after being pulled over for failure to use her turn signal: I wish she had just driven away. Maybe she would also have been shot, or maybe she would still be alive?
At what point does a person have the right to say, “I’m so leary of cops, I prefer to run away from them and take my chances, rather than risk a beating, assault, or “rough ride”? Will this someday become a legitimate defense> “I was too afraid to deal with a cop one on one, therefore, I drove to the nearest police station, after calling my lawyer, and dealt with the cop when I had witnesses present?” Perhaps a sign in one’s vehicle with this info, and a refusal to even lower one’s window, if pulled over?
I’m considering it myself.
That would be a stupid decision to make and only get you in more trouble.
These are the stories David is addicted to, but notice the stories he skips?
How about the illegal immigrant who went on a violent rampage in Ohio? The judge was so flabbergasted in court, not even knowing who this individual was, and another criminal released by the Feds… the judge was beside himself with frustration, and we can only read between the lines.
He (Razo) murdered a 60-year-old woman.
Tried to rape a 14-year-old girl.
Fired shots at a Mother and her 2 children on a bike path.
Threatened to shoot a homeowner; shot at officers.
Talk about “without question”.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/28/illegal-alien-hat-trick-suspect-arrested-for-murder-attempted-rape-shooting/
TBD
Every one of the stories that you are mentioning is a story worth hearing. So why instead of criticizing David’s choice of stories, do you not write an article yourself. I know I love the stories from other contributors.
I’m more interested in wrongdoing committed by individuals under the color of authority, but as Tia points out, if you have other interests, we have an open submission policy.
As an avid Vanguard reader it seems that you’re mostly interested in cases of perceived wrongdoing committed by individuals under the color of authority only when it involves blacks.
What about the Kevin Hughey incident in West Sacramento, he was white. We covered that extensively. Luis Gutierrez was Hispanic. Officer Alvarez was Hispanic himself and raped women while on duty, I don’t know what race they were, but I don’t think they were black. That’s three local incidents off the top of my head.
There is no point in talking about police terrorism and racism from the perspective of the unaffected. Don’t restate the narrative to fit your expectation of reality and expect to reach understanding with the tellers.
;>)/
I can understand that there’s a racial narrative going on, but I’m still trying to figure out why a University of Cincinnati police officer was on patrol in what appears to be a residential area, and presumably where maybe the Cincinnati City Police ought to have jurisdiction. What business does Tensing have in making such a stop?
Also, how trained are university police officers to use fire arms?
Would Cincinnati City Police have been better prepared to face such a situation?
Re: Campus Police, I bet they run the gamut just like other cops. 2 extremes: the pepper spray cop @UCD, vs. the 2 cops at Cal who saved Jaycee and her 2 daughters from years of torture.
http://www.dailycal.org/2011/07/13/ucpd-responders-of-jaycee-dugard-case-speak-out/
To donate to Jaycee’s foundation, see J.A.Y.C. Foundation. Just Ask Yourself to Care.