Not to mention LW will have a field day with this on the call in shows.

 

It was totally out-of-control today.  Scott Sloan blamed the incident on Mark Mallory -- that for years we were "wasting time on flower pots and the City Hall atrium when we should have been focused on safety". 

Not to mention LW will have a field day with this on the call in shows.

 

It was totally out-of-control today.  Scott Sloan blamed the incident on Mark Mallory -- that for years we were "wasting time on flower pots and the City Hall atrium when we should have been focused on safety".

 

clearly the only solution is to STOP EVERYTHING until the moms in west chester and florence give the city the green light that they feel safe. so cancel the streetcar. cancel the MLK interchange. cancel wasson way. cancel shows at the incline theater. cancel laying sod at smale. no more Reds games. STOP EVERYTHING.

 

 

in other news: I literally saw nursing mothers at picnics underneath the suspension bridge during lunch today. And the sidewalks could do with widening to accommodate all the strollers.

Sadly it seems like some people want to return Cincy to the crudhole it was previously.

 

On that note, the concert series is canceled: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/2015/07/06/self-diploma-saturday-concert-series-fountain-square-cancel/29799337/

^What a dumb reaction.  The radio hosts today found whatever tangent they could to blame this on the streetcar.

Originally the concerts were cancelled for the rest of the year, but this weekend’s (July 11) concert was still scheduled. As of this afternoon, that too has been cancelled. There must have been a huge backlash from local businesses and sponsors.

Well, They dug into the lyrics of the act scheduled for this weekend and they found: references to violence.

Last night some clowns shot a few rounds out of their car in front of Pieology on McMillan.  The police never showed up despite the UC police being all over the place. 

The UC Police are a fully qualified police department that can handle these situations on their own. (Much like how transit agencies, railroads, and port authorities can have their own independent police departments.) Although I am surprised they wouldn't involve the Cincinnati Police in a situation like this.

It's strange how the media didn't cover crime over the all-star week. Now that it's over. Crime is back to the front page.

They had better things to talk about. Crime stories are a default go-to when nothing huge is happening since crime stores make people over a certain age buy new Chevrolets.

A UC police officer had to shoot and kill a man at a traffic stop near the hill on Vine Street, after he attempted to pull away, dragging the officer with him. It is only the second time UC police have ever taken a life:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/19/police-person-shot--mt-auburn/30391931/

A UC police officer had to shoot and kill a man at a traffic stop near the hill on Vine Street, after he attempted to pull away, dragging the officer with him. It is only the second time UC police have ever taken a life:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/19/police-person-shot--mt-auburn/30391931/

 

Third time. 1997, 2011, 2015.

A UC police officer had to shoot and kill a man at a traffic stop near the hill on Vine Street, after he attempted to pull away, dragging the officer with him. It is only the second time UC police have ever taken a life:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/19/police-person-shot--mt-auburn/30391931/

 

Third time. 1997, 2011, 2015.

 

Yeah, I forgot about the guy who died from the taser incident. Oddly enough, this driver might be alive today if the UC police were allowed to carry tasers, but part of the settlement when UC was sued over that death was that the UC police cease usage of them. 

^Perhaps, but the cop might be dead.  I'd think the last thing you'd want to do in that situation is taser the driver due to the reflex it causes in the muscles, specifically here the leg which was applying pressure to the gas pedal.

The car was still moving right? Even after he shot? So why was he shot?

I'm all for police but it seems that so many shootings are happening yet when you look at other countries these don't happen as much as here.

 

National news again.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/us/cincinnati-police-shooting/index.html

The car was still moving right? Even after he shot? So why was he shot?

I'm all for police but it seems that so many shootings are happening yet when you look at other countries these don't happen as much as here.

 

National news again.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/us/cincinnati-police-shooting/index.html

 

The car was moving because the driver (who appears to have been drunk at the time) was trying to flee the scene, after having originally stopped. The cop was unable to get out of the way and was apparently dragged by the car prior to shooting. The car continued on until it hit something, as it was in gear.

 

I find it odd that people keep referring to the guy as unarmed. He was (drunkenly) piloting several thousand pounds of metal - something that's responsible for far more deaths in this country than guns are. The guy had dozens of traffic violations and a permanently suspended license, he was more dangerous behind the wheel than with a gun.

I'm worried about this case because if the officer's camera was working then this will be one of the first if not the first example of one of these cameras capturing an officer-involved shooting.  And the reason I'm worried is because even if the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the police, people will still see it how they want to.  Earlier this month we had the big uproar about the white guy being beaten unconscious on Fountain Square when a video appeared that showed him clearly taunting his attackers.  What was so incredible was that the footage couldn't be more obvious, but many people chose to ignore that portion of the video or wildly misinterpret it. 

 

As for the UC police, I'm around UC and Cincinnati police a lot and have been in the UC police station many times.  It seems like a pretty chilled out staff compared to the city police.  I have a hard time believing that a police officer would shoot an unarmed driver unless he felt truly in danger of being injured by the car. 

Some versions of that video edited out the taunting it was disgusting

Some versions of that video edited out the taunting it was disgusting

 

Really?  I didn't see an edited version.  But that would make a lot of sense.  What was so incredible was that you could link to the video and people would refuse to see the taunting.  The Emperor had no clothes!

There were some clips shown that were just cut short and only showed the worst 5-10 seconds. When the full video was shown on TV it was silent during the actual beating. There was a lot of taunting that was done by the crowd as the guy was being beaten, but it was not shown on TV. I assume it was because of the language, and rather than bleeping every other word they simply hit the mute button. What's interesting is that several of the people in the crowd were arrested seemingly just for the taunting.

 

But I agree that this body camera footage of this could put Cincinnati in the national spotlight again. No matter what it shows, if released it will be national news. All the major national media outlets salivate at the mouth for any type of racial conflict.

I find it odd that people keep referring to the guy as unarmed. He was (drunkenly) piloting several thousand pounds of metal - something that's responsible for far more deaths in this country than guns are. The guy had dozens of traffic violations and a permanently suspended license, he was more dangerous behind the wheel than with a gun.

 

This is so frustrating because it is so senseless.

 

A police officer is trained in making traffic stops. What's the protocol? How in hell do you, as an officer, ever get in the way of the car? Wouldn't protocol demand the officer always maintain a certain distance between him/herself and the car? Whenever I've been stopped the officer stands away from the door, so he can see you and your hands clearly and, presumably, be out of the way in case I decided to take off. (After which, by the way, he wouldn't shoot me, but instead would follow me safely and report my location and license plate.)

 

I'm sorry, but this business about the driver and his car being more dangerous than a gun just isn't right by me.

 

This video had better show something so aggressive that the officer clearly had no choice. Based on the description of the person killed, and the way officials are reacting, I'm not betting on that happening. What would that look like? It would have to be something like the driver grabbing him forcefully by the shirt and attempting to hold him, while he drove off. Anything else, like him attempting to shove the officer away or opening his door into the officer, would in my mind just call for the officer to do something sane like get out of the way and go to step two.

 

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if UC police training tactics need to be overhauled, not to mention hiring practices.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if UC police are going to be allowed to parole our streets and engage citizens like this, then they should be subject to the same hiring and training practices that the CPD uses.

I know this isn't relevant to the incident, but wow... he had 13 children. That is a lot of kids.

 

And the UCPD are officers under Ohio law, so theoretically they undergo the same training as any city police officers. I imagine they also get additional training about how to handle issues specifically related to working the university campus.

The only word on the extent of the officer's injuries is this from the Enquirer today.

 

"[Officer] Tensing sustained bruised legs and his uniform was torn during the struggle."

 

 

I know this isn't relevant to the incident, but wow... he had 13 children. That is a lot of kids.

 

And the UCPD are officers under Ohio law, so theoretically they undergo the same training as any city police officers. I imagine they also get additional training about how to handle issues specifically related to working the university campus.

 

No, it's not relevant, so what is your purpose?

 

And are you really trying to suggest that something like the education of police officers is made equivalent by virtue of an Ohio law?  I just don't know how to respond to that.

^Just an observation. It's just a large number of kids. It wasn't any judgement on him. It really sucks that they all lost their father in this incident

 

And I don't know exactly how officers are trained. But I know you need to pass basic training and take a test to become an officer in the State of Ohio. I'm sure different departments have other requirements above and beyond Ohio law to be hired, but there is a basic training required and UCPD meet those requirements. I don't know how closely UCPD and CPD train or if they do at all.

 

I know this isn't relevant to the incident, but wow... he had 13 children. That is a lot of kids.

 

And the UCPD are officers under Ohio law, so theoretically they undergo the same training as any city police officers. I imagine they also get additional training about how to handle issues specifically related to working the university campus.

 

No, it's not relevant, so what is your purpose?

 

And are you really trying to suggest that something like the education of police officers is made equivalent by virtue of an Ohio law?  I just don't know how to respond to that.

 

It is relevant in that it provides some insight to his character. Some are quoted as saying he had between 13 and 20 offspring, which I think most people would view as not a responsible thing.  He's just as whacko as the Duggars and their 19 kids.  The man clearly didn't live by rules in any way, shape or form.  Seventy-five bookings?  I'm sorry, but I hate excuse after excuse after excuse. The man doesn't deserve to be dead, but HE is the one who clearly was constantly inserting himself into scenarios where rules aren't being followed and bad things might happen.

The problem with videos, be they dash cams, surveillance cams, cell phone video, the new body cams, or infamously the tourist who filmed Rodney King getting beaten, is that video naturally insinuates "fact" and an illustration of an event's entire context.  What we see over and over again with these events is that the videos *don't* properly illustrate the context, for any number of reasons.  Or even more disturbingly, as was the case with the Fountain Square video, people chose to ignore parts of a video that contradicted the narrative that they had already assembled in their minds. 

 

Jim I agree that this video *had better* illustrate very unusual circumstances.  It's a pretty odd story and if the video is not conclusive in support of the officer's actions then we could end up being all over cable news for the next two weeks. 

That's like when you watch Chernobyl video they show the helicopter taking off and you think the people are going to be OK. Then you see the full video somewhere else and the helicopter crashes into the power lines killing everyone aboard.

That's like when you watch Chernobyl video they show the helicopter taking off and you think the people are going to be OK. Then you see the full video somewhere else and the helicopter crashes into the power lines killing everyone aboard.

 

You had to go there?  If you really want to get upset, watch the relatively recent BBC documentary where they interviewed those who had survived 25 years after cleaning up the plant and building the sarcophagus. 

 

Well while we're there, revisiting the Rodney King beating and the ensuing LA riots on Youtube is stunning.  The beating and then the riot were so much worse than anything that has happened since it's still really in its own universe.  And of course it's a funny trick the mind plays when someone getting savagely beaten but not killed seems worse than someone getting shot and killed, as in the 2001 Timothy Thomas shooting here in Cincinnati.   

 

 

I'm sorry, but I hate excuse after excuse after excuse. The man doesn't deserve to be dead, but HE is the one who clearly was constantly inserting himself into scenarios where rules aren't being followed and bad things might happen.

 

Ah, "rules aren't being followed."

 

I was in Austria one time and when parking my car they had an attendant who was watching to make absolutely certain that I didn't approach any of the white lines. Then I went to Seoul where they park cars and bikes all over the sidewalk and double park them on the street and they make it all work pretty seamlessly and efficiently by communicating, instead of rules.

 

I'm sorry, enforcing the rules you are talking about in the way you seem to want them enforced, isn't ever going to make a fun and prosperous society, or a safe one, either.

^???

These aren't mundane little rules. They're things like fleeing after being pulled over, hit and run, possibly dragging an officer (this one isn't fully clear from the information we have) after running into him, very possibly driving drunk based on the report, etc. Do any of those things in Seoul and you're going to get into trouble too. This isn't some minor situation where the guy parked too far from the curb or some other trivial rule. This is a situation where a guy got pulled over for a routine traffic dispute and escalated the situation by doing basically everything you can do wrong.

^You're getting into the weeds. It breaks down to this: you either think that the guy is at fault because of his past actions and because he didn't comply like you or I would, or you think that the professional police officer that initiated this contact, because of a missing front license plate, is responsible for managing situations like this so that they do not escalate into lethal force.

 

I'm amazed to say that I agree completely with Cranley on this one issue, when he said that UC police reforms are called for, and that a traffic stop should never escalate to lethal use of force. They are talking now about bringing UC police into the collaborative agreement, which makes perfect sense. It's also exactly what I had mentioned in my post above.

 

This whole situation is just ridiculous and I can't believe people can even bring up a persons past traffic violations etc in the light of him being shot in the head.

 

Like I said before, the video had better show some compelling reasons for killing him. At least from that we'll know what happened in this case.

Huh? But we're not speaking about his past violations....we're discussing the things he did in THIS situation.

 

If you run into an officer when he pulls you over for something that could have been over and handled in five minutes like any traffic stop and then drunkenly try to flee the scene (this is assuming the reports of alcohol use are accurate), that's putting yourself in a situation where an officer is going to have to make a decision whether or not to let you keep going, potentially injuring innocent people, or use force to stop you. I'm not saying I agree with the outcome, but this wasn't some innocent guy who did nothing wrong.

There's a reason why police policies are very specific about escalation of use of force. That was one of the big deals in Cincinnati's collaborative agreement. You and others obviously have a much lower bar for justifying lethal use of force, than I am comfortable with. And there are reasons why President Ono requested from the City that UC police officers become part of the collaborative, directly as a result of this incident.

I don't think anyone here is saying they think he should be dead. The only argument being made is that the man involved took a routine traffic stop and made a series of decisions that put a police officer in a position where he had to make that decision. That's it.

^ Of course not; and I'd never assume that.

 

Narrowing further, the disagreement is over your statement "where he had to make that decision." I am not at all sure about that, and moreover am obviously suspicious of it. That is why I stated that you must have a lower bar for escalation of use of force. I think that is a fair characterization.

Unless the evidence clearly shows otherwise I'm giving the police the benefit of the doubt, not the man with over 75 bookings.

 

Does no one remember the police officer that got dragged to death by a car a back in 2000?

 

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/09/01/loc_cop_dragged_to_death.html

 

I found this quote particularly applicable:

"And in reference to the question as to whether the suspect was armed: He was armed, with a 2,000-pound chunk of metal called an automobile which resulted in the murder of our officer brother.''

Unless the evidence clearly shows otherwise I'm giving the police the benefit of the doubt, not the man with over 75 bookings.

 

Does no one remember the police officer that got dragged to death by a car a back in 2000?

 

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/09/01/loc_cop_dragged_to_death.html

 

I found this quote particularly applicable:

"And in reference to the question as to whether the suspect was armed: He was armed, with a 2,000-pound chunk of metal called an automobile which resulted in the murder of our officer brother.''

 

Oh my goodness. There are so many things wrong with this story.

I know that Deters is a pretty polarizing figure in general, and it would great to have the video available to the public, but I think it's important to keep the video out of the public until the investigation is complete.

 

If the officer sees the video and then issues a statement he can adapt his story to match the video evidence. Now, if he lies, there is a greater chance that his version of events will be proven false by video evidence. So while it's important to release the video of the incident, I appreciate that Deters is holding it back so it can't taint any evidence or statements from the officer or possible witnesses.

WCPO article after official report was released. Most thorough account thus far. Obviously this is only the officer's account, but still an important piece of evidence.

WCPO article after official report was released. Most thorough account thus far. Obviously this is only the officer's account, but still an important piece of evidence.

 

That's a horribly written article, from the very first sentence. I wish they would had just provided a link to the police incident report in its entirety. I can't seem to find it posted online yet. The Enquirer mentions it's 3 pages long.

 

Edit: It's posted here now: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/23/uc-shooting-incident-report/30582067/

Also posted here: http://www.local12.com/images/Incident%20Report.pdf

Perhaps he saw the missing front plates, then followed the car in order to run the rear license plates, then saw the driver drive somewhat erratically since he had been drinking. 

City manager: UC shooting 'not a good situation'

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/27/uc-police-shooting/30730139/

 

But he said he's heard what it shows and said, "My reaction is that it is not a good situation."

"It's a tragic situation," Black said. "Someone has died that did not necessarily need to die."

 

Well that's by far the most information about this video that we've heard thus far.

I just hope one of the two happens:

 

1) Dubose was obviously endangering the officer's life to the point force was required

2) A grand jury indicts the officer and the video is released after the indictment

 

It seems scenario 2 is more likely. If the driver was at fault, the video would likely be released already. Hopefully it isn't

 

3) A grand jury fails to indict the officer and the video clearly shows abuse of power/improper use of deadly force

Well I heard over the weekend from people who overheard mumblings by one of the three names I'm about to name that Deters, Cranley, and Ono all know we're facing a huge Rodney King-level national story and that all of their careers are in jeopardy because the video shows no indication that the officer was in imminent danger and that the driver didn't attempt a getaway or to run over the officer.  The detail of the story that really didn't make sense to me is that the officer managed to kill the guy with one shot -- that's very tough to do if a car is in motion.   

It'll be interesting to see if various parties take advantage of this event and attempt to oust any of those three.  We know Cranley and Deters have tons of enemies, but will someone attempt to oust Ono?

I just hope one of the two happens:

 

1) Dubose was obviously endangering the officer's life to the point force was required

2) A grand jury indicts the officer and the video is released after the indictment

 

It seems scenario 2 is more likely. If the driver was at fault, the video would likely be released already. Hopefully it isn't

 

3) A grand jury fails to indict the officer and the video clearly shows abuse of power/improper use of deadly force

 

I agree with this, and think there's a slim chance of 3 happening. It's most likely going to be 1 or 2. Though I would add an option four: A grand jury indicts the officer despite the video showing he was in danger. I think this option also has a slim chance, but I believe it's a possibility because of the narrative national media has been presenting over the last year. Distrust of and hatred toward police is at an all time high.

 

I don't think the delay in releasing the video says anything about the content - I think Deters is just doing his best to keep this out of the national spotlight so as not to taint the jury pool. My only assumption about the content is that it must be very graphic. Whether the shooting was justified or not, seeing a first person view of someone's head being blown off is going to affect any viewer.

Ono is such a feel good presence for UC.  I'd hate to see him take the fall.