Poll of the Day > Republican Prosecutor is DROPPING Case against White Cop who Killed Black Man!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Republican Prosecutor, Joe Deters said he is DROPPING the case against a white cop who murdered an unarmed black man during a Cincinnati traffic stop after 2 mistrials!!

He is dropping the case against 27 y/o Ray Tensing , on the eve of the 2 year anniversary of the death of 43 y/o Sam DuBose but added that he may ask the feds to consider possible civil rights charges.

2 Juries couldn't make a unanimous agreement on murder or voluntary manslaughter charges against the former officer

Joe said "i feel badly. I've got to do what i think is right"

Ray's lawyers applauded the decision and said he made the right decision because jurors he talked to said there would never be a "unanimous decision" and that the "system worked exactly as it's designed to work. We tried it with 2 separate jurors and neither one could come to a unanimous decision and that's our justice system working"

Joe agreed with the lawyer and said the US justice system is the "best system in the world" but added it's "imperfect"

He also referred to the OJ SIMPSON trial and said "the division in this country is profound. I mean, look at the OJ Simpson case, people were like What? Not Guilty? Ok? This goes both ways"

Ray shot Sam in the head after pulling him over for a missing front license plate on July 19th, 2015 and he has since been fired and testified he feared he was going to be killed.

This is one of the cases across the country that called attention to how police deal with blacks.

Ray said he feared being dragged or run over by Sam and said "i meant to stop the threat. i didn't shoot to kill him. I didn't shoot to wound him. I shot to stop his actions"

Dubose's family is calling for a 3rd trial as his family said that DuBose was no threat to Ray..

Ray's lawyer painted the trial against DuBose stating he had marijuana on him and was desperate to get away because he knew he would be headed to jail.

The shocking camera footage did not show Ray being dragged by Sam either as he was clearly away from the car and aimed his gun directly at him as he tried to drive away..

To convict him of murder, jurors had to find he purposely killed him

Do you think a jury vote should be decided by majority?

Joe - Failure

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/1/2017/07/18/21/wire-981553-1500408896-42_634x422.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/1/2017/07/18/21/wire-981555-1500408899-712_634x422.jpg

Ray - Murderer

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/18/21/4277055C00000578-4705780-image-m-132_1500411326906.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/18/22/42770C9700000578-4705780-image-a-136_1500412294055.jpg

Sam - Deceased

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/18/21/4277057000000578-4705780-image-a-133_1500411332547.jpg

Sam's Family -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/1/2017/07/18/21/wire-981551-1500408894-918_634x422.jpg
---

mrduckbear posted...

Do you think a jury vote should be decided by majority?

No, because far more innocent people would wind up in prison. If you think men and minorities get a raw deal now, this would be nothing compared to a simple majority vote.
---

Not a simple majority. But I definitely think it should require at least 2 dissenting opinions to thwart the vast majority of jury members. It's ridiculous that a single stubborn hold-out, possibly someone who can never be swayed from a particular view ("death penalty should never be used"; "cops should never be convicted for actions done while on duty"; etc...) no matter how compelling the reasons/evidence should get to overrule the entire rest of the jury.
If you can't convince even one single other person of your view, you shouldn't get to decide it for the whole jury. I think that's a pretty damn low bar to clear.

American police officers need to be trained to not immediately resort to gun fire, it's ridiculous how hard they lean on it as a crutch at the risk of innocent people's lives.

When the police are a bigger danger to the public than the criminals they stop, there is a immediate need of reform.
---

mrduckbear posted...

Sam's Family -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/1/2017/07/18/21/wire-981551-1500408894-918_634x422.jpg

Is she wearing a sombrero?
---

streamofthesky posted...

Not a simple majority. But I definitely think it should require at least 2 dissenting opinions to thwart the vast majority of jury members. It's ridiculous that a single stubborn hold-out, possibly someone who can never be swayed from a particular view ("death penalty should never be used"; "cops should never be convicted for actions done while on duty"; etc...) no matter how compelling the reasons/evidence should get to overrule the entire rest of the jury.
If you can't convince even one single other person of your view, you shouldn't get to decide it for the whole jury. I think that's a pretty damn low bar to clear.

Streamofsky's message to blacks and latinos: "Enjoy prison"
---

So no option for it should just be the judge who decides?
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

So no option for it should just be the judge who decides?

Here's the thing: If a defendant wants a trial by judge, they can take the trial by judge (what they can't get, however, is trial by combat). However, trials by judge typically result in a lower standard for the defendant. For instance, there have been a lot of judges arrested or disbarred after it was revealed that they were financially motivated to sentence youth offenders (the youth system typically is *only* trial by judge due to confidentiality laws). Honestly, you'd have a better chance of being found not guilty if you were handed a sword and went into trial by combat against the Mountain.
---

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Not a simple majority. But I definitely think it should require at least 2 dissenting opinions to thwart the vast majority of jury members. It's ridiculous that a single stubborn hold-out, possibly someone who can never be swayed from a particular view ("death penalty should never be used"; "cops should never be convicted for actions done while on duty"; etc...) no matter how compelling the reasons/evidence should get to overrule the entire rest of the jury.
If you can't convince even one single other person of your view, you shouldn't get to decide it for the whole jury. I think that's a pretty damn low bar to clear.

Streamofsky's message to blacks and latinos: "Enjoy prison"

Zeus's message to minorities: Enjoy watching every single police officer who shoots you get off without any jail time, ever, cause there'll awlways be at least one guy who worships the police.

fuck juries, just have the judge decide
---

I think if up to two won't agree, fuck em.
---

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Not a simple majority. But I definitely think it should require at least 2 dissenting opinions to thwart the vast majority of jury members. It's ridiculous that a single stubborn hold-out, possibly someone who can never be swayed from a particular view ("death penalty should never be used"; "cops should never be convicted for actions done while on duty"; etc...) no matter how compelling the reasons/evidence should get to overrule the entire rest of the jury.
If you can't convince even one single other person of your view, you shouldn't get to decide it for the whole jury. I think that's a pretty damn low bar to clear.

Streamofsky's message to blacks and latinos: "Enjoy prison"

Zeus's message to minorities: Enjoy watching every single police officer who shoots you get off without any jail time, ever, cause there'll awlways be at least one guy who worships the police.

Except that one dissenting vote saves far more minorities than it does cops. So basically you're virtuesignaling to peoples' faces then plunging that fucking knife right into their back.

VeeVees posted...

fuck juries, just have the judge decide

It's not like we fought a war to get away from shit like that...
---

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Not a simple majority. But I definitely think it should require at least 2 dissenting opinions to thwart the vast majority of jury members. It's ridiculous that a single stubborn hold-out, possibly someone who can never be swayed from a particular view ("death penalty should never be used"; "cops should never be convicted for actions done while on duty"; etc...) no matter how compelling the reasons/evidence should get to overrule the entire rest of the jury.
If you can't convince even one single other person of your view, you shouldn't get to decide it for the whole jury. I think that's a pretty damn low bar to clear.

Streamofsky's message to blacks and latinos: "Enjoy prison"

Zeus's message to minorities: Enjoy watching every single police officer who shoots you get off without any jail time, ever, cause there'll awlways be at least one guy who worships the police.

Except that one dissenting vote saves far more minorities than it does cops. So basically you're virtuesignaling to peoples' faces then plunging that fucking knife right into their back.

*citation needed*

Zeus posted...

It's not like we fought a war to get away from shit like that...

Times change. Juries are a fucking waste of time.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When the police are a bigger danger to the public than the criminals they stop, there is a immediate need of reform.

Except they're not though. The amount of people unjustifiably killed by cops are lower than the amount of people killed by criminals.

PKMNsony posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When the police are a bigger danger to the public than the criminals they stop, there is a immediate need of reform.

Except they're not though. The amount of people unjustifiably killed by cops are lower than the amount of people killed by criminals.

See here is the problem with that. THERE SHOULD NEVER BE A PERSON KILLED UNJUSTIFIABLY BY A COP. Even one is too many.

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Not a simple majority. But I definitely think it should require at least 2 dissenting opinions to thwart the vast majority of jury members. It's ridiculous that a single stubborn hold-out, possibly someone who can never be swayed from a particular view ("death penalty should never be used"; "cops should never be convicted for actions done while on duty"; etc...) no matter how compelling the reasons/evidence should get to overrule the entire rest of the jury.
If you can't convince even one single other person of your view, you shouldn't get to decide it for the whole jury. I think that's a pretty damn low bar to clear.

Streamofsky's message to blacks and latinos: "Enjoy prison"

Zeus's message to minorities: Enjoy watching every single police officer who shoots you get off without any jail time, ever, cause there'll awlways be at least one guy who worships the police.

Except that one dissenting vote saves far more minorities than it does cops. So basically you're virtuesignaling to peoples' faces then plunging that fucking knife right into their back.

*citation needed*

Do you also need a citation for the fact that clouds exist in the sky or that the sun comes out in the morning?
---

J_aaron posted...

See here is the problem with that. THERE SHOULD NEVER BE A PERSON KILLED UNJUSTIFIABLY BY A COP. Even one is too many.

That's a wonderful sentiment, but at odds with the reality of being human.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

American police officers need to be trained to not immediately resort to gun fire, it's ridiculous how hard they lean on it as a crutch at the risk of innocent people's lives.

When the police are a bigger danger to the public than the criminals they stop, there is a immediate need of reform.

Most cops DONT immediately or even usually resort to gun fire.

Honestly do you think that?

What you hear is a vocal minority