Breaking: No charges to be filed against the other cops who lied in Cincinnati cop shooting case

Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,194
Reputation
710
Daps
3,876
No charges against other officers in Cincinnati shooting
CINCINNATI — Two officers who arrived moments after former University of Cincinnati Officer Ray Tensing fatally shot a man during a traffic stop won’t face charges for lying about what they saw.

A Hamilton County grand jury declined Friday to charge Phillip Kidd or David Lindenschmidt after investigating statements they made at the scene of the shooting July 19. The officers have been suspended with pay pending the outcome of a separate investigation by the university.

635739472181698717-ScreenCap.png

The Enquirer/Glenn Hartong

The moment when Tensing, center, is talking with CPD officers and Kidd says “I saw it” referencing the shooting. This is from what was given to us a Phillip Kidd’s body camera.

The decision not to charge the two officers was made by the same grand jury that indicted Tensing on a murder charge earlier this week for the shooting death of Samuel DuBose.

Video from the officers’ body cameras indicates they arrived moments after the shooting, because it shows Tensing getting up from the ground and chasing DuBose’s car as it rolls away. By then, DuBose already had been fatally wounded.

In the video, Kidd is heard corroborating Tensing’s claim that he fired the shot because he was being dragged by DuBose’s car, a claim disputed by prosecutors and by DuBose’s own body camera video.

“Yeah, I saw that,” Kidd said in the video. He later answered “yes” when another officer asked Kidd if he saw Tensing being dragged. An incident report written by Supervisor Eric Weibel also suggested one of the officers saw the car drag Tensing.

Prosecutors, however, say both officers later told investigators they did not see the incident and did not see Tensing being dragged. They said both officers cooperated with authorities and at no point attempted to conceal evidence or misrepresent what happened that day.

“These officers were totally cooperative in the investigation and consistent in their statements. There was some confusion over the way the initial incident report was drafted, but that was not a sworn statement by the officers and merely a short summary of information.”
Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters

“These officers were totally cooperative in the investigation and consistent in their statements,” Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said. “There was some confusion over the way the initial incident report was drafted, but that was not a sworn statement by the officers and merely a short summary of information.”

DuBose’s family had asked prosecutors to investigate the other officers, and Deters told them he would. But he said Friday he found no evidence to support a criminal charge, such as obstructing justice.

“These officers have been truthful and honest about what happened and no charges are warranted,” Deters said.

Tensing shot and killed DuBose during a traffic stop for not having a front license plate. A video recording from Tensing’s body camera showed the officer spoke to DuBose for about two minutes, mostly about whether he had his driver’s license with him.

When Tensing started to open the car door and asked DuBose to take off his seatbelt, DuBose started his car. At that point, Tensing reached into the car with his left hand and pointed his gun at DuBose with his right.

He fired the shot seconds later.

Tensing is out of jail on bond, awaiting trial. The other two officers remain suspended from UC pending the outcome of the university’s investigation.

:camby: :camby: :camby:
 

Turbulent

Superstar
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
17,623
Reputation
4,124
Daps
53,980
Reppin
NULL
“These officers were totally cooperative in the investigation and consistent in their statements. There was some confusion over the way the initial incident report was drafted, but that was not a sworn statement by the officers and merely a short summary of information.”
Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters

so i,m guessing police reports are now gonna become inadmissible in court since they are not sworn statements and unreliable :sas2:
 

William F. Russell

11x Champion; 5x MVP; 1st Black Coach
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
20,063
Reputation
6,810
Daps
50,319
“These officers were totally cooperative in the investigation and consistent in their statements. There was some confusion over the way the initial incident report was drafted, but that was not a sworn statement by the officers and merely a short summary of information.”
Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters

so i,m guessing police reports are now gonna become inadmissible in court since they are not sworn statements and unreliable :sas2:

Bullshyt.

Police reports are ALWAYS admissible under the police/business records exception (to hearsay) rule of evidence. The report (whether a sworn statement or not) would be admissible if the officers were on trial. Here, the prosecution was merely deciding whether or not to press charges against the other officers and ultimately decided not to partly because the statements in the reports weren't sworn. It's a subtle distinction (which sucks).
 
Last edited:

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
94,206
Reputation
13,381
Daps
276,778
Reppin
NULL
so they were bullshyttin on the bodycam, talkin amongst each other, but when it came time to statements they didnt?

:yeshrug: id like to see them charged to set a precedent, but if thats the case i dont even see how you can
 

Turbulent

Superstar
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
17,623
Reputation
4,124
Daps
53,980
Reppin
NULL
Bullshyt.

Police reports are ALWAYS admissible under the business exception (to hearsay) rule of evidence. The report (whether a sworn statement or not) would be admissible if the officers were on trial. Here, the prosecution was merely deciding whether or not to press charges against the other officers and ultimately decided not to partly because the statements in the reports weren't sworn. It's a subtle distinction (which sucks).
but based on the evidence from the video (them saying "yes i saw that" when it was clear they arrived on the scene after the fact) and then writing it on the report, wouldn't it have been easy to prove it was an attempt at a cover up which was abandonned (most likely when they realize there was video evidence)?
 

William F. Russell

11x Champion; 5x MVP; 1st Black Coach
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
20,063
Reputation
6,810
Daps
50,319
but based on the evidence from the video (them saying "yes i saw that" when it was clear they arrived on the scene after the fact) and then writing it on the report, wouldn't it have been easy to prove it was an attempt at a cover up which was abandonned (most likely when they realize there was video evidence)?

Certainly. But remember, the prosecution has broad discretion in determining whether to prosecute a party for a crime. Although the cops said "yeah I saw that" and then wrote it in the report, the prosecution considered the totality of the circumstances and, given that the police were cooperative when being investigated, decided not to charge them. Of course the prosecution probably could've tried to charge them on what was in the police report but the prosecution has full discretion. And in this case, the prosecution just decided to chillm It sucks and it does reek of bias in favor of law enforcement...but that's the prosecution.
 

thewiz

Superstar
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
4,754
Reputation
1,650
Daps
20,260
Reppin
DMV
So?

I wouldn't snitch on my boy either

As long as the cop who murdered gets prison time, this isn't a big deal

It is a big deal cause by them doing this it's an indication they wouldn't hesitate to try to cover up for another cop doing some bullshyt in the future. They have too much power and feel like they can get away with anything cause of the system.

If the nikka who died was your brother you really can't tell me you would be perfectly fine with those cops lyin bout this shyt.
 
Top