POLL: Cincinnati Man's Death

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I'd say the cops are in the clear, however I'm wondering why white people aren't getting their asses beat by cops until they die, and if they are, why aren't we hearing about it? I think the police AND the media have some explaining to do.

Uh, they are all the time. It just doesn't make national news.

Hell, we've had cops shoot and kill white folk several times this year in my area. Barely makes local news, let alone national.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
Well, I had no doubt the police were not at fault until I found out that it's actually legal in Ohio to resist arrest if you are being unlawfully arrested... and given the racial tensions in Cincinnati, it's not unreasonable for him to have believed that. I'm kind of on the fence now, leaning toward the police being in the right... but I don't know all of the facts, particularly what happened before what you can see on the tapes, so I'm in no position to judge (nor does my opinion matter one bit)

Do you have a link to back that up? Besides, how could anyone thing Public Intoxication, Drug Possession, and Assault was LEGAL?

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I'd say the cops are in the clear, however I'm wondering why white people aren't getting their asses beat by cops until they die, and if they are, why aren't we hearing about it? I think the police AND the media have some explaining to do.

White people do get beat and killed, it jsut doesn't make a good news story because you can't type anything racial to it. When it's a minority they can always put a racial spin on it. The news is crappy.

 

[QueHuong]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I'd say the cops are in the clear, however I'm wondering why white people aren't getting their asses beat by cops until they die, and if they are, why aren't we hearing about it? I think the police AND the media have some explaining to do.

Uh, they are all the time. It just doesn't make national news.

Hell, we've had cops shoot and kill white folk several times this year in my area. Barely makes local news, let alone national.

But how many times have black cops shot and kill white people?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: MindStorm

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I'd say the cops are in the clear, however I'm wondering why white people aren't getting their asses beat by cops until they die, and if they are, why aren't we hearing about it? I think the police AND the media have some explaining to do.

Uh, they are all the time. It just doesn't make national news.

Hell, we've had cops shoot and kill white folk several times this year in my area. Barely makes local news, let alone national.

But how many times have black cops shot and kill white people?

It happens, but lets face it, JJ and AS dont hold media conferences over it. No profit in political capital for them.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
Well, I had no doubt the police were not at fault until I found out that it's actually legal in Ohio to resist arrest if you are being unlawfully arrested... and given the racial tensions in Cincinnati, it's not unreasonable for him to have believed that. I'm kind of on the fence now, leaning toward the police being in the right... but I don't know all of the facts, particularly what happened before what you can see on the tapes, so I'm in no position to judge (nor does my opinion matter one bit)

Do you have a link to back that up? Besides, how could anyone thing Public Intoxication, Drug Possession, and Assault was LEGAL?

Saw it on the Abrams Report (MSNBC), I'll look for a link. Like I said, I'm keeping an open mind because I have no idea what happened before what we've seen on the tape - I don't know if there's any reason for the police to believe that he was intoxicated or had drugs on him, and I don't know what the police did (if anything) to cause him to react violently. The assault happened in the course of him resisting arrest, which COULD be legal if the police had no probable cause to arrest him.

Honestly, I don't think this even deserves media attention - I hate how the media takes isolated incidents and makes them top stories. I'd rather not have to hear about this fat guy, Scott and Laci Peterson, and that Dru girl that's missing in North Dakota every time I watch the news... none of them are national news.

Edit: Link (search for resisting)

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: LordSegan
I agree its hard to say. Normally in these cases, I side with the police--mainly because I strongly believe people should follow any reasonable order given to them by a peace officer. Once you become violent towards an officer, you are always taking your life into your own hands. However, it does appear that these cops beat him a little more than they had to.*

If I were the mayor/DA etc, I might have them fired, but they would not face criminal charges (At least based on the facts I know about right now)

*It's hard to second guess someone who is involved in a fight, but do keep in mind, the cops knew they would eventually get the upper hand - there were five of them and one of him. I guess it also depends partially on the PCP he took before hand.. was it still affecting his strength?

Spoken like someone who's never taken PCP before.

Let me give you all a little first-hand information about PCP.

PCP is a dissasociative psychadelic, it's in the same family as ketamine (a drug that, up until it started being abused by ravers used to be given to children for surgery because ITS SO DAMN SAFE, but thats another story) and Dextromethorphan Hybromide (a drug commonly found in cough medicines).

It is not a drug that amps you up. If anything, it makes you want to curl up on your bed, throw on some cartoons and marvel at the pretty colors... PCP does not MAKE people violent or have super-human strength --- quite the opposite actually. If a person is already violent or psychotic, yes, PCP can (and in a confrontation of any kind, probbably WILL) bring out and/or enhance those traits, but most evidence shows that PCP users in general are not aggressive at all. Try and remember that up until the late 50's/early 60's this was a drug that was used to put people under for surgery. Where are the stories of the people waking up after having their appendix removed and flying into a blind rage, ripping out their stitches and biting their nurses nose off?

PCP -DOES- make you feel kind of disconnected from pain, along with everything else, and this is where the stories about drugged out frankensteins trying to stop trains with their hands come from. Its not going to turn anyone into the incredible hulk, able to snap through handcuffs or shrug off bullet wounds as if they never happened. All those stories about people who got shot 5 times while dusted and were still fighting are complete bullsh!t, hate to burst your bubble. I know when I smoke dust I can barely walk, much less get into a fight, and I've smoked my fair share of sherm sticks in my time.

Now obviously everyone reacts differently to drugs, and the mix of cocaine and PCP could enhance some kind of aggressive behavior that was already exhibited in the suspect, but I just wanted to point out that "He was on PCP!" is more of a convenient excuse for beating someone to death than it is a jusification. The police know that everyone remembers the stories about all those guys who take PCP and cut their own ears off and eat them and get shot 5 times and still fight and all that utter nonsense, so they're using that to justify the fact that they used deadly force to subdue a suspect.

Link 1

And for the record, I still think PCP should be illegal. Its highly addictive and habitual use can leave you permafried. I'm not saying PCP is the greatest drug on earth and that its totally safe and all that. All I'm saying is that it's not the monster of a drug it's made out to be. I'd be far more concerned about the cocaine in that guy's system than the PCP.

 

[Rogue]

This is what I think sucks. They said it was homicide, because if he hadn't encountered the cops, he wouldn't have died. Well, what if he hadn't taken the drugs, then he wouldn't have encountered the cops, right? So basically, he killed himself.

The coroner's report also said that all of the brusing, etc. from the clubbing was below the waist, so their hitting him wasn't what killed him either.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
Criminal Homicide

Those police need to be in jail.

If you hit someone in the theigh with a club who is reaching for your weapon and is taking swings at you... They guy was high on PCP was fat had an enlarged heart struggled intensily and died.

 

[Kadarin]

The guy was swinging at the cops. Once the step of politely asking him to stop fails, what are the police to do? Beat on him with Nerf(tm) bats?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
Well, I had no doubt the police were not at fault until I found out that it's actually legal in Ohio to resist arrest if you are being unlawfully arrested... and given the racial tensions in Cincinnati, it's not unreasonable for him to have believed that. I'm kind of on the fence now, leaning toward the police being in the right... but I don't know all of the facts, particularly what happened before what you can see on the tapes, so I'm in no position to judge (nor does my opinion matter one bit)

Do you have a link to back that up? Besides, how could anyone thing Public Intoxication, Drug Possession, and Assault was LEGAL?

Saw it on the Abrams Report (MSNBC), I'll look for a link. Like I said, I'm keeping an open mind because I have no idea what happened before what we've seen on the tape - I don't know if there's any reason for the police to believe that he was intoxicated or had drugs on him, and I don't know what the police did (if anything) to cause him to react violently. The assault happened in the course of him resisting arrest, which COULD be legal if the police had no probable cause to arrest him.

Honestly, I don't think this even deserves media attention - I hate how the media takes isolated incidents and makes them top stories. I'd rather not have to hear about this fat guy, Scott and Laci Peterson, and that Dru girl that's missing in North Dakota every time I watch the news... none of them are national news.

Edit: Link (search for resisting)

Cops and Firefighters(who saw him first) can easily detect someone under the influence. He had no legal right to resist.

 

[Mill]

BTW, this is EXACTLY why you never should listen to "talk" newshows that allow people to give their opinion. What that guy said was FALSE. Before 1996 the language read "lawful" but to prevent people from resisting it was modified.

Before 1996 "lawful"

Current law

 

[MedicBob]

They were within their rights to advance further up the ladder for use of forse. The baton blows don't apear to be for the head or neck. They could have just shot him and there wouldn't be as much fuss.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Millennium
BTW, this is EXACTLY why you never should listen to "talk" newshows that allow people to give their opinion. What that guy said was FALSE. Before 1996 the language read "lawful" but to prevent people from resisting it was modified.

Before 1996 "lawful"

Current law

Your link for the current law takes me to the table of contents, but this is what I found as the current law:

§ 2921.33 Resisting arrest.
(A) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another.

(B) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another person and, during the course of or as a result of the resistance or interference, cause physical harm to a law enforcement officer.

(C) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another person if either of the following applies:

(1) The offender, during the course of or as a result of the resistance or interference, recklessly causes physical harm to a law enforcement officer by means of a deadly weapon;

(2) The offender, during the course of the resistance or interference, brandishes a deadly weapon.
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of resisting arrest. A violation of division (A) of this section is a misdemeanor of the second degree. A violation of division (B) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree. A violation of division (C) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree.
(E) As used in this section, "deadly weapon" has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

Still says lawful, but adds that you cannot cause physical harm to an officer (I have no idea if that means he broke the law when he punched the officer, or if he would have had to actually injure the officer to have broken the law if you consider this an unlawful arrest). Let me just say once again that I'm not siding with the fat guy, I'd rather reserve judgement until I know all of the facts. I was merely bringing up the fact that the issue is not only whether the police used excessive force or were irresponsible in the way they subdued him, but also whether the police were justified in treating the man as a criminal to begin with. He was originally described as appearing to be mentally disabled.

Watch 12 Angry Men, it's a great movie.

Edit: Your comment about talk news shows is not only correct, it also applies to all cable news - I just leave it on as background noise and so I have some idea of what is going on in the world.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Millennium
BTW, this is EXACTLY why you never should listen to "talk" newshows that allow people to give their opinion. What that guy said was FALSE. Before 1996 the language read "lawful" but to prevent people from resisting it was modified.

Before 1996 "lawful"

Current law

Your link for the current law takes me to the table of contents, but this is what I found as the current law:

§ 2921.33 Resisting arrest.
(A) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another.

(B) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another person and, during the course of or as a result of the resistance or interference, cause physical harm to a law enforcement officer.

(C) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another person if either of the following applies:

(1) The offender, during the course of or as a result of the resistance or interference, recklessly causes physical harm to a law enforcement officer by means of a deadly weapon;

(2) The offender, during the course of the resistance or interference, brandishes a deadly weapon.
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of resisting arrest. A violation of division (A) of this section is a misdemeanor of the second degree. A violation of division (B) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree. A violation of division (C) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree.
(E) As used in this section, "deadly weapon" has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

Still says lawful, but adds that you cannot cause physical harm to an officer (I have no idea if that means he broke the law when he punched the officer, or if he would have had to actually injure the officer to have broken the law if you consider this an unlawful arrest). Let me just say once again that I'm not siding with the fat guy, I'd rather reserve judgment until I know all of the facts. I was merely bringing up the fact that the issue is not only whether the police used excessive force or were irresponsible in the way they subdued him, but also whether the police were justified in treating the man as a criminal to begin with. He was originally described as appearing to be mentally disabled.

Watch 12 Angry Men, it's a great movie.

You're stilling missing the WHOLE point of it. The individual DOES NOT get to determine if his arrest is lawful or not, that is up to the courts. Regardless of if it was a "lawful" arrest, he still can't assault anyone to PREVENT his arrest. Just because he wouldn't be guilty of resisting if it was an unlawful arrest(which the courts decide) doesn't mean he can assault an officer, be publicly intoxicated, or possess drugs. You are taking one outside issue that has no affect on his arrest and amplifying it as legal behavior for the suspect to engage in. It IS a lawful arrest if they had reason to believe he was committing a crime. He was under the influence according to the firefighters, people at the restaurant, and the original responding officers. That is a crime and it was a lawful arrest.

Yes they were justified it treating him like a criminal, because he was engaging in criminal activity and then proceeded to assault an officer. The moron on the TV show was totally misinterpreting the law.

Here is what the Ohio bar association says

Even if you believe the officer has no grounds to arrest you, do not argue with or resist the police. You have no right to argue about why you are being arrested or about your guilt or innocence at the time of the arrest. Arguing or resisting the police will not help you. It will mean the police can bring additional criminal charges against you, and it may make it harder for you to get out of jail on bail if you are charged.


Again, do not argue with the police.

Never resist your arrest. Do not run away.

Never resist the arrest of another person.

1. You may be arrested by a police officer who personally saw you violate any state statute, city ordinance or federal law. The law may be a serious crime (a felony) or a lesser offense (a misdemeanor). The important thing is that the officer sees the violation.

Public disorder/Public intox is a violation of a city ordinance.

 

[QueHuong]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: MindStorm

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I'd say the cops are in the clear, however I'm wondering why white people aren't getting their asses beat by cops until they die, and if they are, why aren't we hearing about it? I think the police AND the media have some explaining to do.

Uh, they are all the time. It just doesn't make national news.

Hell, we've had cops shoot and kill white folk several times this year in my area. Barely makes local news, let alone national.

But how many times have black cops shot and kill white people?

It happens, but lets face it, JJ and AS dont hold media conferences over it. No profit in political capital for them.

That doesn't tell me jack. I'd like links to the stories, not a "I'm sure it happened, some time, some where..." Doesn't have to be national news, even a local one would count. But at the same time, you have to consider if killing the person was warranted. If a white guy shot at a black cop and the cop kills him - I don't see anything wrong there. Then you also have to consider the frequency of how many times that happen, compared to a white cop killing an unarmed black person. My point is racism happens; police brutality happens, and sometimes both at the same time.

 

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I'd say the cops are in the clear, however I'm wondering why white people aren't getting their asses beat by cops until they die, and if they are, why aren't we hearing about it? I think the police AND the media have some explaining to do.

the beatings did not cause the death FYI

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: MindStorm

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: MindStorm

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I'd say the cops are in the clear, however I'm wondering why white people aren't getting their asses beat by cops until they die, and if they are, why aren't we hearing about it? I think the police AND the media have some explaining to do.

Uh, they are all the time. It just doesn't make national news.

Hell, we've had cops shoot and kill white folk several times this year in my area. Barely makes local news, let alone national.

But how many times have black cops shot and kill white people?

It happens, but lets face it, JJ and AS dont hold media conferences over it. No profit in political capital for them.

That doesn't tell me jack. I'd like links to the stories, not a "I'm sure it happened, some time, some where..." Doesn't have to be national news, even a local one would count. But at the same time, you have to consider if killing the person was warranted. If a white guy shot at a black cop and the cop kills him - I don't see anything wrong there. Then you also have to consider the frequency of how many times that happen, compared to a white cop killing an unarmed black person. My point is racism happens; police brutality happens, and sometimes both at the same time.

Statisically there are less black officers and more black criminals(at least per capita) than there are white officers and white criminals(per capita). You probably don't hear about it, because no one considers black on white shootings to have an racist nature to them.

 

Originally posted by: MindStorm

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: MindStorm

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I'd say the cops are in the clear, however I'm wondering why white people aren't getting their asses beat by cops until they die, and if they are, why aren't we hearing about it? I think the police AND the media have some explaining to do.

Uh, they are all the time. It just doesn't make national news.

Hell, we've had cops shoot and kill white folk several times this year in my area. Barely makes local news, let alone national.

But how many times have black cops shot and kill white people?

It happens, but lets face it, JJ and AS dont hold media conferences over it. No profit in political capital for them.

That doesn't tell me jack. I'd like links to the stories, not a "I'm sure it happened, some time, some where..." Doesn't have to be national news, even a local one would count. But at the same time, you have to consider if killing the person was warranted. If a white guy shot at a black cop and the cop kills him - I don't see anything wrong there. Then you also have to consider the frequency of how many times that happen, compared to a white cop killing an unarmed black person. My point is racism happens; police brutality happens, and sometimes both at the same time.

Im not going to disagree with your last point. We all know racism happens, police brutality happens, and sometimes even both happen at the same time. However, the problem comes when the news and the public blow it up to make it seem like an everyday occurance when one lone event happens. It happens, sad but true, but not as often as the media would lead you to believe.

 

[QueHuong]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: MindStorm

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: MindStorm

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I'd say the cops are in the clear, however I'm wondering why white people aren't getting their asses beat by cops until they die, and if they are, why aren't we hearing about it? I think the police AND the media have some explaining to do.

Uh, they are all the time. It just doesn't make national news.

Hell, we've had cops shoot and kill white folk several times this year in my area. Barely makes local news, let alone national.

But how many times have black cops shot and kill white people?

It happens, but lets face it, JJ and AS dont hold media conferences over it. No profit in political capital for them.

That doesn't tell me jack. I'd like links to the stories, not a "I'm sure it happened, some time, some where..." Doesn't have to be national news, even a local one would count. But at the same time, you have to consider if killing the person was warranted. If a white guy shot at a black cop and the cop kills him - I don't see anything wrong there. Then you also have to consider the frequency of how many times that happen, compared to a white cop killing an unarmed black person. My point is racism happens; police brutality happens, and sometimes both at the same time.

Im not going to disagree with your last point. We all know racism happens, police brutality happens, and sometimes even both happen at the same time. However, the problem comes when the news and the public blow it up to make it seem like an everyday occurance when one lone event happens. It happens, sad but true, but not as often as the media would lead you to believe.

There are some people who don't. My friend and I were debating about affirmative action, and he said "racism against blacks are gone." Ironically, his away message some time before said "Driving the black man; not the other way around."

 

Originally posted by: MindStorm

Im not going to disagree with your last point. We all know racism happens, police brutality happens, and sometimes even both happen at the same time. However, the problem comes when the news and the public blow it up to make it seem like an everyday occurance when one lone event happens. It happens, sad but true, but not as often as the media would lead you to believe.

There are some people who don't. My friend and I were debating about affirmative action, and he said "racism against blacks are gone." Ironically, his away message some time before said "Driving the black man; not the other way around."

That is sad. Really sad. Racism has DEMINISHED, but is far from gone.

 

[Rogue]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Millennium
BTW, this is EXACTLY why you never should listen to "talk" newshows that allow people to give their opinion. What that guy said was FALSE. Before 1996 the language read "lawful" but to prevent people from resisting it was modified.

Before 1996 "lawful"

Current law

Your link for the current law takes me to the table of contents, but this is what I found as the current law:

§ 2921.33 Resisting arrest.
(A) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another.

(B) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another person and, during the course of or as a result of the resistance or interference, cause physical harm to a law enforcement officer.

(C) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another person if either of the following applies:

(1) The offender, during the course of or as a result of the resistance or interference, recklessly causes physical harm to a law enforcement officer by means of a deadly weapon;

(2) The offender, during the course of the resistance or interference, brandishes a deadly weapon.
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of resisting arrest. A violation of division (A) of this section is a misdemeanor of the second degree. A violation of division (B) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree. A violation of division (C) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree.
(E) As used in this section, "deadly weapon" has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

Still says lawful, but adds that you cannot cause physical harm to an officer (I have no idea if that means he broke the law when he punched the officer, or if he would have had to actually injure the officer to have broken the law if you consider this an unlawful arrest). Let me just say once again that I'm not siding with the fat guy, I'd rather reserve judgment until I know all of the facts. I was merely bringing up the fact that the issue is not only whether the police used excessive force or were irresponsible in the way they subdued him, but also whether the police were justified in treating the man as a criminal to begin with. He was originally described as appearing to be mentally disabled.

Watch 12 Angry Men, it's a great movie.

You're stilling missing the WHOLE point of it. The individual DOES NOT get to determine if his arrest is lawful or not, that is up to the courts. Regardless of if it was a "lawful" arrest, he still can't assault anyone to PREVENT his arrest. Just because he wouldn't be guilty of resisting if it was an unlawful arrest(which the courts decide) doesn't mean he can assault an officer, be publicly intoxicated, or possess drugs. You are taking one outside issue that has no affect on his arrest and amplifying it as legal behavior for the suspect to engage in. It IS a lawful arrest if they had reason to believe he was committing a crime. He was under the influence according to the firefighters, people at the restaurant, and the original responding officers. That is a crime and it was a lawful arrest.

Yes they were justified it treating him like a criminal, because he was engaging in criminal activity and then proceeded to assault an officer. The moron on the TV show was totally misinterpreting the law.

Here is what the Ohio bar association says

Even if you believe the officer has no grounds to arrest you, do not argue with or resist the police. You have no right to argue about why you are being arrested or about your guilt or innocence at the time of the arrest. Arguing or resisting the police will not help you. It will mean the police can bring additional criminal charges against you, and it may make it harder for you to get out of jail on bail if you are charged.


Again, do not argue with the police.

Never resist your arrest. Do not run away.

Never resist the arrest of another person.

1. You may be arrested by a police officer who personally saw you violate any state statute, city ordinance or federal law. The law may be a serious crime (a felony) or a lesser offense (a misdemeanor). The important thing is that the officer sees the violation.

Public disorder/Public intox is a violation of a city ordinance.

Damnit! We're not back on this liberal "I can do what I want" interpretation of the law BS again are we?

Here, what does this "legalism" say?

"Anal sex with a minor is legal insomuch as you will be legally brutalized, raped and killed by legally incarcerated felons in legally maintained and operations penal facilities."

Wait! Anal sex with a minor is legal because it says "legal" in there, right? Get the f*ck out of here!!! Some of you guys crack me up.

Oh yeah, this is not intended for you Millenium, but you already know that, don't you.

 

[NeoV]

I like to side with the police for the most part, but watching the tape is disturbing for me.....that guy was basically floundering around on the ground, and at one point the one cop takes out his baton, carefully grips it, and then proceeds to wail away for 30-40 seconds straight, with the other cop on top of the guy..

My other comment is this - at what point were medical crews called? It would appear that at one point they roll the guy over and several of them reach down to either check his pulse or see if he was breathing, but I didn't really see anyone react or go to call of medical assistance.

At what point should the police just let the guy walk away for a minute or two, or back off entirely? I don't know...the whole thing is just disturbing to me...if this stuff about part of the tape being "missing" is true, that can only lead me to think the cops acted incorrectly, but lets see what comes of that...

 

[Netopia]

Thanks for the voting guys... interesting results and comments.

Joe

 

[Avatar26]

You know, what I find interesting is that in many of the posts above, people continue to focus on the race issue.
How about the fact guy had PCP and cocaine in his system, not to mention he lunged at the officers. I will admit there have been some suspect happenings in the Cincinnati police force over the past 10-15 years, but don't think for a second that this man was justified in attacking the police officers (or using cocaine & PCP, for that matter).
:frown: