University of Cincinnati Cop Shoots and Kill Man


American Herald-Logo-Grey


Published on 07-31-2015 by the American Herald


Dear Readers,

Starting from the last posting, LINK

Here is another traffic stop situation and the man was apparently compliant with all State statutes. That compliance cost him his life.

and again, here are some of the comments under the video that have a completely different tone to them.

No he should be and Bob Davis was right same shit happened in sc today the cop was not right he shot the man in the head for no reason at all he did not even have to pull his gun. my father is a police officer he did not have to pull his gun there was nothing to fear he should of called his license in a cop is not legally aloud to open your door you do not even have to talk to a cop let alone roll the window down u don’t have to do shit for a cop legally that’s your own rights #knowyourrights +jmack

Just another day in nazi occupied Amerika.

Every day cops keep proving to be far more dangerous than the criminals they’re supposed to protect people from

The cop made a mistake and then lied about what he had done.  He reached into the car to try and turn the key off and at the same time shot the guy in the head.  Except for the lying piece of shit cop, there wasn’t any danger to anyone – anywhere.  Explain the difference between our society today and what happens in some shit hole third world country.  There isn’t any jar-head.

Now what happened to “everyone needs to follow the laws of the U.S. in this country?”

and

The cop is always right and should have tased the man for closing the door?

All of a sudden it is all different and everything has changed and the police are the bad guys.  The two cases included a black man, white woman, white man and a Hispanic man. There was a race balance in both cases. Yet the reactions to both cases are completely different in a bipolar sort of way. In both cases, the police were violating the rights of the people by opening the doors of the vehicles, yet the one with the woman making a claim was shunned and the other was condemned. Is it because the one that was condemned, there was a death involved? or point blank range shooting in the head? 

In the first publishing connected to this publishing LINK

Those people were claiming an outrageous claim in the eyes of the U.S. citizens. In the second case in Cincinnati, all of a sudden the police do not have the right to open someones door on the vehicle in a traffic stop. That was never mentioned in the comments of the first case with the woman with the really high pitched voice. 

Some of the facts of the case are simple. Both cases were acts of violating human rights while under the color of law. That much is true. Both cases dealt with pain compliance.  The second case (Cincinnati case) was a case of pain compliance gone too far which resulted in a death.

In the first case, the U.S. citizens complain that those people in the car (free inhabitants) needed to follow the laws of the country and started asserting their knowledge of history. However, at the same time in history, England was asserting that today’s U.S. citizens follow English law under the Monarch which would make them “Sovereign Subjects and Domestic Terrorists” according to England.

The second case, (Cincinnati case) the man was compliant with the U.S. law and did not claim he was not subject to U.S. law, yet that cost him his life.

In the first case, the traffic stop was literally illegal and everyone backed the police officer in the comments section of youtube.

SOURCE LINK

Traffic Stops

A traffic stop normally occurs when a law enforcement officer signals a motorist to move to the side of the roadway and stop. The stop constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because it interferes with the motorist’s freedom of movement. In order for the stop to be valid under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the officer must point to specific and articulated facts to support a reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal conduct.

“For example, weaving and improper lane changes may not be sufficient to show the pretext of a traffic violation unless it is also shown that the motorist’s driving posed a safety issue to another vehicle.”

The example part of this article never came up in the video so the stop was illegal in the first case (Article 4 inhabitant). 

The second case (Cincinnati case) the stop was legal in dealing with a plate missing, however, the reason for the stop was resolved because the plate was in the glove box, there was no reason to ask for a drivers license nor go any further. A warning would have sufficed.

We hope that you have enjoyed both articles and have possibly seen yourselves in the mirror. Don’t let these two cases go to waste, learn from them and resolve the multiple problems that are very apparent.

07-31-2015

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.