The Shrine

Sad. The system is corrupt. Police unions and DAs watching each others backs. This was murder. They treated this child worse than they'd treat a rabid bear.

Washington Post - No charges for Cleveland police officers in shooting death of 12-year-old Tamir Rice

BBC writes:

Ohio state prosecutor, Tim McGinty, called the events that led to the death of Tamir Rice a "perfect storm of human error".
But he said it was not unreasonable for the officer to fear for his life.
Public officials in Cleveland on Monday urged the public to remain calm and to protest peacefully.
State Senator Sandra Williams said any unrest would hamper progress but still called the decision a "grave miscarriage of justice".

Just what do they think the job of a prosecutor is in Ohio?

I dont know much about the case, but if the kid reached for a gun, why would the cops be criminally liable? Am I missing something.

Should probably charge the parents for allowing their child to play outside with a pellet gun.

It's a big deal because it's sad that a kid got shot over something that stupid. The officer probably doesn't need to spend his life behind bars, but his career as an officer should probably be over. Not because he, and the other officer, didn't execute what they have been trained to do correctly, but because a child is dead by their hands. The four minutes with no first aid is bullshit though, I mean what the fuck. Okay maybe they deserve something for that.

The police are perhaps too good at killing and that isn't wholly their fault. I do wish that in most situations they used rubber bullets or some such though. Tasers are obviously a little too good at accidental murder. The Rice family suggest that they should have gone for a taser first, but when someone's pointing a gun at you that doesn't really fly.

In my mind police officers should have rubber bullets in their guns by default with a lethal backup. The idea that every day of a cop's life is them versus people with AK-47s is a joke and a dumb argument. We all know they have more powerful weapons at their disposal in their patrol cars. But when they're just patrolling they really don't need to be in shoot to kill mode.

kali o. wrote:I dont know much about the case, but if the kid reached for a gun, why would the cops be criminally liable? Am I missing something.

Should probably charge the parents for allowing their child to play outside with a pellet gun.

They drove their police cruiser within 5 feet of the kid and shot him literally 2 seconds after they got out of their car, I call bullshit on them seeing him reach for anything, the footage is grainy as fuck. "I saw him reach" is the perfect air-tight police defense when they shoot somebody unless camera footage says otherwise(And even then that's a 50/50).

Also pellet guns aren't illegal in most states. White people walk around with actual guns and open carry permits all the goddamn time. White people threaten people with guns and show a willingness to use them and the police go out of their way to make sure they stop them without shooting them. You're 5 times more fucking likely to survive a police encounter if you're white and armed and they are called to investigate you then if you're any minority. If you're black you're automatically a criminal and you need to be put down immediately if you're seen with a weapon or anything that resembles a weapon. John Crawford was shot to death in Walmart for carrying around a BB gun he picked up in the fucking store. Andy Lopez was shot to death under almost identical circumstances as Tamir Rice.

So for clarity, your position is the cops attended the call with the intent to shoot someone? No of course not. But thats what you actually implied when you state the arrived at a call racially biased and intimate the kid didn't actually reach for anything.

Now, I wont take issue with your stats (which may or may not be "trumped"), but lets suppose there is a racial bias - particularily regional bias based on real crime stats. Sucks, but so what? Lets be real here, media coverage aside, the current approach has led to the lowest crime levels in 20+ years.

Folks in the states created a gun culture (and a culture of fear) and there are consequences. I dont see it as an issue with the police themselves and I dont see any crime here (unless i take your view that they attended the call with the intent to kill a black person...which is absurd).

I think its sad a 12 year old died.

Kali, not sure if you're just playing devil's advocate trying to start a big thread... but seriously, watch the security camera footage of the incident. They open the door of the car and shoot him dead immediately on arrival. They even pull up in the grass, taking him by surprise. It's just "Young black male with gun, there he is, pull up..." *bang* dead

The issue here is the prosecution didn't do their job. Are prosecutors afraid of police officers in the US?

There was a situation similar in Canada a few years back where an unarmed person was shot and killed by police. It was much more clearly an accidental as the gun accidentally went off in a struggle, but the prosecution still charged the officer with second degree murder. While the criminal charges have been dropped, the officer still has other conduct charges against him.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/i ... -1.3323136

If Tamir Rice situation occurred in Canada, no doubt the officers would have been charged with second degree murder.

The issue here is the prosecution didn't do their job. Are prosecutors afraid of police officers in the US?

Exactly. The system is set up in such a way that local District Attorneys need the cooperation of the very same police they're prosecuting in order to do their jobs. There is a concept of the "Blue wall of silence"--solidarity among police officers even in the face of police crimes--that is mainly enforced through their unions. They will retaliate against whistleblowers including DAs. This article discusses it pretty well.

Keep in mind that the current criminal justice system was set up in the thralls of the horrible crime wave in the US from roughly the mid 1970s to the min 1990s. It's set up to prosecute, prosecute, prosecute. Put as many people behinds bars as quickly as possible. Whether this was the cause of the fall in crime or you think other factors are involved, you must admit that the US criminal justice system is now in need of reform.

The video you link me ti does not show the kid brandishing the firearm and pointing it at folks. I will ask again, what is the crime they should be charged with given the circumstances?

After seeing the videos, I think the parents should be charged with a crime.

kali o. wrote:Now, I wont take issue with your stats (which may or may not be "trumped"), but lets suppose there is a racial bias - particularily regional bias based on real crime stats. Sucks, but so what? Lets be real here, media coverage aside, the current approach has led to the lowest crime levels in 20+ years.

You mean the lowest crime STATISTICS in 20 years?

The view from down here at an actual street level is very different.

After all, as others have noted here - police officers kill people all the time in questionable circumstances, and such actions are almost never prosecuted as a crime. Wall Street executives sold ARMs as fixed-rate mortgages, engaged in laddering, countless other things that are unquestionably illegal financial frauds under U.S. law - but in an era where Goldman Sachs donates six to seven figures to almost every major Presidential candidate, none of those are reported or prosecuted as crimes. Politicians and espionage officers take the most rancid bribes and traffick vast quantities of "donations" and drug money both; but aren't prosecuted themselves unless they fall out with their own establishments.

And NO ONE prosecutes the top of the ladder.

I recently spoke to a young woman who briefly did suicide counseling in my region. She spoke of a young boy, 15 years old, who called in on the verge of suicide in utter despair, and said he was being raped by his father nightly. But because his father happened to be a powerful state-legislature-level politician, he said the police had repeatedly turned down his requests for help and aid.

There was, in the end, absolutely nothing she could do for him...and she quit the position after that in despair herself.

It's not particularly hard to feel that America is in the grip of a massive and profound epidemic of criminality...committed by those in power. And when people in power commit crimes, they never, ever show up in the statistics.

kali o. wrote:Folks in the states created a gun culture (and a culture of fear) and there are consequences.

Actually, apparently there aren't - not for those in power. That's the point several people here are trying to make to you.

The video you link me ti does not show the kid brandishing the firearm and pointing it at folks. I will ask again, what is the crime they should be charged with given the circumstances?

After seeing the videos, I think the parents should be charged with a crime.

Here's a link from the Guardian with a video showing him aiming the gun in the park as well. It's unclear if his targets are real or imagined as they are off screen. It's not flattering and definitely makes him look threatening. However, as someone who had a BB gun when I was a kid and played with it in a suburban neighborhood when about Tamir's age, I'm sure I looked threatening too. Luckily, I had a large private back yard to play in. Tamir didn't. Was it wise to tamper with the pellet gun to make it look more real? Nope. I would've tried to do it though at 12. Should he have had better parental supervision? Definitely. Who knows the story though. Maybe she had to work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet and who is going to hire someone to watch a 12 year old when then they can't afford it?

I guess this story hits close to home for me because I loved toy guns as a kid, I always carried around my metal toy cowboy gun. Later I had a pellet gun and BB gun. Luckily I had two parents (one a stay at home mom) who made sure I didn't take the very real looking pellet gun to a public place. I see that kid, and, that could've been me. Ironically I dislike guns now and am a gun control advocate.

What should the officer have been charged with? I'm no lawyer but I'd say 2nd Degree Murder or Voluntary Manslaughter. Police officers are given a great power (to kill) and should only exercise it after all other options are exhausted. This cop was going for the kill the second he saw the kid. He gave the kid no time to comply with his order. He should have approached much more cautiously. The kid had fired no shots prior to their arrival. This wasn't an active shooter situation. When police abuse their lethal authority they need to face consequences.

Replay wrote: ...
And NO ONE prosecutes the top of the ladder.
...

Yep. The criminal justice system is in theory for everyone but in actuality the wealthy have the time, money, and clout to navigate it to their advantage while most others don't and have to accept whatever "justice" is doled out to them by authorities.

Emotion doesnt make a good debate, so lets set the other stuff aside. Your position boils down to the officers should have approached more cautiously (which would put themselves and the public at risk in legitimate scenarios). Thats not a crime. Thats not training.

The cops did not simply shoot the suspect. The cops shot when the kid reached. Their safety trumps the suspects and it is a split second decision. That is not a crime.

kali o. wrote:Their safety trumps the suspects...

Because?

The notion that peace officers' lives matter more than their constituents' is underlying a great deal of police abuse in America, I feel.

Also:

A police officer shooting at an adult suspect full of gang tats yelling obscenities has an excuse to take the kill shot and be exonerated.

A police officer who aims at a child, shooting to kill - especially when the original call to police mentions TWICE to the dispatcher that the weapon is "probably a fake", as indeed it was - does not seem to me to have the same excuse.

To push the debate to a point where it might not catch fire with gasoline, and something more people might agree on...part of the problem with America is that we don't seem to fundamentally understand that being a cop is a tough job, and requires years of training.

I am not a fan of the European model in all things, but I can't deny that they understand one thing that we certainly don't - that our eight-week wonder training programs to get a badge are not enough. I would suggest that it's a big reason we have so many hotheads, hair-trigger tempers, and bullies doing the job.

Being a police officer in the States needs to require at LEAST a twelve-month training stint before someone can get a badge and walk a beat, and then another year of co-training and "interning" on a beat with your partner before you can hold any real rank.

I remember seeing statistics that an armed American policeman is far more likely to die compared to an unarmed (no guns) policeman in European countries with comparable lifestyles (and the guys with guns are of course even less likely to die).

It's easy to be cautious when your life is not in immediate danger. With the proliferation of guns the police would need these Iron Man suits that the US Military is supposed to be secretly working on for someone to feel safe enough.

Once again, though, Don - dispatch was told that the "suspect" was a juvenile, and that the weapon was likely to be a fake. Families raise children not just for love and happiness but partially because the normal cycle of human existence predicates that parents will one day become old, and requiring assistance or care themselves.

So why are there not consequences as well when someone's child - a child requiring tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise, and uncountable amounts of parental attention, time, and love - is blown away with two shots to the torso and found only to be holding an Airsoft gun?

I keep advocating for disabling shots in these situations, and gun owners yell me down, talking about how it's too dangerous to train to attempt them. But police are supposed to be more proficient than gun owners; and theoretically are required to pursue firearms training with vigor - and are mandated to serve and protect.

The toy's manufacturer is also quite frankly somewhat to blame. The laws on toy guns in the states were changed YEARS ago because of exactly this situation; so why is it that the Airsoft gun in question was allowed to be manufactured as a near-replica?

Some statistics on how often police officers are actually ever killed by juvenile assailants would be of use - am sure it's not zero, in our era, but the notion that this exonerates this case entirely is also not a bygone conclusion.

It also speaks to another problem - the "gun culture" Kali refers to is, especially in the hood, inextricably linked with a culture of poverty; when young people grow up without hobbies, pursuits, computers, or basketballs - or the chance to get a good job when older - they often will grow up to find refuge in a culture of drugs and money and guns rather than end up homeless and destitute on the streets.

No one can now ask Tamir Rice why he was fascinated by toy guns...and that's part of the problem, too.

I want to steer us back to the notion that a lack of proper police training in America is an endemic and national issue.

"Loehmann, who fired the shots that killed Rice, joined Cleveland's police force in March 2014. In 2012, he had spent five months with the police department in Independence, about 13 miles (21 km) south of Cleveland, with four of those months spent in the police academy.

In a memo to Independence's human resources manager, released by the city in the aftermath of the shooting, Independence deputy police chief Jim Polak wrote that Loehmann had resigned rather than face certain termination due to concerns that he lacked the emotional stability to be a police officer. Polak said that Loehmann was unable to follow "basic functions as instructed". He specifically cited a "dangerous loss of composure" that occurred in a weapons training exercise, during which Loehmann's weapons handling was "dismal" and he became visibly "distracted and weepy" as a result of relationship problems. The memo concluded, "Individually, these events would not be considered major situations, but when taken together they show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions, I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies." It was subsequently revealed that Cleveland police officials never reviewed Loehmann's personnel file from Independence prior to hiring him.[17][34]""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice

We have a world-spanning network of spy satellites capable of taking photos of people on the street from space with facial recognition, nationwide espionage programs that can metadata any phone call made in the States - and police departments aren't sharing background checks on their own hires? We subject citizens to a near-Soviet level of scrutiny, but a one-year cop with a DISMISSAL from a previous police department for terrible firearms handling and an inability to maintain composure under fire gets no background check by the Cleveland cops and ends up blowing a 12-year-old kid away?

That needs to throw up warning signs all across society.

I think when you're dealing with a gun, it's just a potent weapon that you're not going to say 'no problems I know how to use one so they can get the jump on me'. I obviously don't have any statistics but I'd imagine in a firefight whoever gets the jump on the other guy has to be at a huge advantage so the fact that it's a child doesn't really matter. I'm sure police training is hardly ideal but even if you spent all your life training I don't think anyone would be comfortable in getting into a firefight knowing the other guy has the jump on you.

Of course not, Don - but you either have to the point where you say "I am highly trained in my choice of sidearm and can keep a cool head in combat" - or you can't be a cop, or a soldier.

The man was written up by a veteran officer as a washout because he couldn't keep composure under stress. You can't be a cop if you can't keep a cool head under stress. The entire job is stress, all day long, when not worse than stress.

Some people are capable of the temperament and some are not. It's no reflection on that person...UNTIL that person misreads a situation badly and pumps two into the chest of a 12-year-old kid with a pellet gun.

I do wonder how many people here actually here have any experience with legal firearms training - or even hand-to-hand combat in an unscripted situation? I keep running into the same situation when I discuss situations like this.

I say "Keeping a cool head is essential"; then people immediately say "But no! Panic! Firefight! Terror!" The actual experience of any fighting situation is scary, yes, but having been through some - it's possible to keep a cool head, too. I have never had a gun pointed at me - but I've had a knife pointed at me. I wouldn't have lived through my stint in a lousy L.A. neighborhood if I hadn't learned not to freak out the second shit gets even a tiny bit real.

As so many people keep saying about our citizens, if you can't do that, you shouldn't be packing. That needs to apply 10x for a peace officer or a soldier.

Replay wrote:Also:

A police officer shooting at an adult suspect full of gang tats yelling obscenities has an excuse to take the kill shot and be exonerated.

A police officer who aims at a child, shooting to kill - especially when the original call to police mentions TWICE to the dispatcher that the weapon is "probably a fake", as indeed it was - does not seem to me to have the same excuse.

The cops were not told he was a juvenille nor that the gun was possibly fake. That was a mistake by the dispatcher and will likely cost the dispatcher her job and grant the family a settlement. The kid is also very large for his age.

In any case, it was not a criminal act by the attending officers.

For now, the system agrees with you.

At the same time, one can't help but wonder whether or not if it were a white child playing with a toy gun, shot down by a black officer, disciplined previously for poor composure under fire and fired from another police department - whether or not there would be charges. Or whether or not it has to do primarily with social class - I *could* actually see non-white officers getting off for killing a POOR white child armed only with a toy gun as well, if the killing happened in a bad neighborhood.

And that is because, in America, we continually neglect neighborhoods of extreme poverty until they turn into hotbeds of gang warfare, homelessness, and violence.

In any case, I would hope that my point that the primary failure here is one indicating that our police training systems are inadequate, when not outright criminally incompetent - has been made. North America as a society has an awful problem pumping out these three-month wonder cops who aren't fit to hold a toy gun themselves.

The police definitely need a new direction in training. Too often they're going around gunning down innocents or people for victimless crimes. There was a fucking incident in Dekalb county here in Georgia recently. Dekalb is kind of the "fuck up" county here in GA, it's basically the worse ran county and has plummeting property values and easily the worst police force. So the cops get called into this street for a burglary in progress. So, predictably, they're guns out and ready. Boom, they break through the doors guns blazing. Shoot and kill the dog. Shoot the first man they see. Only, hey morons, it's the wrong house. They basically kill this fucking guys dog in front of him, he stands up from watching a rom com with his wife only to get wounded by more gunfire. Oh, and one of the cops shoots another one of the cops in the leg.

Wow. Just wow.

Agree 1000%, Shrinweck

Shrinweck wrote:The police definitely need a new direction in training. Too often they're going around gunning down innocents or people for victimless crimes. There was a fucking incident in Dekalb county here in Georgia recently. Dekalb is kind of the "fuck up" county here in GA, it's basically the worse ran county and has plummeting property values and easily the worst police force. So the cops get called into this street for a burglary in progress. So, predictably, they're guns out and ready. Boom, they break through the doors guns blazing. Shoot and kill the dog. Shoot the first man they see. Only, hey morons, it's the wrong house. They basically kill this fucking guys dog in front of him, he stands up from watching a rom com with his wife only to get wounded by more gunfire. Oh, and one of the cops shoots another one of the cops in the leg.

Wow. Just wow.

In your anecdote, is that a crime, racism or a mistake? Not that it is really relevant, just curious what your point is.

Back on topic, nothing said speaks to whether the attending officers for Tamir Rice committed a crime. That is the topic. Something more broad in scope, such as should there be a change in police tactics, is a legitimate topic...but I dont hear anyone providing alternatives or solutions...just vague word salad and emotional appeals.

It's just more dumb ass shit that should be preventable just like the Rice case.

I figured alternatives/solutions was kind of covered by my rubbers bullets or some such suggestion. Having the default "OH SHIT" reaction be death isn't ideal in the first place. They can still carry around lethal rounds, but nonlethal shouldn't be an alternative it should be the default.

Also in my anecdote... How is entering a home and shooting the occupants not a crime? They apparently didn't identify themselves as police officers upon entry (which is a mandatory thing they're supposed to do), the dude who got shot didn't burst through a door with a hatchet, the dog wasn't some pit bull going hog wild (it was a 10 year old boxer that I have doubts was doing much of anything at that age)... So, yeah, I just google searched the shit out of this and the last thing about it was the GBI was still investigating it back when it happened in September. Also I got two details wrong - the resident who was shot got shot in the leg and the cop got shot in the hip.

As for it being a racism charged incident... not really - everyone involved was black. So other than the whole thing where cops just have a higher chance of doing shitty things to black people, I wouldn't say it was overtly a racist incident.

So they assaulted someone innocent with the intent to, at the very least, wound. It wasn't a misfire. They didn't identify themselves. The guy heard gunfire and stood up and got shot. The officers may not be criminally culpable (I'm not a lawyer after all) but I don't see the county getting off on this one. And that's kind of what people want. Yeah you have the jerks in the streets who basically are out for the blood of the officer who shot Rice, but mainly the important thing to do here is to acknowledge that the officers committed an act of (whether it was justified or not) absolute evil on a child. The police need to be held accountable and things need to change more than having already trained police officers receive a one week sensitivity seminar or whatever change they ended up instituting.

Back on topic, nothing said speaks to whether the attending officers for Tamir Rice committed a crime. That is the topic. Something more broad in scope, such as should there be a change in police tactics, is a legitimate topic...but I dont hear anyone providing alternatives or solutions...just vague word salad and emotional appeals.

So let's talk about that. The officers heard only from the dispatcher "Young black man with gun in park scaring people". They decided then they would be the vigilante executioners of this assumed evil criminal. They sped straight to the park, directly to where the boy was (their car screeching to a stop within feet of him), startling him (who expects a car to pull out of no where in a park?) and shot him before he even had a chance to comply with their orders. They then lied about it:

According to information reported to the press on the day of the shooting by Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association President Jeffrey Follmer, "[Loehmann and Garmback] pulled into the parking lot and saw a few people sitting underneath a pavilion next to the center. [Loehmann] saw a black gun sitting on the table, and he saw the boy pick up the gun and put it in his waistband."[22] Also on that date, Cleveland Deputy Chief Tomba stated, "The officer got out of the car and told the boy to put his hands up. The boy reached into his waistband, pulled out the gun and [Loehmann] fired two shots." According to Chief Tomba, "the child did not threaten the officer verbally or physically."

That did not happen in the video. As is oft the case, they changed the story to make themselves look reasonable and right for shooting. It is illegal for police officers to execute people without due process or an immediate threat to themselves or others. I do not believe that they'd established that there was an immediate threat of that kind. I believe they went to the park with the intent to kill this young man. I believe that they are most likely still lying about him "reaching for his gun". If anything he may have made some reflexive move due to his surprise. They purposefully put him and themselves in a position that could've lead to no other outcome.

ManaMan wrote:They sped straight to the park, directly to where the boy was (their car screeching to a stop within feet of him), startling him (who expects a car to pull out of no where in a park?) and shot him before he even had a chance to comply with their orders.

Given the nature of the call, your complaint is they should not have suprised the armed suspect. Nonsense, but lets both play armchair cops. There is a reason officers use the shock and awe approach - it does not give the criminal time to react and simply surrender. It is an approach that works. I wonder, in your tactical scenario, will you be crying bloody murder for the added harm and deaths that occur from a more criminal friendly approach? After all, if you give the criminal time to react, they flee. They shoot. They start a highspeed chase. They get away - they reoffend. You taking ownership of that reality or just going off with no thought to the consequences.

I believe they went to the park with the intent to kill this young man.

Then you are a deranged person with whom I can not have a logical debate with. I am not trying to be mean here...but in your reality, there is an officer here saying "Awesome, a gun call. I cant wait to kill this 12 year old nigger and lie about it". I cant have a conversation if thats your starting point. Frankly, investigating this story was repulsive enough, sifting through these fucking BLM nutjobs.

I hope mental, shrin or someone debates you. I cant.

I think they were most definitely ready to kill whoever it was because it simply would not have happened that quickly if they weren't. I don't know if they went there with the intent to kill him, but they were clearly ready to do it in the blink of an eye, that's pretty clear.

Guy opened the door and immediately put him down. I'm not sure what other story that video could possibly tell, especially compounded with the lie told about how it happened. There wasn't enough time to say "Hello" and expect a response, let alone anything pertinent to the gun.

BLM may be pretty shitty in general, but anything that starts a conversation in this country about what the police force has turned into isn't all bad.

The idea that anything less than guns blazing is a "criminal friendly" approach is equally as deranged as you're implying mana is. It goes against the principle innocent until proven guilty. The entire guns blazing idea doesn't work when the police are firing on citizens, which the criminals also happen to be. The only way this shooting would have been kosher would be if Tamir Rice were actively aiming the gun at the police or a bystander when they pulled up. The idea that if we go soft on criminals they'll be on us like wolves is a fallacy. It's the same fallacy they use for terrorist scare mongering only they get to use it here at home to make us scared.


So did the police break the law? No, by their standards and they way they get to do things, probably not. That's exactly what the problem is. The idea that killing a child carrying a toy could be justifiable and reasonable is the problem here. Was the situation more complicated than that? Certainly, but in hindsight it is a CLEAR failure of the police and how they operate. The police responded with excessive force for the situation. They don't need to be clairvoyant... they don't even need to get it right every time. But they shouldn't be able to just walk away from something like this every time. Changes need to happen and they sure as shit aren't coming internally from the police.

Shrinweck wrote:The idea that anything less than guns blazing is a "criminal friendly" approach is equally as deranged as you're implying mana is. It goes against the principle innocent until proven guilty. The entire guns blazing idea doesn't work when the police are firing on citizens, which the criminals also happen to be. The only way this shooting would have been kosher would be if Tamir Rice were actively aiming the gun at the police or a bystander when they pulled up. The idea that if we go soft on criminals they'll be on us like wolves is a fallacy. It's the same fallacy they use for terrorist scare mongering only they get to use it here at home to make us scared.

You are mischaracterizing both my position and the facts. He was shot when he reached for the gun, not simply for the sake of it upon arrival. If your assertion was correct, why would the officers pull right up? They would fire from a safer position and not put themselves in jeopardy. Of course...we could take the position they knew their safety would not be jeopardized because the gun was fake and they just wanted to kill a 12 year old black kid....

When I say criminal friendly, I mean not rolling up to surprise and shock the suspect before they can think and react (come now, I can't be the only one getting sweaty binge watching episodes of Cops). For example, cop car pulls up on the street and officers shout commands from a safe distance. Sure, in this SPECIFIC scenario, the outcome would have been positive. But what about all the scenarios where it would be negative. Do the chicken little BLMs take ownership of that reality? Of course not. Do you?

No system is perfect. Kids have been killed for replica guns for decades. The only "fix" for this issue (misapplied deadly force) is technological advances (non lethal effective weapons) and, in my opinion, responsible/accountable parents.

Replica guns should also be mandated to meet specific guidelines to make it obvious they are toys (bright colours only, etc). I suppose you could outright ban toy guns too...which would be funny...toy guns are harder to get than real guns...but hey, this is the soup the US finds itself in. It is not a police issue, it is a gun culture issue.

kali o. wrote:I hope mental, shrin or someone debates you. I cant.

Kal, I'm not sure Mana doesn't have a point here.

kali o. wrote:Then you are a deranged person with whom I can not have a logical debate with. I am not trying to be mean here...but in your reality, there is an officer here saying "Awesome, a gun call. I cant wait to kill this 12 year old nigger and lie about it".

No offense - but there are a LOT of United States police officers who *do* think that way.

Remember when black LAPD detective Chris Dorner had a psychotic break - killed his boss and his daughter?

I don't defend Dorner in the least, but I did a lot of research on that and remember what sent him over the edge - the credible and corroborated reports of LAPD officers in that department singing neo-Nazi anthems about burning Jews and African-Americans, with racial slurs used for each. Anyone else remember that incident?

If you don't have that problem up in your region of Canada, consider yourself thankful. I can vouch for the LAPD's racist, bullshit attitude. A lot of the white officers really believe they're in a race war with minorities and that white police officers are somehow the protectors of all that is right. In my experience, the reality is closer to the notion that our longstanding refusal to deal with inner-city poverty, the War on Drugs, and the militarization of American police is turning both the gangs and the police into...well, amoral warlords who believe that any use of violence in their cause is justified.

I would highly encourage you not to call Mana "deranged" until you have some understanding of how bad this issue is in a lot of American cities. Canada has one very serious blessing in all this, and that your nation outlawed and dealt with its slavery problem much earlier than America did. My take on it is that the botching of Reconstruction left the remnants of Conferedate thought implacably embittered...and unfortunately, instead of those attitudes falling away, they spread out and metastasized. There is a *lot* of hatred towards African-Americans not just in U.S. police departments but all over the country, particularly since the Civil Rights Act, the rise of the black middle class, the prominence of hip-hop in modern American culture, and the election of the first black President have given African-Americans a real chance here for the first time in history.

There are a lot of poor whites in America who do NOT deal with it well for a lot of reasons - I saw shit during the 2008 election cycle that would blow a lot of people's minds, I have to think a lot of us did.

The reason why police is likely to think they're in some kind of race is because American police is one of the least safe jobs in the world compared to their counterparts in developed countries. I've no doubt you've some problem guys in police force but if all you got is a baton you're going to have far less problems even if a guy just want to club people to death because that's much harder than using a gun. Of course you can't just have a baton in US because you'd almost certainly die if a guy with a gun decided to fight back and everyone has guns. I don't think you're going to get a better 'non lethal weapon' unless we have a blaster set on stun, an Iron Man suit, or something equally futuristic. It's pretty hard to beat a guy with a gun without killing him with current technology.

kali o. wrote:He was shot when he reached for the gun

This is what we're not seeing in the same way. I don't see the amount of time between them pulling up and the child turning around for him to reach and warrant being shot.

kali o. wrote:Do the chicken little BLMs take ownership of that reality? Of course not. Do you?

I'm not even sure what this means. Are you projecting what crazy shit you've read about what BLM thinks onto me? What I'm saying here is that killing even actual criminals under these circumstances is pretty fucked up. Unless they can prove that he was actively aiming at someone or reaching for the gun (which again I don't think there was enough time to properly see) then this was an unjust killing. We're supposed to trust their word, which is obviously in question to begin with.

The only three things I'm trying to stress are: they killed him before they had a proper amount of time to judge what was actually going on, police should be held accountable for what they do and changes should be made based upon what actually happened not their clearly made up account of what happened, and (most important of all) the police need to have access to more nonlethal tactics that they default to before resorting to taking lives.

Don wrote:The reason why police is likely to think they're in some kind of race is because American police is one of the least safe jobs in the world compared to their counterparts in developed countries. I've no doubt you've some problem guys in police force but if all you got is a baton you're going to have far less problems even if a guy just want to club people to death because that's much harder than using a gun. Of course you can't just have a baton in US because you'd almost certainly die if a guy with a gun decided to fight back and everyone has guns. I don't think you're going to get a better 'non lethal weapon' unless we have a blaster set on stun, an Iron Man suit, or something equally futuristic. It's pretty hard to beat a guy with a gun without killing him with current technology.

Nonlethal bullets aren't pretend. While there's no way to make them completely safe, it isn't in the realm of setting phasers to stun or iron man armor. There are rubber bullets, wax bullets, plastic bullets, beanbag rounds... I just read about a bullet with a sensor that detonates the bullet before it hits but still delivers either a kinetic blow or pepper spray to incapacitate the target, I'm not sure how feasible it is but it's a step in a good direction. If the government created a demand for it, then there would be so many more nonlethal methods made within a year, let alone in the next ten that could revolutionize this kind of nonlethal tactics.

The idea behind this kind of police work is the idea that guns are tools to take lives. And that's completely true. But it doesn't have to be forever. We could do better. And I'm not saying that this needs to become the complete reality of how they arm themselves. If the police are patrolling an area or being sent to an a place with high gang activity and the like I have no problem with them carrying anything unless it's an assault rifle (that's for the military and SWAT).

The nonlethal options you talk about would still likely hurt someone and it probably won't leave them completely incapacitated so if you're fighting someone with a gun, the guy with the gun probably can still kill you if both shot at the same time. So is a police supposed to use his stun gun on anybody that looks suspicious? Remember it's not enough both guys fire at the same time because your weapon can't kill someone while it's not true the other way around. There's enough stories about police using tasers on guys that look suspicious and bad things happen and it'll probably be harder to deliver a ranged solution that's nonlethal. But even if this method is totally safe I think it'd be a pretty weird world where the police just pulls up and shoots someone as soon as they come out of the car (otherwise they'd still be at a significant disadvantage and likely to die against any real criminals).

I think it's more realistic to expect advances in armor technology than the weapon end because I really don't see how you're going to get something that's like a gun but fires non lethal ammo as the answer because it's still at most equal to a gun and that's if both person fired at the same time. Assuming the weapon isn't some fantasy weapon that instantly incapacitates the opponent you probably still come out behind even if both are firing at the same time since the other guy can probably fire some more before he's incapacitated and kill you while that doesn't work the other way around.

You're right my options aren't ironclad, but alternatives need to be explored. I'm just spit balling here. If I knew everything about everything I'd probably be in a different line of work. The idea here is that change needs to occur because the police, like in general anyone else, can't be trusted. That's why it's becoming more and more normal for them to have cameras on their person. There just needs to be some kind of equivalent to that for them when it comes to the decision of taking a life.

Well, this is obviously a gun culture thing. Police in comparable western style countries don't need to be as well armed because they can be pretty sure the criminals usually won't have guns. That's why they can feel pretty safe using just a baton or whatever and obviously it's a lot harder to accidentally kill someone with a baton even if you got some deranged psychos that somehow become police. I don't see any clean way out of this at least on the weapons end.

Don wrote:The reason why police is likely to think they're in some kind of race is because American police is one of the least safe jobs in the world compared to their counterparts in developed countries.

There is merit to the notion that American police are freaked out because our permissive arms laws produce the best-armed criminals in the world, other than perhaps Russia, which also has no substantial gun control to speak of.

There isn't any to the notion, however, that this justifies shoehorning the problem into the kind of nutty neo-Nazi racial resentments that are increasingly taking part in secret in a lot of U.S. police departments.

And herein lies the problem, Don - as a Chinese-American, arms control may make sense to you in light of what one might consider its "success" in China, or Australia, or a number of other countries that have outlawed guns for the population.

To those of us who have seen how utterly fucked some U.S. police departments are getting - it's problematic unless applied ACROSS the board to cops and soldiers too.

I personally have always told gun control advocates - "Great! Start with the cops and the military."

I'm quite happy to support a substantial background-check apparatus for American citizens IF and ONLY IF the same standards are being applied to our police and our soldiers. There is Constitutional justification via the well-regulation subclause of the 2nd; and textual support from George Washington on the issue - as the usual effective Commander-In-Chief of America's armies during a great portion of his life, he was the one who had to deal with militia violence and the drunken nutty hatebears of his own day, and while he absolutely supported the Second Amendment, the textual evidence seems to indicate that he also believed that the well-regulation portion of the clause was necessary.

George Washington wrote:“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."

This incident and countless others (witness the furor going on in Chicago right now) prove that the same standards are not being applied to citizens, and cops and soldiers; not in the least.

By the way, if there is a "clean way out" of this...it starts with addressing some of the systematic poverty and economic injustice of recent years that have produced such a culture of anger and violence in America since World War II.

Tupac Shakur wrote:You want us to put down our Glocks and our rocks, but you don't want to give us no motherfuckin' dollars. What happened to our forty acres and a mule, fool?

Don wrote:The nonlethal options you talk about would still likely hurt someone and it probably won't leave them completely incapacitated so if you're fighting someone with a gun, the guy with the gun probably can still kill you if both shot at the same time.

If your assailant is a 400-lb human hopped up on speed and PCP - no doubt. If your non-assailant "suspect" child is a 12-year-old with a pellet gun...how many 12-year-olds outside of a Ugandan child-soldier conflict do you know who can take a Tazer or a rubber bullet and stay upright...?

Once again, may I ask whether or not you have experience in any kind of combat or fighting situation, Don? Hand to hand, melee weapons, firearms, anything really?

Shrinweck wrote:

kali o. wrote:He was shot when he reached for the gun

This is what we're not seeing in the same way. I don't see the amount of time between them pulling up and the child turning around for him to reach and warrant being shot.

I disagree. I see **clear** motion to the waistband in the video frame by frame breakdown. In the event of disagreement, benefit of doubt falls in favor of the officers.

I'm not even sure what this means. Are you projecting what crazy shit you've read about what BLM thinks onto me?

I guess I need to clarify. Your standpoint, and others, seems to clearly be the officers pulled up 'shock & awe' style and at the very least created the situation where split second decisions were required for the application of deadly force (I agree). This scenario would have played out far more favorably had the officers pulled up at a safe distance, from cover, shouting commands instead of drawing weapons (I also agree). However, there is a reason police use the shock and awe technique. It works - it doesn't give criminals the time to react. If the police were to adopt the more "criminal friendly" and safe tactic, while that would potentially prevent the incident seen with Tamir Rice...but it would also have far reaching consequences in other *legitimate* calls.

If you, or anyone, is prepared to say the police tactics in this case are "wrong" (nevermind criminal), you better be prepared to at least put some thought into the consequences of altering those tactics when their isn't a 12 year old with a modified toy gun involved.

kali o. wrote:If you, or anyone, is prepared to say the police tactics in this case are "wrong" (nevermind criminal), you better be prepared to at least put some thought into the consequences of altering those tactics when their [sic] isn't a 12 year old with a modified toy gun involved.

The problem here is, Kali - at least in this incident, that's exactly what there was.

I don't think anyone here has suggested a sweeping alteration of police law around this incident. What people want is justice for *this* incident - for the slain little boy who happened to be playing with a toy gun in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That falls on Tim Loehmann (the officer who fired the fatal shots) and Frank Garmback (his partner) and the Cleveland police department - Loehmann and Garmback for their profound misassessment of the situation, the department itself for hiring someone who never should have been re-hired as a police officer, the dispatcher framework for failing to properly relay that even the reporting citizen said *he* thought it was likely just a boy playing with a toy gun...there were, as is common in these cases, failures up and down the chain.

The idea that *no one* has any criminal liability in this is what is causing the public anger, as there clearly *were* failures up and down the chain.

Again I feel compelled to bring it back to the idea that the right answer is to actually *train* our police. It should take no less than a full year of training to become a badged police officer in the United States and Canada. Cracks in the framework - like the ones in Loehmann's personality that were exposed by the Independence PD, then ignored by Cleveland PD itself - would come to light much sooner that way.

Ask Independence PD Chief Jim Polak what he feels the right disciplinary action is, in my opinion. He's the one who predicted with crystal-clear clarity that Loehmann was too hotheaded/nervous for the badge.

kali o. wrote: However, there is a reason police use the shock and awe technique. It works - it doesn't give criminals the time to react.

When there is no question that the people in question are violent and unrepentant criminals, that argument can be made.

When there is any doubt at all...it often leads to excessive force, brutality by authority, and unchecked violence against innocents up to and including murder/negligent homicide/manslaughter/accidental death of other kinds.

Iraq comes to mind. That entire war was fought on a "shock and awe" doctrine...based on what were later revealed to be false pretenses for invasion in the first place. It then caused several hundred thousand - maybe a million or more - civilian casualties and birthed implacable and horrific resentment among the remainder of the population...which is, at least if one is inclined to believe the news, now metastasizing into the most brutal, barbaric threat to world peace on the entirety of Earth.

Do you think that would have happened had the entire region not been a guinea pig for our military's unilateral shock & awe "revolution in military affairs"?

Just asking.

The iraq war is entirely unrelated, other than a loose connection to the shock and awe descriptor I used. That aside, is your point the iraq war should not have been fought or should have been fought differently?

In regards to what you first said, there is always doubt until bullets are flying. Your dichotomy is flawed.

Actually, with Chicago earning the "Chiraq" moniker lately due to endless gang wars and Rahm's decision to basically hold the first civil, metropolitan secret prison (at least the first one whose existence has been discovered there - been reading the news?), I'm not so sure the analogy is not apt after all. Ask any minority group accused of violent behavior in the United States whether or not police brutality/resentments for unjust police killings are part of the reason that they stay armed, or whether or not such incidents and the anger they provoke influence their resentments and day-to-day behavior. The endless use of shock-and-awe in every situation is causing a lot of dead or brutalized innocents, in the States as well as abroad.

As for "there is always doubt until the bullets are flying" - there is doubt about people you see walking down the street; it doesn't entitle you to blow away anyone you're suspicious of.

I saw a man acting suspiciously with a mask and hood on today - he entered a store, then left, looking somewhat like he was casing the place, in a region that has experienced many robberies lately. But of course, there is always the chance - indeed, I'd say the extreme probability - that he had the mask and hood on because it's COLD, and that he was doing nothing wrong at all. Should someone report him to the police? Maybe blow him away as a warning to others not to walk around suspiciously or look like he's casing a store when people can't see his face?

With a dead child in the aftermath of this one - to me it is your own logic that is flawed here, Kali.

The "until the bullets are flying" thing also for some reason makes me wonder if you have any training and/or experience with combat or streetfight situations, just as I wondered with Don. It strikes me as a fear-based, freaked-out response - something along the lines of, "oh my god, I'd be so scared, I wouldn't know if the gun was real, and I've never been in that situation but I can imagine it - so swing away, shoot for the fences, and if someone ends up dead, it's their fault for scaring me."

That is precisely the attitude that police officers *can not* have - and precisely why Tim Loehmann was written up by Jim Polak as unsuitable for being a badged officer.

You can, of course, tell me if I have mischaracterized your position.

Replay wrote:As for "there is always doubt until the bullets are flying" - there is doubt about people you see walking down the street; it doesn't entitle you to blow away anyone you're suspicious of.

Not what you said originally, not what I said, not close to what occurred and when you frame it to the absurd extreme context with this follow up, you forgo rational discussion.

I demand logic in discussions and fair points. And Emotional appeals are rarely rational. Hell, you go the extra mile with your fallacious ad hominem (something you do alot, but as a hint, your lay opinion doesnt matter either then). Too many strikes. You are out

Okay. Push me out! You're the moderator. You can do it if you like; if you want to win the discussion that way, go ahead. Everyone here knows how important winning is to you, after all.

But there is precious little logic in a dead child with a pellet gun, gunned-down by a trigger-happy officer expelled from a previous police department for a lack of emotional stability - no matter how many times you say that the officers bear no responsibility for their actions here.

The public will not forget, and opinion will continue to turn against you - a source of frustration to a man to whom winning is so absolutely important, I have to think.

You can continue to win this one in your mind all you like, Kal - but the reality is, you've already lost. You have failed to convince others here of your opinions; I imagine most others have simply quit the field out of frustration, not because you've actually changed anyone's mind. What you see as "logic", I see as your persistent disaffect rearing its head once again. You cannot empathize with the Rices or their pain; to you, they fucked up by failing to teach their child how to behave in society appropriately, so what happened is nothing but "logical". Others don't agree. That has to be a source of some frustration to you; hence why I'm "out" - for once, you can't seem to win the debate, no matter how hard you try, except possibly in your own mind. You have sided with corruption and misbehavior in authority as long as I've known you, so unlike others, I am not really surprised by your position, and am unlikely to quit the debate out of simple frustration as others might. It's really all your choice. You seem to think I care if you think I'm "out" or not. Nothing would be more enjoyable to me than seeing you quit the field on this issue and stop advocating for the position that trigger-happy cops aren't doing anything wrong.

For if you quit the debate without advocating for your position and leave it to us to discuss, ensuring that only those who believe justice has miscarried are left to speak - aren't you the one who's really out?

To me, the relentless attempt to separate emotion from any discussion of human affairs is itself illogical in the extreme.

Emotion was involved in the officers' decision to shoot Tamir Rice - extreme fear, more than likely.

Emotion is involved in the feelings of everyone involved in the aftermath - anger on the part of the parents and the public, more fear on the police side, this time of consequences and public opinion.

Humans are not robots or algorithms to be solved. Emotion forms a part of the fabric of our lives. Emotions are inextricably linked to these events, and cannot be separated them.

To attempt to suggest otherwise is a dangerous illogic - one betraying a very poor understanding of the human experience itself.