Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not what happened, however. There is no "what if" needed--we have an actual case.
Yep, and it has happened many times before and will happen again as well. Don't point guns at people in a park, whether they are real fake or otherwise. You might get shot. Kindof like playing in the street. Sure, we can blame the motorist, but....
People seem wrapped around the axle that the pistol was not a firearm. We need some officers with telepathic ability. Hell, why haven't these people taken up professional card shark careers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Neither are real guns. It is, however, illegal to go pointing a gun at people walking by on the street. It's called assault. Case law affirms that airsoft guns are not deadly weapons so you'd unlikely get aggravated assault, just simple assault. That's not really relevant, however, as it's completely reasonable that the officers would assume the gun being waved around was real. They don't have the benefit of hindsight. It's hard to see what exactly Rice is doing right before getting shot, but he certainly makes some kind of movement that could be reaching for his gun.
To point out something important: The original 911 call displayed a hugely significant lack of urgency. There was no alarm in the caller's voice--the caller was sitting calmly in the park making the telephone call. He spoke calmly until he decided to get up and leave.
Quote:
911 Operator: This is <censored>.
Caller: Hi, how are you?
911 Operator: Good
Caller: I'm sitting in the park at West Boulevard by the West Boulevard Rapid Transit Station, and there is a guy in here with a pistol, you know. It's probably fake but he's like pointing it at everybody
911 Operator: And where are you at sir?
Caller: I'm sitting in the park at West Cudell...West Boulevard by the West Boulevard Rapid Transit Station.
911 Operator: You say you're at the Rapid Transit Station? Are you at the Rapid station?
Caller: No, I'm sitting across the street in the park.
911 Operator: What's the name of the park? Cudell?
Caller: Cudell, yes. The guy keeps pulling it in and out of his pants. Probably fake but you know what? He's scaring the <censored> out of [inaudible].
911 Operator: What does he look like?
Caller: He has a camouflage hat on.
911 Operator: Is he black or white?
Caller: He has a gray...gray coat with black sleeves and gray pants on.
911 Operator: Is he black or white?
Caller: I'm sorry...
911 Operator: Is he black or white?
Caller: He's black.
911 Operator: You said a camo jacket and gray pants?
Caller: No, he has a camouflage hat on. You know what that is?
911 Operator: Yeah.
Caller: From Desert Storm? And on his jacket he has gray and it's got black sleeves on it. He's sitting on the swing right now. But he keeps pulling it in and out of his pants...and pointing it at people. He's probably a juvenile, you know. [pause, with sound of typing in the background] Hello?
911 Operator: Do you know the guy?
Caller: No, I do not.
911 Operator: Sure.
Caller: I'm getting ready to leave, but you know what, he's right there by the youth center or whatever sitting on the swing. And he keeps pulling it in and out of his pants. I don't know if it's real or not, you know?
911 Operator: Okay, we'll send a car out there.
Caller: Thank you.
911 Operator: You're welcome.
The first deadly error is that apparently the 911 dispatcher did not relay this same lack of urgency to the responding officers. Nothing was relayed about the caller's lack of alarm or about the the possibility that the gun was fake, that the suspect was a juvenile, there were no direct threats being made and no civilians reported in panic or in alarm.
I'll say again that Cleveland is a fairly recent open carry city, so "man with gun" calls are going to be made to 911. If the 911 dispatchers haven't been trained to seek clarity on whether the "man with gun" call represents real threat--and transmit that to the responding officers--they certainly should be.
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 12-24-2014 at 11:20 PM..
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,543 posts, read 12,517,887 times
Reputation: 10463
1. No, Rice should not have pointed that toy gun at strangers. As for what Rice did after the cops raced in there and stopped within just a few feet of him, I'm not commenting on what Rice did or didn't do - simply because the poor quality of the video of him at that particular moment.
2. The two cops did not follow proper procedure when they confronted Rice.
3. The two cops lied about many things regarding the incident.
4. Because of the tape, that the two cops were unaware of while they were confronting Rice, their lies regarding how they handled the situation are unraveling.
5. IF the two cops had followed proper procedure in handling the situation then there would be absolutely no reason why they would feel the need to tell even one lie, let alone so many lies about the situation.
It appears that so many people in this thread are fixated on the toy gun and what Rice was doing, and apparently not giving a crap about what the two cops did (at the scene and with their report regarding the incident).
IF the two cops had followed proper procedure, by stopping a distance away and using the car mic, or getting out and using the car as cover, and then ordering Rice to either put his hands up or to get down on the ground, and, if Rice ignored their orders by drawing the gun out and pointing it at the two cops, then I would have to agree that the cops had every right to shoot him (but none of those things happened).
To point out something important: The original 911 call displayed a hugely significant lack of urgency. There was no alarm in the caller's voice--the caller was sitting calmly in the park making the telephone call. He spoke calmly until he decided to get up and leave.
The first deadly error is that apparently the 911 dispatcher did not relay this same lack of urgency to the responding officers. Nothing was relayed about the caller's lack of alarm or about the the possibility that the gun was fake, that the suspect was a juvenile, there were no direct threats being made and no civilians reported in panic or in alarm.
I'll say again that Cleveland is a fairly recent open carry city, so "man with gun" calls are going to be made to 911. If the 911 dispatchers haven't been trained to seek clarity on whether the "man with gun" call represents real threat--and transmit that to the responding officers--they certainly should be.
So if you're an officer, you are saying that the tone of the caller you didn't speak to would make you less apt to preserve your life in the face of a threat that any person would logically conclude could be lethal? This makes no sense to me. I mean, since you aren't in danger at home it sounds groovey, but in the world of the here and now? For those actually putting their life on the line? No.
For those actually putting their life on the line? No.
I agree that the benefit of doubt needs to go to the cops when the circumstances are unclear. But when you look at the video, there is no doubt this child was gunned down needlessly. Stop spinning it in a manner that makes the public less sympathetic to the demands of law enforcement. Incompetent policing needs to be recognized and rectified before they can be any hope that more children don't die needlessly. This incident should serve to highlight the practices of officers who have been in similar situations and managed to bring the situation under control. Denying that better policing practices exist by justifying this child's death is a disservice to law enforcement and the public.
I agree that the benefit of doubt needs to go to the cops when the circumstances are unclear. But when you look at the video, there is no doubt this child was gunned down needlessly. Stop spinning it in a manner that makes the public less sympathetic to the demands of law enforcement. Incompetent policing needs to be recognized and rectified before they can be any hope that more children don't die needlessly. This incident should serve to highlight the practices of officers who have been in similar situations and managed to bring the situation under control. Denying that better policing practices exist by justifying this child's death is a disservice to law enforcement and the public.
I love how the video shows conclusively that the police are at fault, and then the people who say the police are at fault backpedal and say "I can't see if he went for a weapon in his waistline or not, the video quality is poor".
Each situation is its own animal.
I think the police were very poor tactically, had he been armed and wanting to kill cops, he would have had at least the passenger dead to rights.
Their poor tactics do not remove the fact that he went for his waistline, and where was it proven that he was told not to? Have you ever been in a similar situation? Far less than 2 seconds is necessary to issue multiple commands when you see someone going for a gun (or for them to draw and use it. I can clear a holster and engage effectively in between a second, and a second and a half, accurately, from "go" to "bangbangbang" in the A-zone at 10 yards. At the near contact distance the officer put himself? I would ALMOST not look at the sights.). Promise. 2 seconds to that officer probably seemed like half an hour to the couch commando saying this and that about the situation.
So yes, DEFINITELY poor tactics. However, I don't think that makes it malicious intent. Not does it make it the officer's fault. I think the whole thing was a stupid game winning a stupid prize (pointing a gun at people...got taken seriously. Got dead.)
The whole thing was unfortunate in the aftermath, but as it evolved, it was a whole bunch of micro-situations where the police chose "the best option at the time". Make enough decisions like that, and you can easily lose the "war", as it were, while winning each "battle", if that makes sense.
It's reality, folks. People are people---no-matter what uniform they put on in the morning/afternoon.
Doesn't mean its not sad. Doesn't mean it can't be done better. Doesn't mean any of that. However, racist? Out to kill someone? Etc? I don't think that this event alone can be described as such.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,543 posts, read 12,517,887 times
Reputation: 10463
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWG223
I love how the video shows conclusively that the police are at fault, and then the people who say the police are at fault backpedal and say "I can't see if he went for a weapon in his waistline or not, the video quality is poor".
You think the video quality and every single detail is crystal clear - got it.
Rice walked up to the edge of the pavilion, with his arms folded and hands in front of him. Cannot tell if he's holding anything in his hands, if his hands are clasped together, if his hands are bunched up, if his hands are on his stomach etc., etc., but I guess you can tell us what he is doing with his hands at that moment since you think the details in the video are so clear to see. The cop car (which is bigger than a gun) comes flying into view. Rice appears to put his arms down to his side, as the cop jumps out of the car and shoots Rice, Rice falls to the ground.
Quote:
Their poor tactics do not remove the fact that he went for his waistline, and where was it proven that he was told not to?
Quote:
Surveillance video released by police shows Tamir being shot within 2 seconds of the patrol car stopping near him. In that time, Officer Timothy Loehmann told the boy to put his hands up, but he didn't, according to police brass and Follmer. [Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association president Jeff Follmer]
So yes, DEFINITELY poor tactics. However, I don't think that makes it malicious intent. Not does it make it the officer's fault. I think the whole thing was a stupid game winning a stupid prize (pointing a gun at people...got taken seriously. Got dead.)
The whole thing was unfortunate in the aftermath, but as it evolved, it was a whole bunch of micro-situations where the police chose "the best option at the time". Make enough decisions like that, and you can easily lose the "war", as it were, while winning each "battle", if that makes sense.
Not following protocol is the best option? Lying about the incident is the best option?
If you think that they thought it was "the best option at the time", why would they feel the need to lie? Why not put it down exactly how it went instead of covering things up?
You think the video quality and every single detail is crystal clear - got it.
Rice walked up to the edge of the pavilion, with his arms folded and hands in front of him. Cannot tell if he's holding anything in his hands, if his hands are clasped together, if his hands are bunched up, if his hands are on his stomach etc., etc., but I guess you can tell us what he is doing with his hands at that moment since you think the details in the video are so clear to see. The cop car (which is bigger than a gun) comes flying into view. Rice appears to put his arms down to his side, as the cop jumps out of the car and shoots Rice, Rice falls to the ground.
Not following protocol is the best option? Lying about the incident is the best option?
If you think that they thought it was "the best option at the time", why would they feel the need to lie? Why not put it down exactly how it went instead of covering things up?
I think you misread your links. It said nothing at all about officers lying. Can you show me that determination?
here is the FULL quote that you chopped in your post...
Quote:
Surveillance video released by police*shows Tamir being shot within 2 seconds of the patrol car stopping near him. In that time, Officer Timothy Loehmann told the boy to put his hands up, but he didn't, according to police brass and Follmer. Tamir had nearly pulled the gun out of his waistband when Loehmann shot him, Follmer said.
...see how the meaning changes when you actually quote the whole statement, hmmm?
Further, it is now noted that the car slid vs. Was pulled up that close on purpose.
So what were you saying on those two fronts, now?
As to the video, refer back in this thread where everyone whined that I didn't watch it and how it supported their story and now that I've watched it and posted stills from it it's magically "not clear", etc.
.....This incident should serve to highlight the practices of officers who have been in similar situations and managed to bring the situation under control. Denying that better policing practices exist by justifying this child's death is a disservice to law enforcement and the public.
False narrative.
What this situation DOES highlight is the lack of parenting and taking responsibility for a 12 year old so that he isn't involved in situations that include pointing guns at police. Where is the baby mama/daddy? (I won't call them parents because real parents take care of their children.) Ahh yeah, not where to be found until their innocent "child" is shot dead. It's not the job of the police to raise these kids.
I feel bad for all these bastard babies being brought into this world because no doubt, there will be more tragedies like this to come.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
