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.
First of all - why did they pull up so close to him to begin with? I've heard plenty of officers on the various talk shows say - should have stopped WAY back and at least *attempted* to diffuse the situation. However, by pulling up right next to him and jumping out of the car - they had put both of themselves in the 'danger zone' (had the gun been real).
This is the key question in my opinion. And I haven't seen any answer other than the kid got what he deserved.
First of all - why did they pull up so close to him to begin with? I've heard plenty of officers on the various talk shows say - should have stopped WAY back and at least *attempted* to diffuse the situation. However, by pulling up right next to him and jumping out of the car - they had put both of themselves in the 'danger zone' (had the gun been real).
Common sense should dictate that they pull up slowly and attempt to diffuse the situation not to mention the fact that they were putting themselves in danger, someone with a rifle and you pull up right next to them. Empty park in the middle of winter, what's the rush?
Coomon sense should dictate that they pull up slowly and attempt to diffuse the situation not to mention the fact that they were putting themselves in danger, someone with a rifle and you pull up right next to them.
And not just pull up slowly but stop a safe distance away, get on the bullhorn, and tell the kid to put down the gun and get down on the ground. If the kid complies then problem solved and no one is hurt. If the kid acts like a knucklehead then the cops would have been justified in opening fire. I can't understand why anyone would argue that this case wasn't at the least poorly handled.
I have to redact what I said previously...for some reason I thought I had seen another video with a kid hiding behind playground equipment who got shot.
This video it's obvious the police overreacted. He was given no opportunity to drop the gun or comply in any way, the cop who shot him should be up on charges.
Hey, someone on an internet forum admited they were wrong.
I have to redact what I said previously...for some reason I thought I had seen another video with a kid hiding behind playground equipment who got shot.
This video it's obvious the police overreacted. He was given no opportunity to drop the gun or comply in any way, the cop who shot him should be up on charges.
Hey, someone on an internet forum admited they were wrong.
This is the key question in my opinion. And I haven't seen any answer other than the kid got what he deserved.
I'm not a cop and don't know what they're trained to do. I can't give you links, but at the time of the shooting I read explanations that went like this:
When police think a gun might be involved they should be close enough to prevent the suspect from fleeing, grabbing hostages, gaining a tactical advantage.
I'm usually 99% with the cops, but in this case I think they should'v stop 50-60 yards from him and order him to drop the gun. What they did is like an act of war or a hit on a terrorist.
I'm not a cop and don't know what they're trained to do. I can't give you links, but at the time of the shooting I read explanations that went like this:
When police think a gun might be involved they should be close enough to prevent the suspect fromfleeing, grabbing hostages, gaining a tactical advantage.
I can see the logic in this. But I think each case should be evaluated according to the particular circumstances. In the Tamir Rice case the kid was sitting there by himself when the cops rolled up, jumped out of the patrol car, and shot him. From what I know about the case there was no potential for a hostage situation even if the kid had been armed with a real gun.
It wasn't a kid playing with a gun. The cops were called because he was aiming it at people, and threatening them with it.
THIS is why the CA shooters were able to do what they did. Apparently, because the "kid" was black you should not call the cops, lest you be deemed a racist. Of course he doesn't regret it. What if it was a real gun? What if that gun killed a kid?
He was a boy in a park. In the 15 minutes prior to the police arriving he didn't shoot anybody. There were no reports of gunfire. No reports other than "it's probably fake".
The county prosecutor is on air now blaming Rice and defending his officers.
Yet another case of a prosecutor leading a grand jury by the hand and explaining why he wants/doesn't want to prosecute.
The way I understand this event is that Tamir took the orange tip off his real looking toy gun. The orange tip provides a cue to others that it is not a real gun. Then Tamir spent his afternoon aiming this altered toy gun at anyone who passed by thereby threatening them.
In these times, a threat must be taken seriously. For example, if I said I had a bomb on an airplane, while in flight, and made movements that appeared as if I were going to detonate it in flight, what do you think a marshal on this fight would do?
Parents, teach your children not to make life threatening gestures at others for entertainment.
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.
