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.
1. Cops get calls about male carrying a gun in public, calmly approach and talk to him, then let him walk away without incident.
2. Cops get calls about male carrying a gun in public, drive up to him and start yelling, then start shooting.
3. Cops get calls about male carrying a gun in public, rush him and start yelling, then start shooting.
This is why the "Black Lives Matter" campaign matters. If this isn't a clear example of how race impacts how police and society react to people.
And before you somehow try to change this to victim-blaming Tamir Rice and John Crawford for not listening to the cops, tell me HONESTLY, would Jim Cooley have reacted any differently if he was approached the way cops approached Rice or Crawford.
Edit: And to clarify further, nobody in any of the three stories did anything illegal. All the incidents boil down to how the cops who responded reacted.
Last edited by EddieB.Good; 06-11-2015 at 05:35 PM..
In the Rice case, has anyone ever determined who altered the toy gun to make it look real? The cops reacted too fast, but whoever altered the gun should share some responsibility. If the orange end of the barrel had still been there, there may have been a different outcome.
In the Rice case, has anyone ever determined who altered the toy gun to make it look real? The cops reacted too fast, but whoever altered the gun should share some responsibility. If the orange end of the barrel had still been there, there may have been a different outcome.
Why should anyone share responsibility for the actions of a couple of overzealous cops?
1. Cops get calls about male carrying a gun in public, calmly approach and talk to him, then let him walk away without incident.
2. Cops get calls about male carrying a gun in public, drive up to him and start yelling, then start shooting.
3. Cops get calls about male carrying a gun in public, rush him and start yelling, then start shooting.
This is why the "Black Lives Matter" campaign matters. If this isn't a clear example of how race impacts how police and society react to people.
And before you somehow try to change this to victim-blaming Tamir Rice and John Crawford for not listening to the cops, tell me HONESTLY, would Jim Cooley have reacted any differently if he was approached the way cops approached Rice or Crawford.
Why should anyone share responsibility for the actions of a couple of overzealous cops?
I'm just saying it's possible they may not have shot if they could have seen the bright orange on the barrel and realized it was a toy gun. But as quickly as they shot, they may not have noticed anyway. They were totally irresponsible.
I'm just saying it's possible they may not have shot if they could have seen the bright orange on the barrel and realized it was a toy gun. But as quickly as they shot, they may not have noticed anyway. They were totally irresponsible.
Might be as simple as it is legal to carry an openly displayed rifle in Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport - a matter that every single police officer who works there is aware of.
It is not legal to brandish a handgun in a city park in Cleveland.
It is also not legal to swing a sawed-offed (or shortened) rifle/shotgun in commercial facilities (read: WalMarts) in Beavercreek, OH. Note that after being shot and falling to the ground by an officer, the subject dives for the rifle he dropped - and is shot again. Attempting to gain access to a gun while police are trying to subdue a subject is one of those very few instances that the US DOJ has specifically identified as an appropriate case for the use of deadly force. (Order issued right after Ruby Ridge.)
So you have one legal act and two illegal acts. In one case police question the subject, in two cases they use deadly force.
(That said, IMHO the Atlanta law allowing the open display of a rifle at an airport is stupid, as was the inexperienced, knee-jerk reaction of the rookie officer in Cleveland.)
But it doesn't have to be about race. Might have just been about the laws in effect...
Might be as simple as it is legal to carry an openly displayed rifle in Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport - a matter that every single police officer who works there is aware of.
It is not legal to brandish a handgun in a city park in Cleveland.
It is also not legal to swing a sawed-offed (or shortened) rifle/shotgun in commercial facilities (read: WalMarts) in Beavercreek, OH. Note that after being shot and falling to the ground by an officer, the subject dives for the rifle he dropped - and is shot again. Attempting to gain access to a gun while police are trying to subdue a subject is one of those very few instances that the US DOJ has specifically identified as an appropriate case for the use of deadly force. (Order issued right after Ruby Ridge.)
So you have one legal act and two illegal acts. In one case police question the subject, in two cases they use deadly force.
(That said, IMHO the Atlanta law allowing the open display of a rifle at an airport is stupid, as was the inexperienced, knee-jerk reaction of the rookie officer in Cleveland.)
But it doesn't have to be about race. Might have just been about the laws in effect...
1. You'd be right about the swinging a rifle in comm. facility, if that was what John Crawford was doing. He wasn't. Your point is moot. What's not moot is that OH is an open-carry state, which means John Crawford was well within his rights to be carrying a real gun (which he wasn't) in a Walmart.
2. I don't know what the ruling is on a handgun in a park in Cleveland since OH is open-carry, but it's a moot point since Tamir had a toy gun.
3. So what you have is three legal acts reacted to in two "illegal" ways and one "legal" way by the cops at the scenes.
1. You'd be right about the swinging a rifle in comm. facility, if that was what John Crawford was doing. He wasn't. Your point is moot. What's not moot is that OH is an open-carry state, which means John Crawford was well within his rights to be carrying a real gun (which he wasn't) in a Walmart.
2. I don't know what the ruling is on a handgun in a park in Cleveland since OH is open-carry, but it's a moot point since Tamir had a toy gun.
3. So what you have is three legal acts reacted to in two "illegal" ways and one "legal" way by the cops at the scenes.
!. Don't Walmarts all have a sign saying "no weapons".?
2. The gun had been altered to look like a real gun.
And I am not saying the police were right. Just trying to clarify.
1. Cops get calls about male carrying a gun in public, calmly approach and talk to him, then let him walk away without incident.
2. Cops get calls about male carrying a gun in public, drive up to him and start yelling, then start shooting.
3. Cops get calls about male carrying a gun in public, rush him and start yelling, then start shooting.
The difference is how the gun or replica guns were being handled. You can't go waving a gun around public.
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.
