thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,834
|
Post by thebin on Mar 3, 2015 16:24:44 GMT -5
" So I ask again, did the officers know they were approaching a 12-year-old who witnesses thought was holding only a toy rather than a real gun?"
So I ask again....do you think they have a duty to do any diligence at all to asses the threat before they execute him? Or is it the dispatchers themselves you would like to see tasked with the judge, jury, and executioner responsibility?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 3, 2015 21:34:44 GMT -5
I have seen the video and I'm not opining on the larger issues. I'm just asking whether the officers knew the circumstances that you yourself cite as so important to understanding what happened. If Tamir had been a 30-year-old man with a real gun menacing children in the park, we would look at the way the officers sped up in front of him very differently, and I think many would view it as heroic.* So I ask again, did the officers know they were approaching a 12-year-old who witnesses thought was holding only a toy rather than a real gun? *Even if he was an armed 30-year-old, I'm still not saying how they approached it was right as a matter of ideal policies an procedures. But when it comes to figuring out where these individual officers fall on the spectrum between wholly justified and insane murderers, clear their mental states (and hence their knowledge) matter a great deal. This just seems tone deaf to me. The child was murdered in less than 2 seconds. He had no chance to comply. Whether the officers knew he was a child or not, something is wrong when someone in this circumstance, child or adult, ends up dead. If that's the way they teach policing in Cleveland, the teachers need to be fired. Ohio is an open carry state. Residents can openly carry a firearm without a permit or a license, so they should not have been messing with him anyway if they thought he was an adult. Yet and still, the police did not even attempt to assess the situation. Just came out with guns blazing. They f&$ked up big time, another black male is dead, and the City administration and the police blame the 12 yr old murdered child for his own death. Where are the elected officials and police hierarchy who should be clamoring for an end to abuse of citizens? Silent, hiding behind a B.S. report which the entire nation sees through. If only they could see themselves as others see them... I didn't say the officers did anything right. I do think that it's worthwhile to understand what they knew—and what they might have been thinking—in the moment. If they're inept fools, then that speaks to one problem. If they're overzealous tough guys, then that's a different problem. If they're unapologetic racists, that's a different problem. If they're timid reactionaries, then that's a different issue. If they thought they were confronting a threat to the lives of children in the area, then this is a different story than if they just wildly skidded onto the scene and shot at the first person they saw. Again, I'm not saying they acted properly, no matter what they knew. But I just don't see how anyone hopes to correct problems without understanding exactly what the problems were. You can be outraged, and you can accuse cops of horrible personal and professional flaws, all day long. But when it comes time to implement reforms, what do you propose, and how do you know that they address the cause(s) of this tragedy, if you don't know what those cause(s) were? That's why I asked about what the cops knew before they arrived at the scene.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,389
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 3, 2015 21:46:42 GMT -5
This just seems tone deaf to me. The child was murdered in less than 2 seconds. He had no chance to comply. Whether the officers knew he was a child or not, something is wrong when someone in this circumstance, child or adult, ends up dead. If that's the way they teach policing in Cleveland, the teachers need to be fired. Ohio is an open carry state. Residents can openly carry a firearm without a permit or a license, so they should not have been messing with him anyway if they thought he was an adult. Yet and still, the police did not even attempt to assess the situation. Just came out with guns blazing. They f&$ked up big time, another black male is dead, and the City administration and the police blame the 12 yr old murdered child for his own death. Where are the elected officials and police hierarchy who should be clamoring for an end to abuse of citizens? Silent, hiding behind a B.S. report which the entire nation sees through. If only they could see themselves as others see them... I didn't say the officers did anything right. I do think that it's worthwhile to understand what they knew—and what they might have been thinking—in the moment. If they're inept fools, then that speaks to one problem. If they're overzealous tough guys, then that's a different problem. If they're unapologetic racists, that's a different problem. If they're timid reactionaries, then that's a different issue. If they thought they were confronting a threat to the lives of children in the area, then this is a different story than if they just wildly skidded onto the scene and shot at the first person they saw. Again, I'm not saying they acted properly, no matter what they knew. But I just don't see how anyone hopes to correct problems without understanding exactly what the problems were. You can be outraged, and you can accuse cops of horrible personal and professional flaws, all day long. But when it comes time to implement reforms, what do you propose, and how do you know that they address the cause(s) of this tragedy, if you don't know what those cause(s) were? That's why I asked about what the cops knew before they arrived at the scene. I hear you, strummer, and clearly what you wrote makes sense and is reasonable. But (you knew there'd be a but ), IMO, no matter what they knew, no matter what their issues, they just rolled up and executed a child without assessing the situation, at all. And while that is horrible, the response from authorities is atrocious. Until that changes, there is no chance to change the culture of law enforcement in many communities. You just can't have authorities and rank and file being so wrong. Like SF said, how can you trust them?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 3, 2015 22:09:24 GMT -5
" So I ask again, did the officers know they were approaching a 12-year-old who witnesses thought was holding only a toy rather than a real gun?" So I ask again....do you think they have a duty to do any diligence at all to asses the threat before they execute him? Or is it the dispatchers themselves you would like to see tasked with the judge, jury, and executioner responsibility? Obviously they have a duty to assess the situation. But that assessment has to begin with what the dispatcher tells them based on the eyewitness account of the 911 caller. If police were expected to disregard what the dispatcher tells them, then they'd be sending the same first responders to a cat in a tree as to a bank robbery in progress. No, the dispatcher's report shouldn't be the end-all and be-all. But it is the starting point, and it should alert the officers to the nature of a potential threat (or in the case of a kid with a toy, the lack of a threat).
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,834
|
Post by thebin on Mar 4, 2015 9:56:21 GMT -5
" So I ask again, did the officers know they were approaching a 12-year-old who witnesses thought was holding only a toy rather than a real gun?" So I ask again....do you think they have a duty to do any diligence at all to asses the threat before they execute him? Or is it the dispatchers themselves you would like to see tasked with the judge, jury, and executioner responsibility? Obviously they have a duty to assess the situation. But that assessment has to begin with what the dispatcher tells them based on the eyewitness account of the 911 caller. If police were expected to disregard what the dispatcher tells them, then they'd be sending the same first responders to a cat in a tree as to a bank robbery in progress. No, the dispatcher's report shouldn't be the end-all and be-all. But it is the starting point, and it should alert the officers to the nature of a potential threat (or in the case of a kid with a toy, the lack of a threat). "But that assessment has to begin with what the dispatcher tells them based on the eyewitness account of the 911 caller...." Unfortunately that isn't where these cops BEGAN assessing the situation, it is where they STOPPED assessing the situation. If the dispatcher told the officers there was a column of 75 ISIS fighters beheading children at random at that location and the cops had the same reaction they did here they still would have been bad cops failing to act with a modicum of public safety awareness. These guys had no business carrying a gun and a badge as evidenced quite strongly by embarrassing performance reviews. And now to compound matters the Brass is digging in in the face of the blindingly obvious and supporting these two idiot thugs? Why? I would guess because they know their employment as cops to begin with is indefensible given prior performance. That's who is RUNNING law enforcement in a major American city? Frightening.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,655
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 5, 2015 10:53:13 GMT -5
In bullet form.... - While I'm all for assessing what happened to diagnose it, the focus on what information the dispatcher relayed seems unimportant in this case. As thebin notes, as a matter of policy, no police officer should be taking this information as certain truth.
- The more obvious issue is the level of aggression seen in the video. There is no situation that demands that response. The police should be assessing the situation from a safe distance, identifying themselves, trying to get the person to put down the weapon -- real or fake -- peacefully and arresting them if necessary. Lethal force should not be the primary option. This isn't 24 -- there's no nuclear bomb about to go off.
- What's more important is that this process is the correct one in every single situation. It's obviously the right way to go if there is any question fo the person's innocence, but it's also the right way to go if the police officers feel threatened or if there are potential other victims around.
- For example, you say in another scenario that we'd be calling them heroes; I suspect we'd be calling them dead idiots. If Tamir Rice had actually been someone with a real gun interested in killing police officers, he would have most certainly be able to kill the one closest to him (getting out of the car) and if he was half competent, he would have had a shot at the other.
- If the police officers were not taught proper policy, the department is to blame. It's also to blame for hiring Edited-ups who have a history of unnecessary violence and by giving a gun to a person wholly unqualified to carry or shoot one.
- I'm not going to pretend to know these guys' motivation, but it is obvious they were uninterested in doing what they were supposed to do: assess the situation and attempt to arrest the person peacefully if necessary. Force was option #1 for them, and it was dumb force as they actually put themselves in danger to assert it.
- But what is more despicable after all this is the department, police unions and all their fellow cops defending them. These officers killed an innocent child and they did so because they made horrible decisions - not split second decision, but they overrode what I'm assuming was normal training and department policy for no real reason that anyone can see. Until the good cops stop defending the bad cops, it's really tough to see any cop as a good cop.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Mar 5, 2015 14:17:52 GMT -5
"During the summer of 2012, one Ferguson police officer detained a 32-year-old African American man who had just finished playing basketball at a park. The officer approached while the man was sitting in his car and resting. The car’s windows appeared to be more heavily tinted than Ferguson’s code allowed, so the officer did have legitimate grounds to question him. But, with no apparent justification, the officer proceeded to accuse the man of being a pedophile. He prohibited the man from using his cell phone and ordered him out of his car for a pat-down search, even though he had no reason to suspect that the man was armed. And when the man objected – citing his constitutional rights – the police officer drew his service weapon, pointed it at the man’s head, and arrested him on eight different counts. The arrest caused the man to lose his job.
Unfortunately, this event appears to have been anything but an isolated incident. Our investigation showed that members of Ferguson’s police force frequently escalate, rather than defuse, tensions with the residents they encounter. And such actions are sometimes accompanied by First Amendment violations – including arresting people for talking back to officers, recording their public activities, or engaging in other conduct that is constitutionally protected."
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,655
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 12, 2015 14:45:12 GMT -5
And today proves, as if we didn't know, that there are awful people on all sides of the discussion. News reports seem to say the officers will live, which is wonderful, but it's horrific no matter the outcome.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 12, 2015 14:51:07 GMT -5
What side of the discussion are the as of yet unknown shooters on?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 12, 2015 15:01:59 GMT -5
What side of the discussion are the as of yet unknown shooters on? Oh, well clearly they support more aggressive policing and law enforcement. What kind of a question is this? Are you suggesting that it's a rush to judgment for people to conclude that someone who shot a cop in the face is on the side that has a problem with police?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 12, 2015 16:15:41 GMT -5
I'm not suggesting that conclusion is a rush to judgment, I'm suggesting that it's idiotic
One side doesn't have some kind of abstract 'problem with police,' they have a problem with the longstanding systemic police abuse of citizens. Demanding reform and justice seems like a reasonable stance. Saying that there is no need for reform in the face of overwhelming evidence of fundamental problems in the Ferguson PD seems like an unreasonable stance.
The two police officers being shot is a horrific crime. Assigning blame for that to a 'side' of this issue, especially when literally nothing at all is known about the shooter, is a complete joke.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 12, 2015 17:03:58 GMT -5
The two police officers being shot is a horrific crime. Assigning blame for that to a 'side' of this issue, especially when literally nothing at all is known about the shooter, is a complete joke. Really? You think that someone in the "I'm with Darren Wilson" fan club shot the officers?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 12, 2015 17:13:31 GMT -5
I think that lumping in a attempted murderer with people who are seeking reform is manipulative. The idea that this shows 'both sides' have awful people is a completely useless sentiment. Some deranged person hating police and attempting to kill them has absolutely nothing to do with the substantive, completely justified efforts of the activists.
Didn't you just spend a few posts on a thread mocking people who jump to conclusions?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 12, 2015 17:37:11 GMT -5
I think that lumping in a attempted murderer with people who are seeking reform is manipulative. The idea that this shows 'both sides' have awful people is a completely useless sentiment. Some deranged person hating police and attempting to kill them has absolutely nothing to do with the substantive, completely justified efforts of the activists. Didn't you just spend a few posts on a thread mocking people who jump to conclusions? I think it's safe to say that the shooter is not in the pro-Darren Wilson group. You want to dispute that conclusion?
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 12, 2015 18:47:20 GMT -5
I'm sure the shooters were not engaged in the political discussion.
There are always people who are criminally inclined who will try to co-opt a legitimate political movement to try to justify their violence. That is where lynch mobs and rioters and Tim McVeays and religious terrorists come from. They are almost never ideologues who turn to violence. They are criminals who undermine the political discourse. This is why people like MLK and Ghandi were such great leaders. They insisted on keeping the high moral ground and actively opposed retaliatory violence that would have weakened their political momentum.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 12, 2015 19:22:02 GMT -5
"I think it's safe to say that the shooter is not in the pro-Darren Wilson group. You want to dispute that conclusion?"
I responded to the assertion that the shooter shows that 'both sides of the discussion' has awful people, implying that this deranged individual is somehow representative of the pro-reform side of the discussion.
Now you're saying that anyone who isn't pro Darren Wilson should be lumped in to the same 'side' of the discussion, whether that means protesting and advocating for reform, or attempting to murder two police officers. Which is a joke. But keep on moving those goalposts!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,655
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 12, 2015 21:30:51 GMT -5
"I think it's safe to say that the shooter is not in the pro-Darren Wilson group. You want to dispute that conclusion?" I responded to the assertion that the shooter shows that 'both sides of the discussion' has awful people, implying that this deranged individual is somehow representative of the pro-reform side of the discussion. Now you're saying that anyone who isn't pro Darren Wilson should be lumped in to the same 'side' of the discussion, whether that means protesting and advocating for reform, or attempting to murder two police officers. Which is a joke. But keep on moving those goalposts! That was not my assertion at all, and frankly it takes an incredible amount of defensiveness to infer that. If you would like me to be specific, my assertion, which I think was probably obvious to everyone not looking to pick a fight, was that there are an unspecified number of people who self-identify as on either side of the debate who do some pretty awful things. Clear enough? It was not meant to make commentary on my opinion on whether there needs to be reform regarding police shootings/brutality/oversight (I think I've made my position there clear and this does not change it), nor does it imply that everyone on both sides is awful. Unless maybe it does if you squint really hard. It was simply a sad observation, and I honestly felt bad for the shot police officers. Yes, I'm sure someone on Fox News is spouting that the whole protest movement is invalidated; honestly, I kind of hope we can assume better intelligence of most of the posters, here? As for questions of identity, you're right that I have no idea if these folks even self-identified as protesters. That is perhaps a bad assumption. So, fair. If you want to discuss how someone is truly determined to be part of a group, we can also discuss that rationally -- I find the question of identity fascinating (who determines if someone is truly "Muslim" or "Christian" for example?). But if it is just going to be stupid crap like "OP TOTALLY MEANT ALL PROTESTERS ARE COP KILLERS! HES AN IDIOT!" Eh, count me out. I'm sure you can find all your outrage on Tumblr or something.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,655
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 12, 2015 21:45:37 GMT -5
I'm sure the shooters were not engaged in the political discussion. I'm not 100% sure. I mean, I'm not even sure what "engaged in the political discussion" means -- what's the threshhold? Personal motivation? Marching? How many people are actually involved? But I suppose I know what you mean -- I live in Oakland now and most of the damage done in protests is done by people who are not truly interested in the political aspect so I can agree it's unlikely. But it's not impossible someone's anger went too far. In context of the validity of the political statement, an act of violence even by a person in the name of something does not invalidate the right of something. But without a real leader/leaders, there's no platform here. And so things get muddled. In some cases, I agree. In other cases...yes, they are criminals, and yes, they undermine the political discourse, but I do not think someone who uses violence to attempt to further a cause is inherently "not part of the cause" or an idealogue. Look at Al-Qaeda or ISIS. I'm sure there's US examples -- I admit I don't know much about McVeigh, etc. Given some of our civil rights issues right now, I'm kind of surprised that we have no leaders of this vein.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 12, 2015 22:05:19 GMT -5
Give me a break. First of all, my only response to you was asking which side the shooters were on. Because your post clearly implies that they were on the side of the protestors/reformers. Which is ludicrous. Now you say that what you OBVIOUSLY meant was an unspecified number of people who self-identify on either side of the debate do awful things? Really? That doesn't mean anything. It just doesn't apply. The shooters have not self-identified with either side. We don't even know who the shooters are! So even your "clarification" doesn't make any sense, unless you're lumping in deranged violent maniacs with one of the "sides" of the debate. THAT was my point.
"But if it is just going to be stupid crap like "OP TOTALLY MEANT ALL PROTESTERS ARE COP KILLERS! HES AN IDIOT!" Eh, count me out. I'm sure you can find all your outrage on Tumblr or something." Awesome tumblr jab! Very original. And true, that sure would be something stupid to say. Good thing I didn't say it. It takes an incredible amount of defensiveness to infer that.
I don't think you're saying that the protest movement is invalidated, but what you DID say is exactly the kind of thing that is used to invalidate the movement. That is my point.
Also the part you quoted wasn't even to you. The people I was talking with weren't saying I'm misinterpreting your comment, they're saying I'm wrong. So yeah, not only is your clarification nonsense, but it isn't a clarification. Your post says what it says, and yes, it is clear enough.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,834
|
Post by thebin on May 29, 2015 11:00:45 GMT -5
|
|