kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 29, 2015 11:51:29 GMT -5
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,834
|
Post by thebin on May 29, 2015 12:43:05 GMT -5
Police are out of control in this country part 4,673. Light needs to be shined on every thuggish abuse of police force but particularly those that kill citizens.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 30, 2015 11:58:07 GMT -5
Police are out of control in this country part 4,673. Light needs to be shined on every thuggish abuse of police force but particularly those that kill citizens. I think it is not accurate to say that "police are out of control in this country.." Some police are out of control, but most are not. Police that abuse their office through the use of excessive force should be highlighted and prosecuted, if warranted, but let's not throw all police under the bus. They have a hard job trying to enforce the laws and we should recognize this and appreciate it while also going after those who abuse it. My son was a police officer and later a police detective. He put his life on the line to protect you and me, never had to fire his weapon, and was one of two major figures in identifying and apprehending the "east coast rapist" who had assaulted women up the east coast. And this was just one of his accomplishments. I'm exceedingly proud of him and all the other policemen who are on duty night and day in often dangerous circumstances.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,834
|
Post by thebin on May 31, 2015 15:43:52 GMT -5
Police are out of control in this country part 4,673. Light needs to be shined on every thuggish abuse of police force but particularly those that kill citizens. I think it is not accurate to say that "police are out of control in this country.." Some police are out of control, but most are not. Police that abuse their office through the use of excessive force should be highlighted and prosecuted, if warranted, but let's not throw all police under the bus. They have a hard job trying to enforce the laws and we should recognize this and appreciate it while also going after those who abuse it. My son was a police officer and later a police detective. He put his life on the line to protect you and me, never had to fire his weapon, and was one of two major figures in identifying and apprehending the "east coast rapist" who had assaulted women up the east coast. And this was just one of his accomplishments. I'm exceedingly proud of him and all the other policemen who are on duty night and day in often dangerous circumstances. I have no doubt that many, maybe even most police officers very good at what they do and do not abuse their authority in a violent way. And I'm more than willing to take your word for it that your son was one of the very best. And we sure as hell need those guys- no doubt about it. But let's be honest. We're not talking about one or two or 10 cops that are too aggressive too often either. It's beyond a few bad apples and in some forces it seems rampant. Now that there's a camera on every corner are starting to figure out that depending on what neighborhood you're into a certain extent it's not all that rare. The only way that's going to happen is if every time one of these horrible things happens the law and order types, mostly on the right but not totally, stop reflexively jumping to the defense of the cops who acted like thugs. That's the best way to protect the integrity of the good ones like your son.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,590
|
Post by This Just In on Jun 1, 2015 10:04:38 GMT -5
Do you believe that Florida tends to be a lightning rod for these type of occurrences?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 29, 2015 16:28:25 GMT -5
Police are out of control in this country part 4,673. Light needs to be shined on every thuggish abuse of police force but particularly those that kill citizens. I think it is not accurate to say that "police are out of control in this country.." Some police are out of control, but most are not. Police that abuse their office through the use of excessive force should be highlighted and prosecuted, if warranted, but let's not throw all police under the bus. They have a hard job trying to enforce the laws and we should recognize this and appreciate it while also going after those who abuse it. My son was a police officer and later a police detective. He put his life on the line to protect you and me, never had to fire his weapon, and was one of two major figures in identifying and apprehending the "east coast rapist" who had assaulted women up the east coast. And this was just one of his accomplishments. I'm exceedingly proud of him and all the other policemen who are on duty night and day in often dangerous circumstances. This guy was out of control: Body Camera Footage Shows the Moment Ohio Police Officer Shot and Killed Samuel DuBose
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jul 30, 2015 13:57:53 GMT -5
That was just awful.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 11, 2015 11:08:54 GMT -5
REPORTS: OFFICER'S SHOOTING OF BOY WITH PELLET GUN JUSTIFIED home.toshiba.com/news/read/article/the_associated_press-reports_officers_shooting_of_boy_with_pellet_gun_j-ap?inc=1There are some police use of force situations that should be debated and scrutinized, but this was never one of them. Based on the most significant Supreme Court case law regarding police use of force, Graham v. Connor, police use of force should only be judged in the following manner: "the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation." In other words, just because they discovered after the fact that the gun being held by Rice was a pellet gun doesn't mean deadly force was unnecessary. The age of Rice is also irrelevant...a 12 year old can kill someone with a gun just as easily as a 40 year old. Based on the information available to the officer at the time (reports of man brandishing a gun, the suspect displaying the realistic looking gun, ignoring commands, and reaching for it), is enough to justify deadly force. There is no statute or case law that says police officers have to wait to get shot before shooting back. The situation was tragic, but largely unavoidable for the officers involved.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 11, 2015 12:05:55 GMT -5
The situation was tragic, but largely unavoidable for the officers involved. Unavoidable? Are you kidding? Here's some hot tips for how you easily avoid this situation: * Don't trust 911 calls 100%. The 911 call had already been wrong about the "man" versus "12 year old thing" -- perhaps approach the situation cautiously? * Perhaps don't drive up next to the person and shoot immediately? Perhaps approach slow from a distance, first taking cover behind your car or elsewhere? Why go in cowboy style? If it had been a real criminal, there's a good chance at least one of the cops is dead. We shouldn't be employing cops who can not first assess a situation and think clearly before always shooting first. This wasn't shots ringing out suddenly. This was their plan. This was also the report of "independent" other law enforcement officers who get their pay by being paid by ... police departments. Excuse me if I am questioning it, considering the reluctance of other police officers and prosecutors to ever incriminate their colleagues.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 11, 2015 15:37:18 GMT -5
REPORTS: OFFICER'S SHOOTING OF BOY WITH PELLET GUN JUSTIFIED home.toshiba.com/news/read/article/the_associated_press-reports_officers_shooting_of_boy_with_pellet_gun_j-ap?inc=1There are some police use of force situations that should be debated and scrutinized, but this was never one of them. Based on the most significant Supreme Court case law regarding police use of force, Graham v. Connor, police use of force should only be judged in the following manner: "the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation." In other words, just because they discovered after the fact that the gun being held by Rice was a pellet gun doesn't mean deadly force was unnecessary. The age of Rice is also irrelevant...a 12 year old can kill someone with a gun just as easily as a 40 year old. Based on the information available to the officer at the time (reports of man brandishing a gun, the suspect displaying the realistic looking gun, ignoring commands, and reaching for it), is enough to justify deadly force. There is no statute or case law that says police officers have to wait to get shot before shooting back. The situation was tragic, but largely unavoidable for the officers involved. Bull$hit!!!!!!
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 11, 2015 15:37:59 GMT -5
The situation was tragic, but largely unavoidable for the officers involved. Unavoidable? Are you kidding? Here's some hot tips for how you easily avoid this situation: * Don't trust 911 calls 100%. The 911 call had already been wrong about the "man" versus "12 year old thing" -- perhaps approach the situation cautiously? * Perhaps don't drive up next to the person and shoot immediately? Perhaps approach slow from a distance, first taking cover behind your car or elsewhere? Why go in cowboy style? If it had been a real criminal, there's a good chance at least one of the cops is dead. We shouldn't be employing cops who can not first assess a situation and think clearly before always shooting first. This wasn't shots ringing out suddenly. This was their plan. This was also the report of "independent" other law enforcement officers who get their pay by being paid by ... police departments. Excuse me if I am questioning it, considering the reluctance of other police officers and prosecutors to ever incriminate their colleagues. When you are in a potentially life and death situation, there is no difference between a man and a 12 year old carrying a gun. Both are equally capable of killing you. How would you suggest the officers have approached "cautiously"? There was a suspect carrying a gun, pointing it at innocent civilians....that is all the information the officers received. If it had been me, I agree that I would have stopped the car a little farther away and used the vehicle door as cover. You also have to realize how much easier it is in hindsight to critique every action of someone while you're sitting comfortably at your computer and not having to make split-second life and death decisions. If you are told there is an armed suspect in a public park pointing a gun at civilians, you don't have the luxury of making a slow, long range approach, while taking the time to gather more information on the suspect. If this kid had been in an area with no innocent civilians nearby, the officers would have the ability to take a much different approach. Just imagine the outcry if the kid really did have a real gun, and the officer took a nice, slow methodical approach, set up a perimeter around the park, while trying to gather intel on the suspect before engaging....thereby allowing the suspect to shoot innocent civilians in the meantime. You also have to understand that training has changed in the past few years for patrol officers due to the increase in active shooter events in public areas. It used to be that patrol officers responding to a suspect with a gun simply set up a perimeter and waited for the SWAT team to arrive. However, from the lessons learned from a number of active shooter events, it was learned that the first responding officers need to address the armed suspect as quickly as possible to reduce the loss of innocent life. Oh, so now you can read minds? You know it was their "plan" to shoot the suspect and figure it out later?? How do you know that?? It's one thing to have a reasonable debate about their actions, but for you to claim you know exactly what these officers were thinking is just absurd. Just because you don't like the way they assessed the situation, doesn't mean they didn't assess it. That officer reacted the exact way he was trained to react: responding to a call about an armed suspect, confront the suspect and give him commands, the suspect doesn't comply, lifts his shirt to reveal a gun and then reaches for it. You can debate the actions that led up to that point, but at that point every single person who has ever worked as a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer is going to fire their weapon. I'm not sure what you expect a cop to do in that situation; wait until he's shot before he shoots back?? Plus, did you see a photo of the pellet gun he had? Wouldn't you assume that was a real gun? No, it was a retired FBI agent who has an expertise in investigating and assessing police use of force. The other expert was a prosecutor from a different state. Neither of them lives in that state or is "paid by police departments." I encourage you to read the Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, which would explain that police use of force is only to be judged through the eyes of another reasonable law enforcement officer and what he would have done in that same situation with the information available at the time. The Supreme Court acknowledged how difficult it was for law enforcement to make split-second life and death decisions, and only someone who has extensive training and experience in that area could truly make that judgment. Just because a CNN talking head or Al Sharpton think excessive force was used, doesn't make it so.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 11, 2015 15:39:45 GMT -5
Unavoidable? Are you kidding? Here's some hot tips for how you easily avoid this situation: * Don't trust 911 calls 100%. The 911 call had already been wrong about the "man" versus "12 year old thing" -- perhaps approach the situation cautiously? * Perhaps don't drive up next to the person and shoot immediately? Perhaps approach slow from a distance, first taking cover behind your car or elsewhere? Why go in cowboy style? If it had been a real criminal, there's a good chance at least one of the cops is dead. We shouldn't be employing cops who can not first assess a situation and think clearly before always shooting first. This wasn't shots ringing out suddenly. This was their plan. This was also the report of "independent" other law enforcement officers who get their pay by being paid by ... police departments. Excuse me if I am questioning it, considering the reluctance of other police officers and prosecutors to ever incriminate their colleagues. When you are in a potentially life and death situation, there is no difference between a man and a 12 year old carrying a gun. Both are equally capable of killing you. How would you suggest the officers have approached "cautiously"? There was a suspect carrying a gun, pointing it at innocent civilians....that is all the information the officers received. If it had been me, I agree that I would have stopped the car a little farther away and used the vehicle door as cover. You also have to realize how much easier it is in hindsight to critique every action of someone while you're sitting comfortably at your computer and not having to make split-second life and death decisions. If you are told there is an armed suspect in a public park pointing a gun at civilians, you don't have the luxury of making a slow, long range approach, while taking the time to gather more information on the suspect. If this kid had been in an area with no innocent civilians nearby, the officers would have the ability to take a much different approach. Just imagine the outcry if the kid really did have a real gun, and the officer took a nice, slow methodical approach, set up a perimeter around the park, while trying to gather intel on the suspect before engaging....thereby allowing the suspect to shoot innocent civilians in the meantime. You also have to understand that training has changed in the past few years for patrol officers due to the increase in active shooter events in public areas. It used to be that patrol officers responding to a suspect with a gun simply set up a perimeter and waited for the SWAT team to arrive. However, from the lessons learned from a number of active shooter events, it was learned that the first responding officers need to address the armed suspect as quickly as possible to reduce the loss of innocent life. Oh, so now you can read minds? You know it was their "plan" to shoot the suspect and figure it out later?? How do you know that?? It's one thing to have a reasonable debate about their actions, but for you to claim you know exactly what these officers were thinking is just absurd. Just because you don't like the way they assessed the situation, doesn't mean they didn't assess it. That officer reacted the exact way he was trained to react: responding to a call about an armed suspect, confront the suspect and give him commands, the suspect doesn't comply, lifts his shirt to reveal a gun and then reaches for it. You can debate the actions that led up to that point, but at that point every single person who has ever worked as a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer is going to fire their weapon. I'm not sure what you expect a cop to do in that situation; wait until he's shot before he shoots back?? Plus, did you see a photo of the pellet gun he had? Wouldn't you assume that was a real gun? No, it was a retired FBI agent who has an expertise in investigating and assessing police use of force. The other expert was a prosecutor from a different state. Neither of them lives in that state or is "paid by police departments." I encourage you to read the Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, which would explain that police use of force is only to be judged through the eyes of another reasonable law enforcement officer and what he would have done in that same situation with the information available at the time. The Supreme Court acknowledged how difficult it was for law enforcement to make split-second life and death decisions, and only someone who has extensive training and experience in that area could truly make that judgment. Just because a CNN talking head or Al Sharpton think excessive force was used, doesn't make it so. You sound ridiculous. If it weren't so tragic, I would be rolling on the floor, laughing my a$$ off.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 11, 2015 17:52:44 GMT -5
REPORTS: OFFICER'S SHOOTING OF BOY WITH PELLET GUN JUSTIFIED home.toshiba.com/news/read/article/the_associated_press-reports_officers_shooting_of_boy_with_pellet_gun_j-ap?inc=1There are some police use of force situations that should be debated and scrutinized, but this was never one of them. Based on the most significant Supreme Court case law regarding police use of force, Graham v. Connor, police use of force should only be judged in the following manner: "the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation." In other words, just because they discovered after the fact that the gun being held by Rice was a pellet gun doesn't mean deadly force was unnecessary. The age of Rice is also irrelevant...a 12 year old can kill someone with a gun just as easily as a 40 year old. Based on the information available to the officer at the time (reports of man brandishing a gun, the suspect displaying the realistic looking gun, ignoring commands, and reaching for it), is enough to justify deadly force. There is no statute or case law that says police officers have to wait to get shot before shooting back. The situation was tragic, but largely unavoidable for the officers involved. Bull$hit!!!!!! As usual, insightful and classy comments from you. Hahaha
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 11, 2015 17:58:13 GMT -5
When you are in a potentially life and death situation, there is no difference between a man and a 12 year old carrying a gun. Both are equally capable of killing you. How would you suggest the officers have approached "cautiously"? There was a suspect carrying a gun, pointing it at innocent civilians....that is all the information the officers received. If it had been me, I agree that I would have stopped the car a little farther away and used the vehicle door as cover. You also have to realize how much easier it is in hindsight to critique every action of someone while you're sitting comfortably at your computer and not having to make split-second life and death decisions. If you are told there is an armed suspect in a public park pointing a gun at civilians, you don't have the luxury of making a slow, long range approach, while taking the time to gather more information on the suspect. If this kid had been in an area with no innocent civilians nearby, the officers would have the ability to take a much different approach. Just imagine the outcry if the kid really did have a real gun, and the officer took a nice, slow methodical approach, set up a perimeter around the park, while trying to gather intel on the suspect before engaging....thereby allowing the suspect to shoot innocent civilians in the meantime. You also have to understand that training has changed in the past few years for patrol officers due to the increase in active shooter events in public areas. It used to be that patrol officers responding to a suspect with a gun simply set up a perimeter and waited for the SWAT team to arrive. However, from the lessons learned from a number of active shooter events, it was learned that the first responding officers need to address the armed suspect as quickly as possible to reduce the loss of innocent life. Oh, so now you can read minds? You know it was their "plan" to shoot the suspect and figure it out later?? How do you know that?? It's one thing to have a reasonable debate about their actions, but for you to claim you know exactly what these officers were thinking is just absurd. Just because you don't like the way they assessed the situation, doesn't mean they didn't assess it. That officer reacted the exact way he was trained to react: responding to a call about an armed suspect, confront the suspect and give him commands, the suspect doesn't comply, lifts his shirt to reveal a gun and then reaches for it. You can debate the actions that led up to that point, but at that point every single person who has ever worked as a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer is going to fire their weapon. I'm not sure what you expect a cop to do in that situation; wait until he's shot before he shoots back?? Plus, did you see a photo of the pellet gun he had? Wouldn't you assume that was a real gun? No, it was a retired FBI agent who has an expertise in investigating and assessing police use of force. The other expert was a prosecutor from a different state. Neither of them lives in that state or is "paid by police departments." I encourage you to read the Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, which would explain that police use of force is only to be judged through the eyes of another reasonable law enforcement officer and what he would have done in that same situation with the information available at the time. The Supreme Court acknowledged how difficult it was for law enforcement to make split-second life and death decisions, and only someone who has extensive training and experience in that area could truly make that judgment. Just because a CNN talking head or Al Sharpton think excessive force was used, doesn't make it so. You sound ridiculous. If it weren't so tragic, I would be rolling on the floor, laughing my a$$ off. You're right; using facts, case law, training, and experience to make an argument is ridiculous. It's much more compelling to use emotion and insults without resorting to that annoying thing called evidence.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 11, 2015 18:30:54 GMT -5
Unavoidable? Are you kidding? Here's some hot tips for how you easily avoid this situation: * Don't trust 911 calls 100%. The 911 call had already been wrong about the "man" versus "12 year old thing" -- perhaps approach the situation cautiously? * Perhaps don't drive up next to the person and shoot immediately? Perhaps approach slow from a distance, first taking cover behind your car or elsewhere? Why go in cowboy style? If it had been a real criminal, there's a good chance at least one of the cops is dead. We shouldn't be employing cops who can not first assess a situation and think clearly before always shooting first. This wasn't shots ringing out suddenly. This was their plan. This was also the report of "independent" other law enforcement officers who get their pay by being paid by ... police departments. Excuse me if I am questioning it, considering the reluctance of other police officers and prosecutors to ever incriminate their colleagues. When you are in a potentially life and death situation, there is no difference between a man and a 12 year old carrying a gun. Both are equally capable of killing you. How would you suggest the officers have approached "cautiously"? There was a suspect carrying a gun, pointing it at innocent civilians....that is all the information the officers received. Are you arguing that officers neither have a responsibility nor should it be policy for police to assess a situation before applying deadly force? That despite obvious evidence to the contrary in repeated instances to the contrary, police should 100% always trust 911 callers even though it's pretty easy to see how often they can and will be wrong? (let's not forget the WalMart shooting where video evidence shows a shopper merely holding a toy gun -- and the 911 caller claimed he was "waving it" so the police came in and gunned him down without trying to assess the situation) How about pull up in the car from a distance and use the loudspeaker to address the suspect? How about take cover behind your car? In what world is driving up and leaping out and gunning the suspect a good idea? I've seen the video. The person is not immediately threatening anyone in the sense of pointing a gun at someone. The cops did have some time to think and even receive direction, since they had to receive the 911 call and get to the suspect. This isn't a bullet whizzing by and someone turning and firing. This is someone executing a threat. I also find sad irony in your comment about the horrible possible outcome of the person shooting other people in the park -- if an innocent had died. Here's the issue: an innocent DID die. And many people like you don't seem to think there's an issue there -- that's there nothing about the training and processes we use that could be improved. It's business as usual because you are either pro-cop or anti-cop and you can't possibly think in the middle. Address is completely different than shoot immediately. You keep saying that they addressed Tamir Rice, asked him to put the gun down. There's no evidence that they did and plenty of evidence that they simply drove up and shot him. In the video you can clearly see that while there may be other people in the park, he is not being immediately threatening to anyone nor is anyone immediately nearby. How was it anything but their plan. I keep feeling like you haven't seen the video. They drive up. One of them jumps out and immediately shoots the kid. I'm not saying they sat around the week before and devised a plan to kill a kid, but I also seriously doubt their car just accidentally ran up next to him and the officer immediately jumped out and discharged their gun. Their plan -- devised however many seconds before doing it -- was to drive up quickly and shoot Tamir Rice. I really don't understood what alternate actions that they could have been planning to do otherwise. I have no issues assuming it was a real gun. AirSoft should be sued and making non-lethal weapons without proper markings should be illegal. But again, I don't think you've seen the video. I doubt they truly addressed Tamir Rice. I've seen accounts where they don't even claim they did and ones where they did. But from the video, Rice doesn't even look like he's hearing anything. Until the car roars up and he's shot. Did they really identify themselves as police? I doubt it. Did they really ask him to drop it? I doubt it. They absolutely escalated the situation by racing up. And it looks to me like they were racing up to shoot. Who would be dumb enough to race up that close to a potential shooter unless you were shooting? The day of the shooting, the Police Chief claimed that Loehmann got out of the car and shouted at Rice. Then when the video came out and it was obviously he did not get out of the car, he claimed he shouted from the car. If the police were treating themselves as suspects, that'd be a conflicting story. But let's all believe the police after a shooting. Let's add in that the 911 caller repeatedly questioned whether the gun was real and called the youth a juvenile. Neither were relayed to the officers -- and you act like that's a good thing! I agree with the you that the officers were not at fault for this portion of it, but I'm talking about law enforcement in general. Why didn't that get passed on? Why aren't you outraged about that? Isn't that vital information an officer needs? Why the hell is Cleveland employing a police officer who resigned from their prior job because they were about to get fired for mental issues and instability when firing his weapon in Independence, MO? Yes, let's put him in Cleveland. Finally, neither officer attempted to administer any type of first aid. They just let him die. Someone is paying them. The article you posted heavily implied the Police Officers Union employed them. I doubt you get a lot of those jobs if you claim the police officers were at fault. I understand what the law is; I don't particularly like what leeway it gives police, who have shown that some of them will absolutely take advantage of it and the rest of the law enforcement community refuses to police their own. Even in your writing you act as if Tamir Rice were a criminal. Yes, he was an idiot kid for waving around a pellet gun. But that's not a capital crime. You seem to have no issue with any of the obvious mistakes made -- the dispatcher failing to important information; the incredibly aggressive moves toward someone not acting aggressive at all; the hiring of someone who couldn't handle the job in another town. You claim this is a tragedy, but it's a trend. And given that you have a law enforcement background, it's disturbing to me that your answer is not "some mistakes were made; there's a better way to do this" but rather "no one did anything wrong; in fact it was completely unavoidable. It was avoidable.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 12, 2015 13:43:48 GMT -5
I find it sad that conservatism has decided en masse that police murdering black men doesn't count as any form of government overreach.
Government forcing you to switch lightbulbs? Tyranny!!!!!
Government kills black man? Always objectively reasonable!
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 12, 2015 18:39:53 GMT -5
When you are in a potentially life and death situation, there is no difference between a man and a 12 year old carrying a gun. Both are equally capable of killing you. How would you suggest the officers have approached "cautiously"? There was a suspect carrying a gun, pointing it at innocent civilians....that is all the information the officers received. Are you arguing that officers neither have a responsibility nor should it be policy for police to assess a situation before applying deadly force? That despite obvious evidence to the contrary in repeated instances to the contrary, police should 100% always trust 911 callers even though it's pretty easy to see how often they can and will be wrong? (let's not forget the WalMart shooting where video evidence shows a shopper merely holding a toy gun -- and the 911 caller claimed he was "waving it" so the police came in and gunned him down without trying to assess the situation) How about pull up in the car from a distance and use the loudspeaker to address the suspect? How about take cover behind your car? In what world is driving up and leaping out and gunning the suspect a good idea? I've seen the video. The person is not immediately threatening anyone in the sense of pointing a gun at someone. The cops did have some time to think and even receive direction, since they had to receive the 911 call and get to the suspect. This isn't a bullet whizzing by and someone turning and firing. This is someone executing a threat. I also find sad irony in your comment about the horrible possible outcome of the person shooting other people in the park -- if an innocent had died. Here's the issue: an innocent DID die. And many people like you don't seem to think there's an issue there -- that's there nothing about the training and processes we use that could be improved. It's business as usual because you are either pro-cop or anti-cop and you can't possibly think in the middle. Address is completely different than shoot immediately. You keep saying that they addressed Tamir Rice, asked him to put the gun down. There's no evidence that they did and plenty of evidence that they simply drove up and shot him. In the video you can clearly see that while there may be other people in the park, he is not being immediately threatening to anyone nor is anyone immediately nearby. How was it anything but their plan. I keep feeling like you haven't seen the video. They drive up. One of them jumps out and immediately shoots the kid. I'm not saying they sat around the week before and devised a plan to kill a kid, but I also seriously doubt their car just accidentally ran up next to him and the officer immediately jumped out and discharged their gun. Their plan -- devised however many seconds before doing it -- was to drive up quickly and shoot Tamir Rice. I really don't understood what alternate actions that they could have been planning to do otherwise. I have no issues assuming it was a real gun. AirSoft should be sued and making non-lethal weapons without proper markings should be illegal. But again, I don't think you've seen the video. I doubt they truly addressed Tamir Rice. I've seen accounts where they don't even claim they did and ones where they did. But from the video, Rice doesn't even look like he's hearing anything. Until the car roars up and he's shot. Did they really identify themselves as police? I doubt it. Did they really ask him to drop it? I doubt it. They absolutely escalated the situation by racing up. And it looks to me like they were racing up to shoot. Who would be dumb enough to race up that close to a potential shooter unless you were shooting? The day of the shooting, the Police Chief claimed that Loehmann got out of the car and shouted at Rice. Then when the video came out and it was obviously he did not get out of the car, he claimed he shouted from the car. If the police were treating themselves as suspects, that'd be a conflicting story. But let's all believe the police after a shooting. Let's add in that the 911 caller repeatedly questioned whether the gun was real and called the youth a juvenile. Neither were relayed to the officers -- and you act like that's a good thing! I agree with the you that the officers were not at fault for this portion of it, but I'm talking about law enforcement in general. Why didn't that get passed on? Why aren't you outraged about that? Isn't that vital information an officer needs? Why the hell is Cleveland employing a police officer who resigned from their prior job because they were about to get fired for mental issues and instability when firing his weapon in Independence, MO? Yes, let's put him in Cleveland. Finally, neither officer attempted to administer any type of first aid. They just let him die. Someone is paying them. The article you posted heavily implied the Police Officers Union employed them. I doubt you get a lot of those jobs if you claim the police officers were at fault. I understand what the law is; I don't particularly like what leeway it gives police, who have shown that some of them will absolutely take advantage of it and the rest of the law enforcement community refuses to police their own. It was avoidable. You're putting words in my mouth; I never said police shouldn't assess a situation before acting. I just said you didn't like their assessment, but it doesn't mean they didn't assess it. I think the point you're missing is in these types of deadly force situations, you have less than a second to "assess" a situation. The officer assessed that the kid was a threat to him and decided the only choice was deadly force. I also never said 911 callers are always correct, and seasoned police officers know that. However, when responding to any call with a suspect with an alleged firearm, they are always going to assume the suspect is armed. That obviously doesn't mean shoot first, but your weapon will be out of the holster before you get out of the car. I'm not sure even if the information had gotten to the officers that the weapon might be a pellet gun it would have mattered. Like you said, officers shouldn't trust everything from a 911 caller...the most important assessment would be the officer seeing what looked like a real gun in the kid's waistband. The job of a police officer is to put themselves in harm's way to protect the public. I agree that the driver should have stopped farther away, but it doesn't matter if a suspect reaches for a gun from 2 yards or 20 yards away...the result is most likely the same. I watched the video too. There is no statute or case law that says a police officer has to wait until a gun is pointed at him to use deadly force, for the obvious reason that it's too late to react if you wait until that point. Unless there is other information I haven't seen, all the accounts I've read say the kid raised his shirt to display the gun and started to reach for it. At that point, the original reason they were dispatched is irrelevant...they could have been responding to a potential purse snatcher, but it doesn't matter. What only matters is what that officer is seeing at that point, and does he respond in a manner consistent with his training and the law. If new evidence surfaces to show that the kid didn't display the gun or reach for it, then I agree that the force used was excessive. However, if the kid did do those things then the law supports that use of force. Don't assume I don't think it's terrible this kid died. He obviously had a lot of problems to do what he did, but it's tragic that he won't get a second chance on life. As a parent, I can't even imagine the horrible feeling of having to bury your child and know you'll never see him again. However, I don't think you realize that most departments thoroughly study every use of deadly force incident and try to figure out any lessons learned that could have avoided it. They also include these situations in their academies and in-service training. I agree that most who debate this issue are polarized on one side or the other. And of course with my background, I usually instinctively side with law enforcement because I know how difficult it is to make these split second decisions, and have seen so much unfair criticism. But there are many incidents where after reading the facts, I have readily admitted when it was excessive force. Keep in mind, there is nothing that mandates giving a verbal warning before using deadly force. If the threat is judged to be immediate, case law supports reacting with force without giving a warning. I haven't seen or read anything about this officer's alleged mental health issues or problems at a previous job. If that's the case, then he shouldn't have been on the street. That's why so many agencies use psychological testing and polygraphs during pre-employment screening. Unfortunately, with large city departments there are frequent turnovers due to low pay and a stressful, dangerous working environment. As a result, some departments cut corners to get officers out on the streets quickly which is a terrible idea. We saw that with DC Metro in the past; they put officers on the street without even doing a criminal history check...only to find out later they had hired some convicted felons. Threatening people with something that looks like a real gun is a crime, so it goes a little beyond being an idiot kid. Like most people, I did "idiot kid" things when I was 12 but never something on this level. If the facts that are available are correct, the kid displayed what looked like a real gun at a police officer and reached for it. Like I said, it's a terrible tragedy but if those facts are accurate the law supports the use of deadly force. Even different information from dispatch, or a different officer being present, likely wouldn't have changed the outcome with those sets of facts. If you are a police officer, and someone shows you a gun and reaches for it what would you do? Now if it comes out later that the gun wasn't displayed and he didn't reach for it, then the force used would have been excessive and unreasonable and the officer should be fired and prosecuted.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 12, 2015 19:41:38 GMT -5
You're putting words in my mouth; I never said police shouldn't assess a situation before acting. I just said you didn't like their assessment, but it doesn't mean they didn't assess it. I think the point you're missing is in these types of deadly force situations, you have less than a second to "assess" a situation. The officer assessed that the kid was a threat to him and decided the only choice was deadly force. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but I'm struggling with the idea that this was "unavoidable," which is why I'm making assumptions here. Are you saying above that police should not be responsible for the quality of their assessment? Or for their actions in creating or escalating a situation? It absolutely does. From what I can see in the video, but the kid didn't get the gun all the way out or point it at the officer. If you are thirty, forty yards away and behind a car, isn't the chance that you yourself are shot relatively low? Wouldn't that give you time to asses a situation? If you had been told it was a juvenile and might not be a real gun, don't those seconds matter? You've seen the video. Why are we talking about accounts? Are you sure you've seen the video? I don't assume that. But I also find it suspect when every police defender in these debates never acknowledge any room for improvement. They never see fault, even when an old man is getting head stomped for no reason. Feeling bad about something without trying to prevent it again feels hollow to me. Wait. What? Are we talking about the same case? He was a 12 year old playing with a toy gun. Yes, maybe a bit of a punk, pointing it at people, but from the video the one person he points it at on the sidewalk doesn't even speed up their pace, so they didn't feel very threatened. What do you think he did? I'm so confused here. But not enough to call references on new hires? Not enough to teach first aid? Not enough to admit wrongdoing even after its clear it is an abuse of power? There are cases much clearer than this, and the police department almost never admits fault. I'm glad. I'm not particularly looking to crucify law enforcement. What I'm looking for is law enforcement to prove to us as citizens that we can trust them again by improving processes and dealing with officers who violate people's rights. The problem with focusing on, for example, the Michael Brown case in Ferguson is ignoring the fact that if there wasn't a long history of at least perception of police abuse, then the police would have had the benefit of the doubt here. Things like body cams should be embraced. Then if Officer Loehmann really tried to contact Tamir Rice as he claims... we would see it. And if that video had shown Tamir Rice waving at gun at innocents or the police, people might feel differently about the case. I know. I am sincerely concerned with the basic precendent that has been established that if an officer claims to feel threatened (and his partner will ALWAYS back him up), there is little to keep police from shooting first and asking questions later. I know MOST cops would never do this, but police are not supposed to be judge, jury and executioner and the current laws and levels of prosecution mean that they can be if they want to and take little risk. I am not saying most cops would ever do this or that many, if any, do it out of maliciousness. But the job requirement should entail an attempt to bring someone in peaceably in most situations, but there's little to protect due process if someone decides shooting is easier. Where is that line? I know it is supposed to be an average cop or whatever you referenced, but I don't think that's even being enforced. Here you goI, for one, would not mind paying more in taxes if it meant a better staffed, better equipped and better trained police force. I played with toy guns outside and while I don't remember threatening/pointing it at a stranger, I certainly probably pointed it in someone's general direction. I'm not sure the difference between me and Tamir Rice should end in death. Course, let's face it -- I was white and in the suburbs and of course, this was years ago before our obsession with guns led to a mass shooting a day. You said you've seen the video. You can see a lot in the video -- including much of what you seem to think is up in the air. I think there's a lot of cops who would have handled this a lot better and Tamir Rice would still be alive. I really hope that most cops wouldn't have killed him.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 13, 2015 13:44:47 GMT -5
Cop shoots 4 year old because 25 lb dog might have been coming at himResponding to calls that a woman had cut herself and needed medical assistance, a cop nearby came to help. According to him, a small-medium sized dog -- not quite a little yapper but not 50+ lbs either -- charged him. That's his story; the family claims the dog didn't charge. You can see the dog in the above video. So, you know, the dude had to shoot it. Because it was really scary. Unfortunately, there was a four year old right there. The child was shot. She has lived but is struggling to walk. I really think cops need to be able to react to a 25lb dog without shooting into a family's home. More fun: according to the family (and this may not be true), the cop walked back to his car and left rather than helping either the cut mother or the shot child. EDIT: This did occur back in June, but the audio just came out I think.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 14, 2015 18:36:47 GMT -5
And again: Graphic Video Shows Deputies Tasing Man in Restraint ChairHe was found dead in his cell later that night. At least in this case, nine people have been fired and three are on trial for involuntary manslaughter. That seems a weak charge for what they were doing: torturing a man with bipolar disorder.
|
|