We've already covered most of the ground, but you keep asserting he was reaching for the gun. We don't know that - I've looked at the video and can't see the gun or tell what he was actually reaching for. The police assumed it was the gun, and shot him dead before they could know what he was doing or what his intentions were. We'll just have to disagree.
Second, if you are black male in a bad neighborhood, of course the better move is to probably put your hands up and slowly lay down on the ground so you can be searched, but we shouldn't have to have passed a course in how to interact with cops and expect 12 year olds to get that right every time or else the cops are free to kill them, and have no repercussions. This isn't a police state.
i never lied in the first place so once again you prove you don't know what you are talking about.
you just rant away and show you have no idea what you are referring to. your inability to go back and understand what is being talked about is 100% on you and you are only insulting yourself by your inane ranting.
In the courtroom scenario, the jury would hit the deck. The crowd would be screaming and would hit the floor or trample one another hitting the exits. Yes, the bailiff or judge might shoot him. Its not because he screamed die mother****er, it would be because he would pull what looks to everyone in that room in the moment (without the benefit of cute pictures of a perpetrator in softened lighting and the benefit of knowledge that it was in fact a toy gun) like a deadly weapon.
The cops pulled up. The kid jumped up, raised his shirt and reached for what HE had been presenting as a deadly weapon. The cops responded to the threat HE had created. Tragic concurrence? Sure. Murder? GTF out of here with that. The preference of charges is offered to appease a community, not because it is the right thing to do.
Looked to me like he reached into his waistband as they pulled up. He sure as hell didn't raise his hands and keep them away from his body.
A lot of the "controversy" seems aimed at whether the cops were supposed to know it was a "toy" gun and not a "real" gun. The article says a pellet gun, which is a real gun. The call was about someone waving a gun around, maybe a toy gun. Unless the person who called actually saw/heard it fire, then he, nor the police, could not have told the difference (as I demonstrated) and thus, the police had to treat it as if the kid was armed with a deadly weapon.
Lol, yep tell us again how it's illegal to remove the tip off a gun that has no federal requirement to have it. I'll wait.
Gotcha. Apparently I misread your comment.
say what you want. it doesn't matter. the video clearly shows him lifting up his shirt and reaching for something in the front of his pants. your bias is your bias.
being black doesn't have anything to do with it and the fact you have to try and pull the race card shows how bad your argument really is.
however the bigger question is why is in he in a public park pointing guns around in random directions.
You offered a perfectly reasonable response to what is presented as a realistic immediate threat, even though it turns out...it was a toy gun. Hell...to your credit...you were HONEST in your response. Some would do this dance about waiting to determine if it was a real gun or some other bull****. Kudos...you said what would have realistically occurred. Because that is a realistic response to what happens when cops (or court officers) are presented with an imminent deadly threat. They dont have the time to stop, assess, calculate, estimate, etc. They respond. Just like a cop that rolled up on a call about a man with a gun threatening people with the gun (and the evidence proved that is what happens) and when the cops rolled up, the man with the gun jumps up, pulls up his shirt SHOWING the gun and reaches for it.Oh FFS:doh
If you're in a court room and someone pulls a gun you will probably be in a situation where others are in immediate danger and the prospect of escape is hindered by stuff like doors, walls and furniture. In such a situation you shoot until the threat is eliminated.
In the Tamir Rice situation there was no other person in imminent danger and if the cops had used so much as a shred of common sense and even half decent tactics they could have avoided danger while still communicating with the kid. If, after trying to communicate with the kid, he went hostile then they would be reasonable in taking him out by whatever means necessary including deadly force. However, they never exercised that option. They simply went for the throat and in doing so caused themselves and the suspect to be put in a life or death situation. That's just plain reckless.
Look, I've actually been in two very similar situations as a cop in the military. In both cases I approached, used my vehicle for cover and addressed the situation. In both cases the suspect was quite obviously armed but in neither case did they present enough of a threat that I had to shoot them. Why? Because I didn't put myself in a situation where that was the only option I had!
Yeah...guilty of doing his job.never said it was murder. but the cop needs to be convicted.
But the gun could have been pink with flowers on it, and the police couldn't have known because he wasn't holding the gun when he was shot. It was still wherever he had it. In his belt or a pocket. We can't see from the video.
Bottom line is at a minimum it appears the police handled this poorly from start to finish and if it appears on any training video, an example of how to mishandle what should be a routine call. And it cost Rice his life, so we are talking about it. I think people defending the cops here are giving the profession a bad name by trying to defend incompetence and tell us incompetence is in fact an appropriate police response to this situation.
View attachment 67185560
One is a Pellet Gun, the other a .44 Magnum. Your a cop, visibility is poor. Can you choose which is which in less than 2 sec?
Yet another lie.which is illegal and the number 1 reason most kids are shot by not following the rules.Yes, but those tips are easily removed or painted over.most toys guns are required by law to have an orange tip on it. bb guns are the exception for some reason.
they are not required to have an orange tip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_in_airsoft
i don't have to explain to you nothing i said. so you just continue your inane ranting no one is listen and i am not going to respond to you again in this thread
since you don't have the ability to know what you are talking about.
Walking towards a cop and reaching in one's waistband does not make someone "aggressive" in any world. It might make someone WONDER if they are aggressive, but it doesn't actually make them aggressive. Furthermore, cops aren't supposed to come into a scene like that and immediately shoot someone, ESPECIALLY IN AN OPEN CARRY STATE.I don't see that the cops handled it wrong at all. No audio, so we don't know what was said, but clearly the kid was aggressive (moved towards police and reached into waistband) and was not surrendering or making himself non-threatening. In such an instance, what are the cops supposed to do, wait until the perp shoots at them?
But the gun could have been pink with flowers on it, and the police couldn't have known because he wasn't holding the gun when he was shot. It was still wherever he had it. In his belt or a pocket. We can't see from the video.
Bottom line is at a minimum it appears the police handled this poorly from start to finish and if it appears on any training video, an example of how to mishandle what should be a routine call. And it cost Rice his life, so we are talking about it. I think people defending the cops here are giving the profession a bad name by trying to defend incompetence and tell us incompetence is in fact an appropriate police response to this situation.
I'm sure by the end of this, we'll find out that Tamir Rice was really a front for a 42 year old Colombian drug lord with ties to the Triads and actually kept voodoo dolls in his room.
Walking towards a cop and reaching in one's waistband does not make someone "aggressive" in any world. It might make someone WONDER if they are aggressive, but it doesn't actually make them aggressive. Furthermore, cops aren't supposed to come into a scene like that and immediately shoot someone, ESPECIALLY IN AN OPEN CARRY STATE.
The cops ****ed up.
Walking towards a cop and reaching in one's waistband does not make someone "aggressive" in any world. It might make someone WONDER if they are aggressive, but it doesn't actually make them aggressive. Furthermore, cops aren't supposed to come into a scene like that and immediately shoot someone, ESPECIALLY IN AN OPEN CARRY STATE.
The cops ****ed up.
It is dishonest to say "reaching in one's waistband". He reached for his gun which is a lethal threat.Walking towards a cop and reaching in one's waistband does not make someone "aggressive" in any world. It might make someone WONDER if they are aggressive, but it doesn't actually make them aggressive. Furthermore, cops aren't supposed to come into a scene like that and immediately shoot someone, ESPECIALLY IN AN OPEN CARRY STATE.
The cops ****ed up.
I do not share that cynical view of our legal system. I am confident that a grand jury can act impartially and reach the right result IF the process is not abused. That is at least open to question in the Ferguson case, because Wilson, the officer who killed Brown, was allowed to present evidence in his defense to the grand jury. Traditionally, the person who was the target of the inquiry was not allowed to do that.
It is true that the Fifth Amendment right not to be "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a[n] . . . indictment of a grand jury" is one of several parts of the Bill of Rights the Supreme Court has never held to be incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, and apply through it to the states. I have no idea if Missouri law required the D.A. to present the grand jury with Wilson's testimony in his defense. But if it did not, by allowing that testimony the D.A. opened to question the grand jury's finding that there was no probable cause to indict Wilson.
Unless Ohio law requires the officer who killed this boy to be allowed to present evidence in his defense to the grand jury, the D.A. should not allow it. That is the traditional rule, and the one that applies in federal cases, as Justice Scalia once explained:
[R]equiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence would alter the grand jury's historical role, transforming it from an accusatory to an adjudicatory body.
It is axiomatic that the grand jury sits not to determine guilt or innocence, but to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge. That has always been so; and to make the assessment it has always been thought sufficient to hear only the prosecutor's side . . . According to the description of an early American court, three years before the Fifth Amendment was ratified, it is the grand jury's function not "to enquire ... upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied," or otherwise to try the suspect's defenses, but only to examine "upon what foundation [the charge] is made" by the prosecutor. As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented. (emphasis added; internal citations omitted) U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 51-52 (1992)
I am going to go for the one with the hammer down. Just a guess lol
But then again...
Not in an open carry state.it does when they have a gun in their wasteband.
There is no part of the video in which a person can tell whether he's reaching for anything. If there is, I'd like to see the specific frame/segment of the video.
There is no part of the video in which a person can tell whether he's reaching for anything. If there is, I'd like to see the specific frame/segment of the video.
if it is a gun under that shirt and the police know it then yes it is.For something, and IMO reaching for "something" under your shirt isn't a license for police to shoot and kill you.
as i said the race card is a poor argument to make.Yeah, there is no evidence anywhere that police treat blacks differently than whites....
He's a child and they do stupid things. It's part of the job description.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?