- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 11,655
- Reaction score
- 3,612
- Location
- WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Reaching for your gun is a lethal threat.
Like I said before, proof is for trials where all the evidence can be presented. What's at issue right now is whether a trial is warranted or not and, based on what has thus far been presented, there is absolutely reasonable cause to send this sucker to trial.
As soon as you went 'there' you might as well have LITERALLY held up a white flag of surrender.I wonder why cops are so gun-ho now days....
When their recruitment ads look like they are trying to recruit people who are too scared to join the military but still get to shoot stuff.
Join your local police army today! And maybe someone will give you an excuse to legally shoot them.
Lol they even have a little warhawk on their badge! lololol
I am not sure what you are saying. According to the article linked to in the OP, Ohio law authorizes private citizens to petition a judge to recommend that a person be indicted for certain crimes. That is what this municipal court judge did, but his power is only advisory. The article says the District Attorney intends to use a grand jury, as his office usually has in cases like this.
He wasn't holding any gun. There was no chance for the police to see if it was real because he never actually pulled the gun out. He was shot.
The second he jumped up, raised his shirt, and reached for the weapon, he gave the cops every reason to shoot him.
I didn't know Tamir Rice was in a crowded room and threatened to kill everyone! How did the squad car get into the building?No...its not and you just advocated that a man be killed in cold blood for playing with a toy.
Right because citizens should accept that the police state has the right to kill us and if we protest their use of deadly force they should walk off the job. Freedom and liberty!
No...its not and you just advocated that a man be killed in cold blood for playing with a toy.
But you can't tell from the video that he reached for the gun, pulled anything out, instead of reaching for his phone or pulling up his pants.
And if you'll kill someone on mere suspicion, I hope you don't have a carry permit. It's why I'm not a big fan - people armed and ready to kill because they think there MIGHT be a threat is not my idea of a good thing.
The caller said several times it might be fake. I hope you stay away from playgrounds. Kids playing cops and robbers and you might have to take out the whole kindergarten class.
You can see it in the video him reaching for his belt.And you know he was reaching for a gun how?
Let's assume you've got a gun in a shoulder holster. Do I get to assume that when you're reaching into your inner jacket pocket you're reaching for a gun and blow you away cause I'm skeered? Or should the standard be you pose an actual threat, pull the gun, threaten me, yell at me, something to indicate your intention is to 1) pull your gun and 2) use it to kill me? Women who carry a gun in their purse. What standard do I use to shoot them - when they put their hand in the purse or when they pull out a gun? Etc.....
Why is their safety key, and not the civilians they're job is to protect?
They shot the kid with the intent to kill, then stood around for 4 minutes watching him die. How would an execution be any different?
Fake guns, guns that the caller suspected and told 911 she thought were fake.
Then don't make toys look like real guns.
You do not know if his hand was on it or not.You dont know if someone is reaching for a gun. Until their hand touches a gun.
the ABC news here in Cincinnati- (running late due to the GSW's beatdown of the Cavs in Cleveland) is reporting that the prosecutor is going to take the case to the grand jury. apparently the Muni-judge cannot force prosecution
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.
You are reaching for something that does not apply.
That does not supersede the Officer's legal ability to respond to the threat that Tamir's going for the gun was.
At no point was responding with lethal force to that lethal threat reckless.
A Columbus attorney who specializes in 2nd Amendment laws said the present self defense law for using deadly force has three conditions:
1. You must not have picked a fight.
2. There is a real belief the you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and that the use of deadly force was the only way to escape danger.
3. If you can escape or retreat, you must do so. The new proposed law could do away with the language referring to the duty to retreat.
Why? A common surrendering tactic is to raise your shirt up so people can see you dont have a weapon. A person is not a threat unless they have their hands on the weapon. When you have your gun trained on them in advance then 0.1 seconds of advantage is all you need.
Aren't you once again defending cops without even seeing the video?
If the cops tell you to put your hands up and you go for your waist that's a really, really bad plan.
Plus from what I remember wasn't the police report of the incident completely different than what the video shows happening? I'll have to pull it up later since I don't have time now.
No...its not and you just advocated that a man be killed in cold blood for playing with a toy.
If the cops are going to claim self defense then they will need to prove that they had no way to escape the danger presented by Mr. Rice except by using deadly force. That's going to be a mighty tough hill to climb when they knowingly and willfully put themselves in such a position.
That doesn't apply to the police. They have the responsibility to use deadly force to prevent harm to themselves or others.
sure you can. you can see him pull up his shirt and reach for his belt.
You attempting to pull a gun in your pants out is considered a threat. there is no might about it.
might be fake is irrelevant and the police can't go on might. they have to take the call at face value. there is a guy in the park pointing a gun in different directions.
and now the strawman occurs. way to make an invalid point.
You can see it in the video him reaching for his belt.
again your strawmans and stacked hypotheticals don't hold up. you can't shot me for just having a gun in a holster. I have to be showing some kind of threat.
IE if we are arguing and I reach into my jacket and you see it then yes.
this kid was pulling the gun and pointing it in random directions that can be seeing in the video.
they were protecting the other people in the park from someone randomly pointing a gun at them.
prove they shot him with the intent to kill you bias is getting in the way of reason and logic. they didn't stand around 4 minutes.
they called in an ambulance and he died in the hospital from the wound.
the police can't take that on her word. nor should they. it wasn't a fake gun it was a bb gun. while not life threatening can still cause injury to other people if they are shot with it.
the fact is they can't take someone's word that it is a fake gun.
I dont get why all these cops just let the shot person lay there and bleed out. They dont even attempt to staunch the wounds and put pressure or do cpr if there is no breathing or heartbeat. Its like they have absolutely zero empathy. If I was a cop and some criminal pointed a gun at me, and I had to shoot him, i would STILL tend to their wounds after i removed the weapon. But these cops just stand around and let the people bleed out. Pretty much confirming their disregard.
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?