Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Seemed the kid was drawing the "weapon" as Loehmann was exiting the vehicle.

Really? As he was casually walking up to the approaching police car? If so, that was the slowest, most casual weapon draw I have ever seen.

He's clearly reaching for the weapon in the video.

So everyone holding a weapon in public should be rolled up on and shot? Is that what you're saying?

Absolutely not. But if police are telling someone to put their hands in the air and that person instead reaches for a weapon or something that appears to be a weapon, I can't really fault the police if that person gets shot.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Hey cincy, did you find a video with audio where we can hear the police telling him to put his hands up? If you could provide that, it would be fantastic. Otherwise, I am not sure what point you are trying to make other than just being contrary.

Can you find me some where he put his hands up and doesn't reach for his waistband?

Or maybe some video where he wasn't fething around with what appeared to be a real firearm?

You see, what I was asking for was an impossibility because it doesn't exist due to the video camera not having any audio.

What I CAN provide you with is the Police Dispatcher being told that the weapon is probably a fake. That the person waving it looks like a Juvenile. Was any of this taken in to account by the dispatcher? Nope. So what do the cops do? Not take any precautions, that is for sure! They role up all Starsky and Hutch, jump out and shoot him. GO TEAM!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/national/audio-from-the-tamir-rice-shooting/2014/11/26/8389ceda-75bb-11e4-8893-97bf0c02cc5f_video.html

 Hordini wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Seemed the kid was drawing the "weapon" as Loehmann was exiting the vehicle.

Really? As he was casually walking up to the approaching police car? If so, that was the slowest, most casual weapon draw I have ever seen.

He's clearly reaching for the weapon in the video.

So everyone holding a weapon in public should be rolled up on and shot? Is that what you're saying?

Absolutely not. But if police are telling someone to put their hands in the air and that person instead reaches for a weapon or something that appears to be a weapon, I can't really fault the police if that person gets shot.

It would help if they told him to put his hands in the air. I mean, according to your line of thinking, that is the FIRST thing that should happen. But instead, these guys just went in guns blazing.

I love how conveniently you're able to leave out the fact that the officer says. "Male. Black. Around 20."

 cincydooley wrote:
I love how conveniently you're able to leave out the fact that the officer says. "Male. Black. Around 20."

Yeah, he also still thinks the BB gun is a real pistol. That is showing how well he is looking at things.

PS: He also said the weapon was a Revolver in there. DO NOT FORGET THAT LITTLE BIT!

 Dreadwinter wrote:
It would help if they told him to put his hands in the air. I mean, according to your line of thinking, that is the FIRST thing that should happen. But instead, these guys just went in guns blazing.

Of course it's the first thing they should have said. There's nothing unique about that line of thinking. They said they told him three times to put his hands in the air before shooting. There are a variety of ways they could have done that, including with a loudspeaker, or as the officer was jumping out of the vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I love how conveniently you're able to leave out the fact that the officer says. "Male. Black. Around 20."

Yeah, he also still thinks the BB gun is a real pistol. That is showing how well he is looking at things.

PS: He also said the weapon was a Revolver in there. DO NOT FORGET THAT LITTLE BIT!

From a distance there was no way to tell that it wasn't a real gun.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Yeah, he also still thinks the BB gun is a real pistol. That is showing how well he is looking at things.
!

Are you serious?

I suggest you do a basic google search comparing airsoft pistols to their real life counterparts.

Very hard to tell apart when close. It would be nearly impossible at a distance.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Yeah, he also still thinks the BB gun is a real pistol. That is showing how well he is looking at things.
!

Are you serious?

I suggest you do a basic google search comparing airsoft pistols to their real life counterparts.

Very hard to tell apart when close. It would be nearly impossible at a distance.

You are forgetting that the cops barely saw the gun before opening fire. They had only heard from the dispatcher. After the fact, when the call on the radio took place, it is pretty easy to look at and realize it is not a real weapon. You can clearly see them standing over him in that picture. You telling me that they couldn't see that it was an airsoft gun then?

Also: "Black Male, maybe 20."

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
It would help if they told him to put his hands in the air. I mean, according to your line of thinking, that is the FIRST thing that should happen. But instead, these guys just went in guns blazing.

Of course it's the first thing they should have said. There's nothing unique about that line of thinking. They said they told him three times to put his hands in the air before shooting. There are a variety of ways they could have done that, including with a loudspeaker, or as the officer was jumping out of the vehicle.

Now that's just impossible, Watch the video and say 3 times "put your hands up" before the cop shoots the kid. The cop is obviously lying to try and cover his ....., a cop who got fired from one city for lying couldn't possibly be lying about what he said right?

The car had no loudspeaker, try saying anything while doing a jump and roll, the cop is full of it and should be fired again and never be allowed to own a gun again.

How do you know the car had no loudspeaker? And I have watched the video and said put your hands up three times. If I recall correctly there is about two or three seconds, which is enough time to say put your hands up three times.

Also have to look from Loehmann view. All he saw was a individual reaching into his waist line and pulled pistol that look quite like a real weapon. Loehmann was caught in a bad situation due to how Frakman puled up by the kid

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
It would help if they told him to put his hands in the air. I mean, according to your line of thinking, that is the FIRST thing that should happen. But instead, these guys just went in guns blazing.

Of course it's the first thing they should have said. There's nothing unique about that line of thinking. They said they told him three times to put his hands in the air before shooting. There are a variety of ways they could have done that, including with a loudspeaker, or as the officer was jumping out of the vehicle.

Now that's just impossible, Watch the video and say 3 times "put your hands up" before the cop shoots the kid. The cop is obviously lying to try and cover his ....., a cop who got fired from one city for lying couldn't possibly be lying about what he said right?

The car had no loudspeaker, try saying anything while doing a jump and roll, the cop is full of it and should be fired again and never be allowed to own a gun again.

Also, depending on more factors, why would they specifically say "put your hands up" as opposed to "hands up"

It would be VERY easy to get out the words in the timeframe you're wanting if they said, "Put your hands up.....Hands up.... Hands up"

 Hordini wrote:
How do you know the car had no loudspeaker? And I have watched the video and said put your hands up three times. If I recall correctly there is about two or three seconds, which is enough time to say put your hands up three times.

At what point were you saying it? I was waiting until just as the car stopped and tried it and got 1 1/2. That was with me saying it quickly, loudly, and making sure it can be understood completely.

 Jihadin wrote:
Also have to look from Loehmann view. All he saw was a individual reaching into his waist line and pulled pistol that look quite like a real weapon. Loehmann was caught in a bad situation due to how Frakman puled up by the kid

Again, he never drew the weapon. He reached for it but it never left his pants.

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Seemed the kid was drawing the "weapon" as Loehmann was exiting the vehicle.

Really? As he was casually walking up to the approaching police car? If so, that was the slowest, most casual weapon draw I have ever seen.

He's clearly reaching for the weapon in the video.

That is an assumption based on previous knowledge. It is not in any way clear what he is reaching for from the video. He could have been pulling his trousers up for all the detail the video footage has.

Watched the last video posted? Can see the "rear" portion of the weapon being pulled from pocket. Then the fold over and downing of the kid.

 Jihadin wrote:
Watched the last video posted? Can see the "rear" portion of the weapon being pulled from pocket. Then the fold over and downing of the kid.

Really? Where would that be? Because the video quality is not in any way high enough to be able to make out something as small as that when you can only just see the gun when the kid is holding it straight out in the foreground.




I think many people are seeing it because they are told it is there, just like jesus appearing on toast.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Watched the last video posted? Can see the "rear" portion of the weapon being pulled from pocket. Then the fold over and downing of the kid.

Really? Where would that be? Because the video quality is not in any way high enough to be able to make out something as small as that when you can only just see the gun when the kid is holding it straight out in the foreground.




I think many people are seeing it because they are told it is there, just like jesus appearing on toast.

Try from Loehmann view



40 sec mark. "Weapon" is being drawn.

 Jihadin wrote:


Try from Loehmann view



40 sec mark. "Weapon" is being drawn.

How exactly are you managing to differentiate between a big black coat sleeve and a small black pistol in that video?

watch the right arm.

36 to 45 sec's mark.

45 to 47 sec mark you can see the "weapon" being dropped

He reaches to his hand to his waist, and lifts his shirt up, and starts pulling something out. It is pretty clear to me.

Yeah. Pretty clear from the video....

It is so clear there has been no disagreement about what people are seeing there.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
It would help if they told him to put his hands in the air. I mean, according to your line of thinking, that is the FIRST thing that should happen. But instead, these guys just went in guns blazing.

Of course it's the first thing they should have said. There's nothing unique about that line of thinking. They said they told him three times to put his hands in the air before shooting. There are a variety of ways they could have done that, including with a loudspeaker, or as the officer was jumping out of the vehicle.

Now that's just impossible, Watch the video and say 3 times "put your hands up" before the cop shoots the kid. The cop is obviously lying to try and cover his ....., a cop who got fired from one city for lying couldn't possibly be lying about what he said right?

The car had no loudspeaker, try saying anything while doing a jump and roll, the cop is full of it and should be fired again and never be allowed to own a gun again.

Also, depending on more factors, why would they specifically say "put your hands up" as opposed to "hands up"

It would be VERY easy to get out the words in the timeframe you're wanting if they said, "Put your hands up.....Hands up.... Hands up"

Try it while tumbling, and you must do it on your first try. Not even jumping out of a car, just go outside and do a roll and try to say anything. and do that while pretending to hold a gun and try to aim it at something. It's impossible.

The obvious answer is the cop lied about saying it, to cover his butt. The cop never said a word to the victim. But sure, let's take the word of a cop who was fired to lying to supervisors, probably broke every rule of engagement, and shot a kid in cold blood. Obviously a man whose word we can take to the bank.

Is there 110% proof that Loehmann knew Amir "weapon" was real or not? I've been blasted point blank at the vehicle door myself.

 Jihadin wrote:
Is there 110% proof that Loehmann knew Amir "weapon" was real or not? I've been blasted point blank at the vehicle door myself.

That is irrelevant, real or fake, police deal with armed people, and are trained to do so. This cop was deemed untrainable, and he clearly showed why.

Wouldn't the logical thing to do is park a distance away, get out of your car safely using it for a shield (not leaping towards the gun) and then tell him to stop and put the weapon down? Yep, that's what the experts agree and is the protocol.

The kid never aimed his gun at the officers, the cop might as well rolled up on anyone and said "let me see your id" they reach for their wallet and the cop shoots them because he saw something black.

Isn't it odd that blacks with weapons are considered so dangerous they need to be shot on site, while white guys waving a gun through a crowded street gets talked to for a hour before they're disarmed, or finally shot. The cops obviously know safe ways to deal with armed people for more than a hour, even when the suspect is waving a gun around.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/how_police_are_trained_to_deal.html

police are trained to first take cover at a safe distance and create a barrier between themselves and the other person. This usually means ducking behind the police cruiser or a building.

Next, officers should draw their weapons and command the suspect to drop their gun and get on the ground. The dialogue that happens between an officer and the suspect is what some experts call the most important aspect of police work.
...
Loehmann, the officer who shot Tamir, showed signs of poor deadly force training in his brief time at the Independence Police Department. The Cleveland Division of Police failed to review Loehmann's personnel file before hiring him onto the force.

Supervisors in Independence noted his "dismal" performance in handling guns.

"I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct the deficiencies," Independence Deputy Chief Jim Polak wrote in the file.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Is there 110% proof that Loehmann knew Amir "weapon" was real or not? I've been blasted point blank at the vehicle door myself.

That is irrelevant, real or fake, police deal with armed people, and are trained to do so. This cop was deemed untrainable, and he clearly showed why.

Wouldn't the logical thing to do is park a distance away, get out of your car safely using it for a shield (not leaping towards the gun) and then tell him to stop and put the weapon down? Yep, that's what the experts agree and is the protocol.

The kid never aimed his gun at the officers, the cop might as well rolled up on anyone and said "let me see your id" they reach for their wallet and the cop shoots them because he saw something black.

Isn't it odd that blacks with weapons are considered so dangerous they need to be shot on site, while white guys waving a gun through a crowded street gets talked to for a hour before they're disarmed, or finally shot. The cops obviously know safe ways to deal with armed people for more than a hour, even when the suspect is waving a gun around.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/how_police_are_trained_to_deal.html

police are trained to first take cover at a safe distance and create a barrier between themselves and the other person. This usually means ducking behind the police cruiser or a building.

Next, officers should draw their weapons and command the suspect to drop their gun and get on the ground. The dialogue that happens between an officer and the suspect is what some experts call the most important aspect of police work.
...
Loehmann, the officer who shot Tamir, showed signs of poor deadly force training in his brief time at the Independence Police Department. The Cleveland Division of Police failed to review Loehmann's personnel file before hiring him onto the force.

Supervisors in Independence noted his "dismal" performance in handling guns.

"I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct the deficiencies," Independence Deputy Chief Jim Polak wrote in the file.

So he has a mental dislike handling a fire arm. So Loehmann fails at compatability but excels at combatability. Want to hear a shocker. '94 IIRC was the last time I had training in use of Deadly Force. Amir should not have drawn the "weapon" at all to put Loehmann in the position of making a split second decision to defend himself to what he perceived was a genuine threat.

Edit

So they get this piss poor information from dispatch

the 911 caller reported that the gun was “probably a fake” and that the person with it was “probably a juvenile” but the dispatcher did not relay that information to officers.

So the officers are thinking armed suspect

you're just showing how incompetent the cop is, the officer thought it was an armed suspect. Fine. So his idea which totally goes against protocol and how he was trained was to go leaping in front of the gun.

the cop put himself in that situation by being incredible stupid. if the cop wasn't a total wacko, the kid would still be alive.

sirlynchmob wrote:
you're just showing how incompetent the cop is, the officer thought it was an armed suspect. Fine. So his idea which totally goes against protocol and how he was trained was to go leaping in front of the gun.

the cop put himself in that situation by being incredible stupid. if the cop wasn't a total wacko, the kid would still be alive.

What is the written protocol for that Department? Can you show me where to look up his department protocol on handling this type of situation? So now the the LEO is a Whako? Why did the kid pull the weapon? If he didn't pull the weapon he wouldn't have been shot. If the dispatcher relayed the possibility of it being a minor with a toy gun then the situation might have gone different.

 Jihadin wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
you're just showing how incompetent the cop is, the officer thought it was an armed suspect. Fine. So his idea which totally goes against protocol and how he was trained was to go leaping in front of the gun.

the cop put himself in that situation by being incredible stupid. if the cop wasn't a total wacko, the kid would still be alive.

What is the written protocol for that Department? Can you show me where to look up his department protocol on handling this type of situation? So now the the LEO is a Whako? Why did the kid pull the weapon? If he didn't pull the weapon he wouldn't have been shot. If the dispatcher relayed the possibility of it being a minor with a toy gun then the situation might have gone different.

I linked it earlier, you should have read it the link, not just the quotes I pulled.

If the cop wasn't so inept the kid wouldn't have been shot.

since you seem to think this cop is such a great and outstanding cop, you should request your local police dept to hire him, so he can be in your neighbor hood "protecting" you and your family.

sirlynchmob wrote:


The obvious answer is the cop lied about saying it, to cover his butt. The cop never said a word to the victim. But sure, let's take the word of a cop who was fired to lying to supervisors, probably broke every rule of engagement, and shot a kid in cold blood. Obviously a man whose word we can take to the bank.

Whole lotta speculation going on there, brosef.

I ask for the protocol itself not a news article talking about the "protocol". I pulled some dumb tactical decision on quite a few tours and I can link FM.
As for you claiming I think Loehmann is a great and outstanding LEO you can shift that BS somewhere else. Since you seem to be going on the attack then I am done with you. Stay Frosty