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.

 Goliath wrote:
Well considering that the Eric Garner case was ruled a homocide by the coroner, and that that didn't lead to any charges, I would say that the cop in this case is most likely in the clear.

The Garner case is far more murky then this one. If any of the three big cases with media attention needed a trial it's Mr. Garner's death.

You have five seconds to tell me which one of these is real.



Now turn your laptop lighting to low and back up 20ft.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Well considering that the Eric Garner case was ruled a homocide by the coroner, and that that didn't lead to any charges, I would say that the cop in this case is most likely in the clear.

The Garner case is far more murky then this one. If any of the three big cases with media attention needed a trial it's Mr. Garner's death.

You have five seconds to tell me which one of these is real.



Now turn your laptop lighting to low and back up 20ft.

... and put it in the hands of a child.

 Ouze wrote:
... and put it in the hands of a child.

A child to us now that we have read about it but wasn't the kid quite large and tall for his age? Seeing his dimensions don't make you think "12 year old", but I might be recalling incorrectly.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Well considering that the Eric Garner case was ruled a homocide by the coroner, and that that didn't lead to any charges, I would say that the cop in this case is most likely in the clear.

The Garner case is far more murky then this one. If any of the three big cases with media attention needed a trial it's Mr. Garner's death.

You have five seconds to tell me which one of these is real.



Now turn your laptop lighting to low and back up 20ft.

After twenty seconds i decided it is the left one

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Well considering that the Eric Garner case was ruled a homocide by the coroner, and that that didn't lead to any charges, I would say that the cop in this case is most likely in the clear.

The Garner case is far more murky then this one. If any of the three big cases with media attention needed a trial it's Mr. Garner's death.

You have five seconds to tell me which one of these is real.



Now turn your laptop lighting to low and back up 20ft.

I cant see how this halps your argument. To add to the above imagine you are in a stress situation and your life may depend on your answer...which is real from 20ft etc.

The target had a gun out and waved about. Police told him to stop, he pointed gun, he got shot. The fact he was 12 or black wasn't a fair issue, a 12 year old can apply the 4lbs of pressure to pull a trigger, and wont think about the consequences. No way is this a trial situation, if the kid dropped the toy gun and the cop fired then year, throw the book at him, but with the gun still being waved about, sorry, no. He fired, it protected himself, and others by doing so.

What would have happened if the cop hesitated and got shot, who would geve a feth about his family. The mob calling for his head? No they wouldn't give a gak as it would not be real news.
How about he hesitated and the kids shot another kid and the mother of the dead kid howled that the police 'stood there and did nothing while my son got killed".

This is a poltical kneejerk issue not a legal one. The officer was trained and given a badge. Let him do his job, and that involves protecting society by shooting people who wave around guns in public and wont stop when told to by an armed cop.

Totally agree on the Garner case though. At a minimum the suspect was already contained and was asking for medical help.

 Orlanth wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Well considering that the Eric Garner case was ruled a homocide by the coroner, and that that didn't lead to any charges, I would say that the cop in this case is most likely in the clear.

The Garner case is far more murky then this one. If any of the three big cases with media attention needed a trial it's Mr. Garner's death.

You have five seconds to tell me which one of these is real.



Now turn your laptop lighting to low and back up 20ft.

I cant see how this halps your argument. To add to the above imagine you are in a stress situation and your life may depend on your answer...which is real from 20ft etc.

The target had a gun out and waved about. Police told him to stop, he pointed gun, he got shot. The fact he was 12 or black wasn't a fair issue, a 12 year old can apply the 4lbs of pressure to pull a trigger, and wont think about the consequences. No way is this a trial situation, if the kid dropped the toy gun and the cop fired then year, throw the book at him, but with the gun still being waved about, sorry, no. He fired, it protected himself, and others by doing so.

What would have happened if the cop hesitated and got shot, who would geve a feth about his family. The mob calling for his head? No they wouldn't give a gak as it would not be real news.
How about he hesitated and the kids shot another kid and the mother of the dead kid howled that the police 'stood there and did nothing while my son got killed".

This is a poltical kneejerk issue not a legal one. The officer was trained and given a badge. Let him do his job, and that involves protecting society by shooting people who wave around guns in public and wont stop when told to by an armed cop.

Totally agree on the Garner case though. At a minimum the suspect was already contained and was asking for medical help.

Very well put.
The Kelly Thompson case I posted on the 1st page is even worse than Garner's, and the cops got off on that one, also.

 Orlanth wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Well considering that the Eric Garner case was ruled a homocide by the coroner, and that that didn't lead to any charges, I would say that the cop in this case is most likely in the clear.

The Garner case is far more murky then this one. If any of the three big cases with media attention needed a trial it's Mr. Garner's death.

You have five seconds to tell me which one of these is real.



Now turn your laptop lighting to low and back up 20ft.

I cant see how this halps your argument. To add to the above imagine you are in a stress situation and your life may depend on your answer...which is real from 20ft etc.

The target had a gun out and waved about. Police told him to stop, he pointed gun, he got shot. The fact he was 12 or black wasn't a fair issue, a 12 year old can apply the 4lbs of pressure to pull a trigger, and wont think about the consequences. No way is this a trial situation, if the kid dropped the toy gun and the cop fired then year, throw the book at him, but with the gun still being waved about, sorry, no. He fired, it protected himself, and others by doing so.

What would have happened if the cop hesitated and got shot, who would geve a feth about his family. The mob calling for his head? No they wouldn't give a gak as it would not be real news.
How about he hesitated and the kids shot another kid and the mother of the dead kid howled that the police 'stood there and did nothing while my son got killed".

This is a poltical kneejerk issue not a legal one. The officer was trained and given a badge. Let him do his job, and that involves protecting society by shooting people who wave around guns in public and wont stop when told to by an armed cop.

Totally agree on the Garner case though. At a minimum the suspect was already contained and was asking for medical help.

Did you see the video?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/11/26/officials-release-video-names-in-fatal-police-shooting-of-12-year-old-cleveland-boy/

At what point did the cop say stop? he leaped out of the car and shot the kid without ever saying a word to him.

It's a civil trial, not a criminal trial. Please try and learn the difference. Here's a analogy. OJ simpson was found innocent in a criminal trial, yet was found guilty in the civil trial. This cop never got a criminal trial, but the family has every right to sue him in a civial trial.

 Ouze wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Well considering that the Eric Garner case was ruled a homocide by the coroner, and that that didn't lead to any charges, I would say that the cop in this case is most likely in the clear.

The Garner case is far more murky then this one. If any of the three big cases with media attention needed a trial it's Mr. Garner's death.

You have five seconds to tell me which one of these is real.



Now turn your laptop lighting to low and back up 20ft.

... and put it in the hands of a child.

Put it in the hands of a silhouette of indeterminate age, gender, and size. You would be amazed at how difficult it is to see some of these things when time and adrenaline are a factor you're actually being honest with yourself. Not saying anything about this specific case, but if your reaction is to automatically assume that this was not a very difficult situation then you've never been in that sort of situation before. It's easy to be a critic. And it's not like a kid can't shoot someone either. You drive up, see someone with what appears to be a gun. They look young, but you can't tell how old they are or if they're just a slight build. It's entirely possible it's a scrawny 20 year old prepared to do something crazy.

Again, not commenting on the case itself since I don't know any of the details. It's just important to note that, no, it is not easy to tell what's going on in dynamic situations at night. There's a reason the military uses NVD's to such great effect.

Just for the record, a weapon, be it a knife, gun, grenade, etc is no less lethal in the hands of a child as an adult, just ask my buddies who got drawn down on by kids in the sandbox, or the numerous people killed every year by child soldiers in Africa.

 Orlanth wrote:
[The target had a gun out and waved about. Police told him to stop, he pointed gun, he got shot.

the first 5 seconds of the video show this to be factually incorrect. At no point did he point the toy gun at the police.

The United States is not a war zone, and the police are not the military. He wasn't a "target", he was a boy.

The cop that shot that 12 year old boy, was completely and utterly incompetent. You don't just roll up on a bus stop like they are starsky and hutch, jump out and start shooting. The dispatcher should also be fired for not providing information.

My question is why didn't the cops try to assess the situation before just going all "Dirty Harry".

If it was a 12 year old white boy in the same situation he most likely would be alive today.

GG

There needs to be a discussion about law enforcement in this country and that has nothing to do with race. It's unfortunate that the racial overtones in these cases cause people to dismiss the larger issue.

The have been far too many incidents lately where Law Enforcement have gotten things wrong or gotten out of control. The problem, imo, is that police officers and departments have been way to soft on their misguided brethren. Every incident like this makes life that much harder for other officers.

I understand that it is a difficult job, but the reluctance of other officers to enforce standards is hurting the profession greatly. The instinct to close ranks whenever an officer gets into trouble is understandable, but at the end of the day they are not paid to protect each other from the consequences of their own actions. They are paid toserve and protect the public.

I think it's possible to have the conversation about police impunity AND racial prejudice at the same time. Race is definitely a factor, despite the desire of many people to discount it. But overzealous policing is also a factor, as can be shown in the numerous examples of white citizens being treated badly by the police.

But to discount the racial bias in the numbers is wrong, in my opinion.

I meant that racial bias is a seperate, but no less important issue. The issue of the police feeling superior to those they protect is being felt the most by minorities, but I believe that race is a seperate issue with seperate solutions. If the police are not treating people properly, changing the demographic that is getting the short end of the stick will not fix the larger problem. It just swaps out the victims.

I'm advocating Risk Assessments for use by LEO's

Relapse wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Uhm...yeah...what else would you have it ruled as? Someone was killed with intent, that's homicide. That's all that it means.

Trouble is, the effect it will possibly have on future cases where a cop has a gun pulled on him and he has to make a split second decision that could mean life or death. Is the cop going to have to go on trial every time?

Ummm, what is wrong with this exactly?

They thought Rice was, according to the radio, "about 20."

 Easy E wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Uhm...yeah...what else would you have it ruled as? Someone was killed with intent, that's homicide. That's all that it means.

Trouble is, the effect it will possibly have on future cases where a cop has a gun pulled on him and he has to make a split second decision that could mean life or death. Is the cop going to have to go on trial every time?

Ummm, what is wrong with this exactly?

Then the LEO is risking his/her life to get shot first to justify pulling side arms. If the LEO survives then he/she can sue anyone in their CoC for placing them in harms way

 Easy E wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Uhm...yeah...what else would you have it ruled as? Someone was killed with intent, that's homicide. That's all that it means.

Trouble is, the effect it will possibly have on future cases where a cop has a gun pulled on him and he has to make a split second decision that could mean life or death. Is the cop going to have to go on trial every time?

Ummm, what is wrong with this exactly?

First off, what Jihadin said. Then consider every cop that ever had to use his gun having to go on leave during the course of a trial. After that, factor in cost in both dollars and morale, along the strong possibility no one would want to be a cop if this became the case.

 Hordini wrote:
I think part of the problem is a lot of people read homicide and think "murder," when that isn't necessarily accurate. As far as I know the coroner doesn't really have the capability or the responsibility to determine whether or not a killing was lawful or not, only what the cause was.

Exactly this.

Incidentally, this was an issue with the Michael Brown case, because people were drawing conclusions (conclusions never intended to be drawn) from the coroner's report.

More importantly? This whole story in the OP is not a criminal charge being brought against the officer. This is a civil lawsuit... and I don't blame them, it's a much simpler process, especially given the current climate. There's no Grand Jury involved or anything of the sort, as this is not an admission of guilt or innocence in a crime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Just for the record, a weapon, be it a knife, gun, grenade, etc is no less lethal in the hands of a child as an adult, just ask my buddies who got drawn down on by kids in the sandbox, or the numerous people killed every year by child soldiers in Africa.

Police are not soldiers, and not expected to be. The problem is, the police act like soldiers, and this is not going to end well for them.

After watching the video, I am confused as to how the low lighting and adrenaline arguments are being used. It could be that the surveillance video is a little bit brighter than what it was outside. I dunno, I was not there. What I can see from the video is that the squad car has a spotlight on it and Tamir Rice did not have a gun drawn when he was casually walking up to the police car. Then the passenger jumps out, shoots him, and runs around the car. I saw all of that on a crappy surveillance video.

BUT THAT ADRENALINE MUST HAVE MADE IT DARKER AND REALLY HAZY OUT

Relapse wrote:
Trouble is, the effect it will possibly have on future cases where a cop has a gun pulled on him and he has to make a split second decision that could mean life or death. Is the cop going to have to go on trial every time?

Yeah...as much as I agree with trial costs being ridiculous, you should still look into such cases. When gunning down a few thugs or crackheads, there certainly is no need for a trial, but rather for a commendation. If a child is shot, however, then there's no "too expensive" argument for a trial...

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Trouble is, the effect it will possibly have on future cases where a cop has a gun pulled on him and he has to make a split second decision that could mean life or death. Is the cop going to have to go on trial every time?

Relapse wrote:
First off, what Jihadin said. Then consider every cop that ever had to use his gun having to go on leave during the course of a trial. After that, factor in cost in both dollars and morale, along the strong possibility no one would want to be a cop if this became the case.

Are we making an argument that we shouldn't investigate when police kill children because if we make it too much of a hassle, people won't want to be cops anymore? Is that the purest distillation of this argument?

I think what that cop was thinking that morning doesn't matter a single solitary goddamn to what he did later, which was jump out of his patrol car like it was on fire and pump bullets into a 12 year old boy with a toy gun in his belt.

Some cops do go out in the morning looking for a fight. Not all, not most, but some. I've heard them talk about it. There are cops that are epic Don't bypass the language filter like this. reds8n The thing is, those cops are people and people need rules to keep them in line. Being a LEO does not and should not give you a free pass. We have created a special set of laws for our military, and by and large they work pretty well. Perhaps a similar thing would be in order for law enforcement. The current system isn't working. There just isn't enough accountability.

IMO, there should be a system, short of a criminal trial, that could be used to determine whether an act of violence by a LEO is justifiable. If that system does not find good cause, then the case should go to a criminal trial.

Another major issue is a horrible lack in training. I knew many 19 year old pimply Private First Classes in the Army who would have handled that situation better. A LEO with proper training should be making better desicions than what we have been seeing. Why are we asking so little of our LEOs?

 Ouze wrote:
I think what that cop was thinking that morning doesn't matter a single solitary goddamn to what he did later, which was jump out of his patrol car like it was on fire and pump bullets into a 12 year old boy with a toy gun in his belt.

You have direct proof that exactly what happen? Your saying the cop knew it was a toy gun? The Dispatcher use the word "Possible". "The word "possible" is a "mofo". I heard it all before. "Possible Insurgents in area"




Maybe Amir could have "Possibly" remove his hands from out of his pocket without the pulling what to could be "possible" real weapon.






Militarization of LEO is in question.

Edit

That Hoodie is like Pakol. You do not know ballpark age till its removed

sirlynchmob wrote:


Did you see the video?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/11/26/officials-release-video-names-in-fatal-police-shooting-of-12-year-old-cleveland-boy/

At what point did the cop say stop? he leaped out of the car and shot the kid without ever saying a word to him.

Thats because there is no sound.
however what we see is a kid with a gun, a kid not dropping the gun when asked and the kid them dropping.
Perhaps you would be quite fine if th cops decided to do every action with three second pause.
If you do, ask yourself how long it takes to pull a trigger.

sirlynchmob wrote:

It's a civil trial, not a criminal trial. Please try and learn the difference. Here's a analogy. OJ simpson was found innocent in a criminal trial, yet was found guilty in the civil trial. This cop never got a criminal trial, but the family has every right to sue him in a civial trial.

Criminal proceedings have not been ruled out, and a civil lawsuit can be raised by anyone about anything. And yes I do know the difference.

If the parents allowed their kid to play out on the streets to a real looking gun, they should claim responsibility for the consequences, as well as the kid. Not the police officer who didnt know if this was his time to die or not and had no choice but to answer a call on his radio about an armed person in public.

There aspects of the military that LEO could benefit from. Use of military equipment and combat tactics are not on that list. I've done patrolling before. With training comes competence. With competence comes confidence. Confidence is a force multiplier. Act like you are in control and you will be in control, most of the time. I'm not seeing that from LEOs lately. What I am seeing is people who want to give cops a free pass on poor decisions because they are cops. Some training and discipline go a long way, so yes, I think that a little militarization would be good. Lets not throw babies out with bathhwater here.

You can argue whether or not is it criminal, but that officer handled that very poorly. He needlessly escalted the situation and killed a kid. He left the relative cover of the police car and fired at a kid with a toy gun. Someone that stupid should not work in Law Enforcement.

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
[The target had a gun out and waved about. Police told him to stop, he pointed gun, he got shot.

the first 5 seconds of the video show this to be factually incorrect. At no point did he point the toy gun at the police.

The United States is not a war zone, and the police are not the military. He wasn't a "target", he was a boy.

The video does show him brandishing the gun in public, and holding it two handed and aiming down the street. So someone called the cops.
Cops arrive and when approached, quickly, he pulls the gun out of his pocket. He gets shot.
I don't see the problem, if he didn't pull the gun out of his pocket he would probably not have been shot, or at least if he was there would be a better case against the police authority.
As for this weak talk about him being a boy not a target. sorry no. He waved a gun around, quite a bit actually, and when the police came drew it, that made him a target.
Besides even the baying mob accepts that the gun may or may not have been real. And emphasise the age and race. Frankly that too is bollocks. The kid was heavily padded and the police didn't get a chance to take a good look at him before he pulled. I cant tell how old he was, it would be difficult enough to prove how big he was, it may even have been difficult to tell he gender until you get well under rthe range at which he can pop a slug into you.
So this target, was he a confirmed 12 year old boy out playing? Really? Couldn't have have been about 17 but fairly light built and undernourished due to his crack addiction, might he have nothing to lose.
You can work out how old he actually is after he dropped the gun and you get to ask him, or when the parents ID him on the slab.

You say boy, I say prove it, remembering its cops life on the line if you get it wrong.
Its not the kids life, he has a choice. he can always drop the fething gun, not draw the gun in front of armed cops, not branish it in full view on a street etc and fo forth.

Race again has nothing to do with it, padded up like that I wouldn't be able to tell if he was black except from the front, or at close range and as he spent a lot of time aiming two handed and one handed to his front. I wouldn't be in a hurry to find out.

the police drove up close, this makes sense they need the advantage of surprise against an armed person. It is reaonable to suggest that the cops would have called him to stop as the draw up with their guns drawn. I cant tell that is the case from the video, but we have no evidence to the contrary. When the gun came from the targets pocket they actee immediately. Again this was reasonable. All this could have happened before the cops could confirm the ID and age of the target. Frankly if they were more interested in the hand drawing a gun and not the age of the face, that is understandable frankly.