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.

Why I hate to think the Brown shooting might have factored in with Rice. Seeing it on the news and hearing his parents talk about it might have influence Rice into thinking the LEO were going to kill him anyway.

As for Garner



I can see why death by choke hold didn't stick but I can also see the pressure applied. If Garner gone unconscious during that hold then I seeing it stick.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.

That was a peaceful resolution? Saying put your hands up and shooting a few seconds after?

I mean, if you watch the video it looks like the LEO shot him before he even had proper footing on the ground.

Yes, demanding compliance from a suspect is a peaceful option. If the kid had complied, and not attempted to draw a gun on the officers, he would still be alive and it would have been nothing more than a learning moment for him.

You'll also note that the officer behind him is considerably shorter which makes it much more difficult to apply a choke hold than if you are of equal height or taller. For a proper cutting off of air ideally you want to be slightly above so that you can lift in addition to pulling back as that little bit of motion puts a lot more pressure on the hold and increases the effectiveness. He is not holding him in a closed choke, nor did he lose conciousness from the hold, he didn't pass out until he was on the ground at which point he was being piled on by the officers. There was quite a bit of time between when he was released and he passed out which means the hold was not responsible. A choke hold is only effective while it's being actively used, or if it manages to crush the windpipe, which was not the case as the throat was intact during in the autopsy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ultimately, you always treat a gun as real until its proven to not be real.

I understand where you are coming from, the shooting can be justified, but I think there is still a much deeper problem with the attitude of the police that is being glossed over. For example, compare the following two videos:

You may have seen this one. This is a lot of British police, versus a man with a machete. (The guy didn't respond to pepper spray). At first it might seem silly, but ultimately they apprehend the man without hurting anyone. It turns out the man was mentally ill.



This is how (also quite a lot) of American police deal with a much smaller mentally ill man, carrying a much smaller knife.



You can't deny there is a vast difference in attitude here, with regard to their own and public safety. The British police are heroes here, they put themselves at not insignificant risk to apprehend this guy alive. Even though they might have been justified in calling in an armed response unit, instead they employ riot gear and imagination. I'm sure the mentally ill man's family were very grateful that he survived.

In the American video they don't even try to bring him in alive. Not even a wounding shot (which in this rare example actually would have been possible). Instead they just gun the man down, because they know that as soon as he displays a weapon, they are justified in killing him. That just sucks.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.

That was a peaceful resolution? Saying put your hands up and shooting a few seconds after?

I mean, if you watch the video it looks like the LEO shot him before he even had proper footing on the ground.

Yes, demanding compliance from a suspect is a peaceful option. If the kid had complied, and not attempted to draw a gun on the officers, he would still be alive and it would have been nothing more than a learning moment for him.

Wait, what? Did you read what I said? Are you saying that you should always shoot before a person has time to react to your demands?

This is sounding a lot more like the Wild West.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.

That was a peaceful resolution? Saying put your hands up and shooting a few seconds after?

I mean, if you watch the video it looks like the LEO shot him before he even had proper footing on the ground.

Yes, demanding compliance from a suspect is a peaceful option. If the kid had complied, and not attempted to draw a gun on the officers, he would still be alive and it would have been nothing more than a learning moment for him.

Wait, what? Did you read what I said? Are you saying that you should always shoot before a person has time to react to your demands?

This is sounding a lot more like the Wild West.

The kid did react. By attempting to draw the gun.

 Grey Templar wrote:


The kid did react. By attempting to draw the gun.

But then again, we only have the word of an unreliable officer, caught lying to superiors in the past, and his partner that any commands were issued.

The video does not, in my opinion, give them enough time to issue a command in a clear manner and for the kid to hear and react to it before they open fire.

At this point, I am confident Grey Templar never watched the video.

which video?

The kid? Yes I watched it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
which video?

The kid? Yes I watched it.

so, in your opinion, where would he have had the time to comply?

Dronze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
which video?

The kid? Yes I watched it.

so, in your opinion, where would he have had the time to comply?

You seem under the impression that you need a lot of time to comply.

It takes less than a half second to raise your hands. he had all the time in the world. Its definitely less time than it takes to reach for the gun in your waistband.

As soon as he seen the patrol car heading for him. The fact "Crap I am in trrrrooouuubbblllleeeeee" did not occur to Rice at all but proceeded to draw the weapon 4-5 ft from Loehman door. Think we need to bring up the Rice thread and everyone can go back over it again and keep posting that incident on that one

One thing to point out is that most security cameras use either half frame rates or quarter frame rates in order to conserve storage space, so each second you see on screen is actually 2-4 seconds of real time action. If you aren't used to watching security footage it can make the actions seem to take place much faster and it can cause very fast actions to be quite difficult to pick up. It's also why there's not audio on a lot of security cameras as it requires a lot of additional storage space and because audio needs to be recorded real time it doesn't sync up correctly when played back with half rate footage.

What people see on the video as being 2-3 seconds is likely between a 4 second to 12 second real time event which dramatically alters what can be understood as proper warning and reaction times. 9 extra seconds may not seem like a big deal but in a high stress situation like this it's almost a lifetime. Somebody can draw a gun in under a second and empty and an entire magazine in in 2-3 seconds let alone if they are given 9 seconds.

Quiet Stanman
That sort of information doesn't fit some people agenda's

 Jihadin wrote:
Quiet Stanman
That sort of information doesn't fit some people agenda's

It also doesn't fit with the audio track...

 Smacks wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Quiet Stanman
That sort of information doesn't fit some people agenda's

It also doesn't fit with the audio track...

There is no audio track of the incident, just the security cam capture.

 CptJake wrote:
There is no audio track of the incident, just the security cam capture.

There is an audio track from the police radios.

Could you post the audio which seems to refute the above? I can only find two, the 911 call and the dispatch, neither of which seem to do that.

I didn't even know they had police in Montana.

Like... what do police do in Montana? Nobody lives there.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I didn't even know they had police in Montana.

Like... what do police do in Montana? Nobody lives there.

Shoot the few who do?

Stonebeard wrote:
Could you post the audio which seems to refute the above? I can only find two, the 911 call and the dispatch, neither of which seem to do that.

I don't need to refute the above, it seems fairly obvious from the speed that people are walking that the video is not playing at double speed. Where is your evidence that it is fast? Other than because you want it to be?

One of the news sites I watched last month had the dispatch track overlapping the video. The scream is synced with Tamir dropping, and there might be a click as the car door slams shut. I think it is this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2850234/Video-released-showing-police-shooting-Tamir-Rice-12-carrying-BB-gun.html

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I didn't even know they had police in Montana.

Like... what do police do in Montana? Nobody lives there.

Shoot the few who do?

So... this is really 187-ception??? A cop killed a cop!!


No wonder there's no protests here

 stanman wrote:
One thing to point out is that most security cameras use either half frame rates or quarter frame rates in order to conserve storage space, so each second you see on screen is actually 2-4 seconds of real time action. If you aren't used to watching security footage it can make the actions seem to take place much faster and it can cause very fast actions to be quite difficult to pick up. It's also why there's not audio on a lot of security cameras as it requires a lot of additional storage space and because audio needs to be recorded real time it doesn't sync up correctly when played back with half rate footage.

What people see on the video as being 2-3 seconds is likely between a 4 second to 12 second real time event which dramatically alters what can be understood as proper warning and reaction times. 9 extra seconds may not seem like a big deal but in a high stress situation like this it's almost a lifetime. Somebody can draw a gun in under a second and empty and an entire magazine in in 2-3 seconds let alone if they are given 9 seconds.

Some need to re read what Stanman post here.

Also LEO in Montana has me craving for



To start again

 Jihadin wrote:
Some need to re read what Stanman post here.

Okay I have reread it. In his post he is talking about 2-3 seconds becoming 12 seconds (he even dwells on the 9 second gap). That would mean the video is playing at 4-6 times speed, which it clearly isn't, that would be really obvious fast forward speed. The video does have a low frame rate but it appears to be running very close to real time. Everyone is milling about quite slowly (as opposed to sped up), the car door swinging shut looks about right, which makes me doubtful that it is even the low end 1.25X speed. Are you really that desperate that you need to clutch at this straw? Maybe it is you who needs to take a long hard look at what you're arguing here. If you have to resort to pretending the video is sped up 6 times faster than reality to make your argument stand up, then maybe it is time for a new argument.

Smacks wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Quiet Stanman
That sort of information doesn't fit some people agenda's

It also doesn't fit with the audio track...

Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There is no audio track of the incident, just the security cam capture.

There is an audio track from the police radios.

Smacks wrote:

Stonebeard wrote:
Could you post the audio which seems to refute the above? I can only find two, the 911 call and the dispatch, neither of which seem to do that.

I don't need to refute the above, it seems fairly obvious from the speed that people are walking that the video is not playing at double speed. Where is your evidence that it is fast? Other than because you want it to be?

One of the news sites I watched last month had the dispatch track overlapping the video. The scream is synced with Tamir dropping, and there might be a click as the car door slams shut. I think it is this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2850234/Video-released-showing-police-shooting-Tamir-Rice-12-carrying-BB-gun.html

Well you seemed to make the claim that there was audio which refuted the the claim that the camera which took the recording was recording at increased speed, so yes, you should probably be able to back that claim up. Saying "it's obvious" doesn't exactly cut it. Why is it obvious? Could you explain WHY you think that? Better yet, could you explain why you think that AND provide the recording that you claim refutes said argument? You made a claim, so back it up. If you don't than you're just blowing hot air. Also, if you'll go back and check I'm pretty sure you will find that I never made any claims or voiced any opinion on the validity of the frame rate argument. All I did was ask you to provide the audio evidence that you claim exists. That being said, I would like to say something on that.

You're right, and there is a video clip which states the shooting portion in the video happened at real time. Here it is:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cleveland-video-police-shooting-tamir-rice

'Bout halfway down the page.

EDIT: Also, you can ignore that rant-y bit towards the end. Was having too much fun with it. lol

Also the full video has a time stamp which was cropped off in the news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdAYPQd1H1A

That puts it beyond all doubt. The video is not fast.

Stonebeard wrote:
You made a claim, so back it up. If you don't than you're just blowing hot air. Also, if you'll go back and check I'm pretty sure you will find that I never made any claims or voiced any opinion on the validity of the frame rate argument. All I did was ask you to provide the audio evidence that you claim exists.

Please accept my apologies. I just didn't want to inadvertently dignify the idea that the video was playing fast by accepting that I need to refute it for it to be false, the burden of proof was on the claimant. However, I hope it is beyond question now.

 Smacks wrote:
Also the full video has a time stamp which was cropped off in the news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdAYPQd1H1A

That puts it beyond all doubt. The video is not fast.
.

I know 40k is all about forging a narrative but the idea that someone needs to try and essentially lie their way into pretending a video showing a shooting happen within 1.5 seconds of an officer arrive was actually as long as 12 seconds long, in furtherance of justifying a police shooting of a 12 year old armed with a toy gun, displays almost a sociopathic disregard for reality.

But, that's the OT!

We could decrease most of the gun violence and a good amount of the reason police have such a bad reputation with the African American community if we ended the War on Drugs. We'd also stop most of the bad warrant searches and a good number of the dead bodies that give the impression of a too violent police force.

Good money say they be acquitted

And your response to the whole 2 or so seconds = 12 seconds being full of gak is?

Especially considering it is clearly part of someone's agenda... maybe you should tell people posting the video with timestamps to be quiet as it doesn't fit his agenda...