So in summary... if you have a gun in a public park and you refuse to listen to the cops and put it down, then you die. Not hard to understand this one. Ridiculous how many shots fired. Pretty bad aim maybe. Why not shoot to injure and not obliterate??? Geez.
Ah yes, the old 'he didn't do what he was told' defense where the only living witnesses are Police Officers. Funny how that works.
I wonder where the body cams are? Probably malfunctioned....
Serious question for you then. Which do you find more likely. A. Multiple cops were in on it together to murder some random guy for no reason and help each other cover it up. All involved are completely fine with this and not one refuses to go along with it. B. The dude really had a gun and really refused to put it down and the cops actually felt threatened.
I would say B sounds much more plausible. You wouldn't agree?
I'm still surprised when I hear people ask why they didn't just try and shoot to injure them. TV and movies really have jaded people's view of what a real life situation is like. No one is that good under real life pressure with adrenaline and tunnel vision kicking in. If they were able to shoot to injure and believed that person still wouldn't be able to harm them then we wouldn't really need sharpshooters or snipers.
As McGruff stated, police are trained to shoot center mass and to shoot until the person is no longer a threat, which means on the ground. You need to also consider that as the officers are firing, they are not counting their shots, they are looking at the threat. I would like to see anyone here if confronted by someone with a gun, fire 2 shots and call it good if the person threatening you is still standing. Hindsight is 20/20. For those who have never done so, I would encourage you to go through the shoot/no shoot simulation training that officers go through to get an idea of what they are being faced with. It's not so easy and you only have seconds to decide whether you shoot or get shot if you are facing an armed subject.
So in summary... if you have a gun in a public park and you refuse to listen to the cops and put it down, then you die. Not hard to understand this one. Ridiculous how many shots fired. Pretty bad aim maybe. Why not shoot to injure and not obliterate??? Geez.
Ah yes, the old 'he didn't do what he was told' defense where the only living witnesses are Police Officers. Funny how that works.
I wonder where the body cams are? Probably malfunctioned....
Serious question for you then. Which do you find more likely. A. Multiple cops were in on it together to murder some random guy for no reason and help each other cover it up. All involved are completely fine with this and not one refuses to go along with it. B. The dude really had a gun and really refused to put it down and the cops actually felt threatened.
I would say B sounds much more plausible. You wouldn't agree?
Right, those are the only 2 scenarios that could have possibly occurred
I'm sure the cops felt threatened, they're terrible shots. It sounded like 4 officers unloaded their clips and still didn't manage to kill him. Also, black man with a gun and all. It's a shame they were unable are not trained to deescalate the situation. Shoot first ask questions later, I guess.
So in summary... if you have a gun in a public park and you refuse to listen to the cops and put it down, then you die. Not hard to understand this one. Ridiculous how many shots fired. Pretty bad aim maybe. Why not shoot to injure and not obliterate??? Geez.
Ah yes, the old 'he didn't do what he was told' defense where the only living witnesses are Police Officers. Funny how that works.
I wonder where the body cams are? Probably malfunctioned....
Serious question for you then. Which do you find more likely. A. Multiple cops were in on it together to murder some random guy for no reason and help each other cover it up. All involved are completely fine with this and not one refuses to go along with it. B. The dude really had a gun and really refused to put it down and the cops actually felt threatened.
I would say B sounds much more plausible. You wouldn't agree?
Right, those are the only 2 scenarios that could have possibly occurred
I'm sure the cops felt threatened, they're terrible shots. It sounded like 4 officers unloaded their clips and still didn't manage to kill him. Also, black man with a gun and all. It's a shame they were unable are not trained to deescalate the situation. Shoot first ask questions later, I guess.
We can all sit around and hypothesize how it went down, but it seems that you have already made up your mind that this was a bad shooting so nothing the police say or that the media reports contradicting this train of thought will be enough. Based on that, then what do you suggest should have been done differently? How long is a police officer supposed to negotiate with an unknown subject holding a gun who won't put it down in a public place? Until they fire first?
What if this man showed up in your front yard holding this gun, are you going to go out and negotiate with him once he has refused to put it down and is making gestures to point it at you? De-escalation only works to a certain extent and under specific circumstances.
So in summary... if you have a gun in a public park and you refuse to listen to the cops and put it down, then you die. Not hard to understand this one. Ridiculous how many shots fired. Pretty bad aim maybe. Why not shoot to injure and not obliterate??? Geez.
Ah yes, the old 'he didn't do what he was told' defense where the only living witnesses are Police Officers. Funny how that works.
I wonder where the body cams are? Probably malfunctioned....
Serious question for you then. Which do you find more likely. A. Multiple cops were in on it together to murder some random guy for no reason and help each other cover it up. All involved are completely fine with this and not one refuses to go along with it. B. The dude really had a gun and really refused to put it down and the cops actually felt threatened.
I would say B sounds much more plausible. You wouldn't agree?
Right, those are the only 2 scenarios that could have possibly occurred
I'm sure the cops felt threatened, they're terrible shots. It sounded like 4 officers unloaded their clips and still didn't manage to kill him. Also, black man with a gun and all. It's a shame they were unable are not trained to deescalate the situation. Shoot first ask questions later, I guess.
The problem is, there isn't much time to ask questions when someone is pointing a gun at you threatening to shoot. I know I wouldn't wait to see what kind of day he is having. The time it takes to ask 1 question he can fire 10 shots. What does color have to do with it? Black, white, green, purple, it doesnt matter. if you have a gun and are displaying it in a threatening manner police have the right to protect themsleves. I know if someone who is armed breaks into my house, I am not going to try and have a conversation with him and see how he's feeling while he's pointing a gun at me if I have the option to use force myself. If I were in a situation where someone was pointing a gun at me and I had an option to eliminate that threat, I really don't care what he would have to say at that point. Maybe we need better methods of prevention, better means to help the mentally ill so it never reaches that point. That I would agree with. But once it reaches that point, everyone has the right to protect themselves.
And what's with everyone thinking police are Dirty Harry who can magically fire one shot and eliminate a threat? They train their whole career, but most never have to actually shoot their gun in a real life situation. This isn't the gun range or a deer stand. The target at the other end of the barrel can kill you. These aren't cold malicious serial killers who have the calm and emotionless response many try to paint them with. Think of the most adrenaline inducing thing you have ever done in your life and now picture yourself holding a gun and trying to shoot something 50 yards away. Your whole body becomes tense, all sounds disappear, your vision becomes narrowed to a single object and time literally slows to a crawl even though everything is happening insanely fast.
How does that change what the police did based on the information they had at the time of the call? Since he was known to be mentally ill, they shouldn't shoot at him and are supposed to know he has a toy gun?
It's an unfortunate incident and further exemplifies the need to address the mental health crisis in this country.
How does that change what the police did based on the information they had at the time of the call? Since he was known to be mentally ill, they shouldn't shoot at him and are supposed to know he has a toy gun?
It's an unfortunate incident and further exemplifies the need to address the mental health crisis in this country.
It's an unfortunate incident when I lose my keys, this is a little more serious than that.
I'm sure the police will be very forthcoming with any/all available video.
How does that change what the police did based on the information they had at the time of the call? Since he was known to be mentally ill, they shouldn't shoot at him and are supposed to know he has a toy gun?
It's an unfortunate incident and further exemplifies the need to address the mental health crisis in this country.
It's an unfortunate incident when I lose my keys, this is a little more serious than that.
I'm sure the police will be very forthcoming with any/all available video.
And I'm sure if the video shows the cops were acting professionally that you will be forthcoming with the appropriate praise for their efforts.
They'll never win with you. I mean... you are arguing the gun was not real so the cops were murderers. How were they to know the gun wasn't real? And exactly how were they supposed to know he had mental problems? The story said he was 'well known' to police, but never offered exactly why he would be well known to police outside of speaking to some personal issues he had at school.
I understand you are eager to bash cops any chance you get... but c'mon, man.
I wonder how the gun rights champions would feel about fake guns being outlawed, in an effort to save kids from being shot for carrying one, and to save them from mixing the idea of guns and toys into one dangerous combo, and also save cops from shooting a kid with one? Would gun nuts oppose this because it would disturb their precious gun culture?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I wonder how the gun rights champions would feel about fake guns being outlawed, in an effort to save kids from being shot for carrying one, and to save them from mixing the idea of guns and toys into one dangerous combo, and also save cops from shooting a kid with one? Would gun nuts oppose this because it would disturb their precious gun culture?
How are fake guns a part of gun culture when they are um, fake? i m pretty sure it s a federal law that requires all fake guns to have their tips painted bright orange in order to differiantitate from real guns. The problem is morons like to paint over the orange so it looks real.
That's good advice, but you might not have time to comply at all, let alone comply with simultaneous commands to get on the ground, put your hands up, and drop the weapon.
Yeah, the police have to make split second decisions and take lightning fast actions, but police apologists refuse to acknowledge that so do citizens, and without any training.
That's good advice, but you might not have time to comply at all, let alone comply with simultaneous commands to get on the ground, put your hands up, and drop the weapon.
Yeah, the police have to make split second decisions and take lightning fast actions, but police apologists refuse to acknowledge that so do citizens, and without any training.
I believe in due process. Labeling everyone who comes into contact with police as a criminal or suspect creates an unfair burden on citizens to prove their innocence and encourages police to disregard people's rights as citizens and humans.
I believe in due process. Labeling everyone who comes into contact with police as a criminal or suspect creates an unfair burden on citizens to prove their innocence and encourages police to disregard people's rights as citizens and humans.
Even when they are waving a gun and threatening police? Remember, we haven't been talking of 'everyone who comes into contact with police'... we've been talking of people armed and potentially dangerous.
I believe in due process. Labeling everyone who comes into contact with police as a criminal or suspect creates an unfair burden on citizens to prove their innocence and encourages police to disregard people's rights as citizens and humans.
Even when they are waving a gun and threatening police? Remember, we haven't been talking of 'everyone who comes into contact with police'... we've been talking of people armed and potentially dangerous.
It depends, do we have evidence beyond the word of police officers? That word isn't worth any more than the credit you give it. Was Tamir Rice waving a gun around and threatening police? What about that guy laying on his back with his hands in the air? How many times does this need to play out before we start seriously documenting police interactions?
What frustrates me the most about this thread is it seems a good number, maybe even the majority have the metnality of cops are guilty until proven innocent. But the dude waving the gun at cops is innocent until proven guilty. And when proven guilty with multiple witness statements and video, it is then discredited for various reason (why didnt they just injure him? Why did they shoot so many times? I bet if he was white...., They should have known it was a fake gun, they should have known he was mentally [as if that makes him less dangerous] why didnt they use rubber bullets. It gets ridiculous all the excuses we see, an injured man with a bullet wound to the leg can still shoot a gun by the way, and that's assuming you ignore all gun safety policies and decide to use deadly force when it wasn't necessary) Yes there have been bad cops. Yes, we can do more for the mentally ill and poverty neighborhoods. But the tens of thousands of police interactions that happen EVERY DAY can't win anymore. You ask how many more times this has to happen? I ask how many times is a cop going to be accused of abuse for investigating child pron, how many times will a cop be accused of abuse for defending himself against someone wielding a deadly weapon? It matters because lives have been lost and changed, cities destroyed over this anti-cop attitude.
Lives have been lost and changed, cities destroyed for generations by bad police and the pro-cop attitude. Now is the time that we should dramatically increase the standards for police work in here in every way.
Lives have been lost and changed, cities destroyed for generations by bad police and the pro-cop attitude. Now is the time that we should dramatically increase the standards for police work in here in every way.
Agreed, but let's at least discern what good police work is and what bad police work is.
To the cop basher (such a stud yourself)... everytime a criminal gets shot wielding a weapon and defying the police... it's bad police work. That's simply not the case.
Lives have been lost and changed, cities destroyed for generations by bad police and the pro-cop attitude. Now is the time that we should dramatically increase the standards for police work in here in every way.
Agreed, but let's at least discern what good police work is and what bad police work is.
To the cop basher (such a stud yourself)... everytime a criminal gets shot wielding a weapon and defying the police... it's bad police work. That's simply not the case.
We disagree. The standard for shooting a citizen to death should be "posed an immediate threat" and not "had a weapon, didn't comply". Under your system, Tamir Rice is a case of good police work. Under my system, he is a living teenager.
Lives have been lost and changed, cities destroyed for generations by bad police and the pro-cop attitude. Now is the time that we should dramatically increase the standards for police work in here in every way.
Agreed, but let's at least discern what good police work is and what bad police work is.
To the cop basher (such a stud yourself)... everytime a criminal gets shot wielding a weapon and defying the police... it's bad police work. That's simply not the case.
We disagree. The standard for shooting a citizen to death should be "posed an immediate threat" and not "had a weapon, didn't comply". Under your system, Tamir Rice is a case of good police work. Under my system, he is a living teenager.
I knew we would disagree. You're too far gone to see any middle ground.
No... Tamir was not a good case of police work.
Under your rule... the cops who defended themselves against the knife wielding maniac (and never retreated to their car... drove away... and let the guy cool down) would lose their badges and face criminal charges.
I just refreshed my memory of Tamir. I won't argue it was a tragedy, and incredibly sad. Unfortunately, there are parts i this country where 12 and 13 year olds are in gangs and have a gun. SO what do you want the police to do? Wait until someone gets shot? It is a sad story, but I place zero fault on the police in that situation. It was a toy gu where the orange tip had been removed, he had been pointing it at people, reached for it in his waistband when police arrived. Seriously, what do they need to do, wait until shots are fired before they intervene? I certainly don't expect that. I have seen bad examples of police work, I dont argue that they don't exist. I argue that it seems like far too many police shootings now are claimed to be "abuse" when they are not. I wouldn't give those cops a medal for great police work, but I can't fault them for what happened either, given the information available to them and the circumstances. It was a tragedy, and I'mm sure those cops think about it every day.
The standard for shooting is "posed an immediate threat" and not "had a weapon" as you suggested. Someone reaching for a gun in their waistband is an IMMEDIATE threat.
Under your system you also have 2 dead cops.
So if reaching for a gun isn't an immediate threat, what is? When he points it at you? When he fires the first round? When the first person get shot? WHat someone actually dies? When, in your opinion, is an armed person an immediate threat?
Lives have been lost and changed, cities destroyed for generations by bad police and the pro-cop attitude. Now is the time that we should dramatically increase the standards for police work in here in every way.
Agreed, but let's at least discern what good police work is and what bad police work is.
To the cop basher (such a stud yourself)... everytime a criminal gets shot wielding a weapon and defying the police... it's bad police work. That's simply not the case.
We disagree. The standard for shooting a citizen to death should be "posed an immediate threat" and not "had a weapon, didn't comply". Under your system, Tamir Rice is a case of good police work. Under my system, he is a living teenager.
I knew we would disagree. You're too far gone to see any middle ground.
No... Tamir was not a good case of police work.
Under your rule... the cops who defended themselves against the knife wielding maniac (and never retreated to their car... drove away... and let the guy cool down) would lose their badges and face criminal charges.
You are incapable of discussing this topic in a mature way.
Lives have been lost and changed, cities destroyed for generations by bad police and the pro-cop attitude. Now is the time that we should dramatically increase the standards for police work in here in every way.
Agreed, but let's at least discern what good police work is and what bad police work is.
To the cop basher (such a stud yourself)... everytime a criminal gets shot wielding a weapon and defying the police... it's bad police work. That's simply not the case.
We disagree. The standard for shooting a citizen to death should be "posed an immediate threat" and not "had a weapon, didn't comply". Under your system, Tamir Rice is a case of good police work. Under my system, he is a living teenager.
It's not that black and white and never will be. There always needs to be a high standard when it comes to police officers because they can immediately take a life or have their own taken. You mentioned above how confusing a citizen can feel during one of these situations because they are not trained and are being given multiple commands. Ok, I understand the multiple commands thing, which is for the police officers to make clear. They are trained to run that situation the same every time so if they are giving conflicting orders that's an issue that should be corrected and hammered home. The only statement police should be making to an armed individual is to put down/drop the weapon if they are holding it or to put up their hands if it is not in their control. Telling someone to put up their hands while holding a weapon will result in an issue so that's on the cop and they should be held accountable if they shoot in that situation. Other than that, I really don't know what citizens need to be trained on. Parents should be telling their kids what to do in the event they are stopped by the police or encountered in public. You keep your hands out, don't make any sudden moves and listen to what they ask. Have people been shot under those circumstance, absolutely, but those are the exception where the cop was wrong, that doesn't mean you judge every interaction you have that way.
Setting the standard that a police officer cannot use deadly force until deadly force is attempted against them is ridiculous. You want "citizens" to be given the chance to show they won't use the gun. Most of the videos where cops are brutally killed because they failed to use deadly force are because they kept waiting and were unsure if they could/should shoot. Police abuse is one thing to discuss that covers a lot of areas, but when it comes to police shootings there is very rarely a time where an officer has intentionally shot someone knowing they didn't need to. That's an abuse. Shooting someone who is presenting a threat to the public or their own safety, is not abuse of power. You may want to call it poor judgment if a reasonable person wouldn't/shouldn't have felt threatened, but unless they had the intention of shooting/killing someone for no reason, it's not an abuse.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, I get a kick out of the fact that a whole thread is dedicated to police abuse, but we ignore the abuses of the rest of the working world. Yep, I get it, a cop can kill you with a gun, but you know what, every aspect of that incident will be made public, is usually recorded and will be scrutinized by every Joe blow in the country. Yet, a doctor can fuck up medication dosages, operations, diagnoses, etc. which lead to long term suffering and death, but since it doesn't happen instantly most times and isn't open to the public to know, it goes unnoticed. Same with corporations, lawyers, politicians, bankers, etc. They all have abuse of power that is ultimately leading to the suffering and deaths of millions, but lets only focus on the police officers because they're an easy target.
I just refreshed my memory of Tamir. I won't argue it was a tragedy, and incredibly sad. Unfortunately, there are parts i this country where 12 and 13 year olds are in gangs and have a gun. SO what do you want the police to do? Wait until someone gets shot? It is a sad story, but I place zero fault on the police in that situation. It was a toy gu where the orange tip had been removed, he had been pointing it at people, reached for it in his waistband when police arrived. Seriously, what do they need to do, wait until shots are fired before they intervene? I certainly don't expect that. I have seen bad examples of police work, I dont argue that they don't exist. I argue that it seems like far too many police shootings now are claimed to be "abuse" when they are not. I wouldn't give those cops a medal for great police work, but I can't fault them for what happened either, given the information available to them and the circumstances. It was a tragedy, and I'mm sure those cops think about it every day.
The standard for shooting is "posed an immediate threat" and not "had a weapon" as you suggested. Someone reaching for a gun in their waistband is an IMMEDIATE threat.
Under your system you also have 2 dead cops.
So if reaching for a gun isn't an immediate threat, what is? When he points it at you? When he fires the first round? When the first person get shot? WHat someone actually dies? When, in your opinion, is an armed person an immediate threat?
That is not a correct summary of the Tamir Rice case as supported by evidence. You have accepted the official police version which has elements omitted and details which are not corroborated by the evidence available.
The video is inconclusive as to whether he was reaching for the weapon, and the only thing that is truly definitive is that the officer assumed the citizen to be an immediate threat prior to actually assessing him.
Lives have been lost and changed, cities destroyed for generations by bad police and the pro-cop attitude. Now is the time that we should dramatically increase the standards for police work in here in every way.
Agreed, but let's at least discern what good police work is and what bad police work is.
To the cop basher (such a stud yourself)... everytime a criminal gets shot wielding a weapon and defying the police... it's bad police work. That's simply not the case.
We disagree. The standard for shooting a citizen to death should be "posed an immediate threat" and not "had a weapon, didn't comply". Under your system, Tamir Rice is a case of good police work. Under my system, he is a living teenager.
I knew we would disagree. You're too far gone to see any middle ground.
No... Tamir was not a good case of police work.
Under your rule... the cops who defended themselves against the knife wielding maniac (and never retreated to their car... drove away... and let the guy cool down) would lose their badges and face criminal charges.
You are incapable of discussing this topic in a mature way.
Give me a break.
That is exactly what you said in the moment when that case came up. I keep referring to it because it so clearly demonstrates how ridiculous you are approaching this material.
You've never once sided with police on any of the cases discussed at length on these boards. You've claimed abuse every single time. So... don't speak to anyone's limitations on this topic.
Lives have been lost and changed, cities destroyed for generations by bad police and the pro-cop attitude. Now is the time that we should dramatically increase the standards for police work in here in every way.
name one city that has been destroyed for generations by bad police? that is just an absurd premise and might be the most absurd thing i've seen on this site. the cities have and/or are being destroyed but drugs, poverty and thug low lifes who have no care for others. bad cops destroying cities....jeezus
I just refreshed my memory of Tamir. I won't argue it was a tragedy, and incredibly sad. Unfortunately, there are parts i this country where 12 and 13 year olds are in gangs and have a gun. SO what do you want the police to do? Wait until someone gets shot? It is a sad story, but I place zero fault on the police in that situation. It was a toy gu where the orange tip had been removed, he had been pointing it at people, reached for it in his waistband when police arrived. Seriously, what do they need to do, wait until shots are fired before they intervene? I certainly don't expect that. I have seen bad examples of police work, I dont argue that they don't exist. I argue that it seems like far too many police shootings now are claimed to be "abuse" when they are not. I wouldn't give those cops a medal for great police work, but I can't fault them for what happened either, given the information available to them and the circumstances. It was a tragedy, and I'mm sure those cops think about it every day.
The standard for shooting is "posed an immediate threat" and not "had a weapon" as you suggested. Someone reaching for a gun in their waistband is an IMMEDIATE threat.
Under your system you also have 2 dead cops.
So if reaching for a gun isn't an immediate threat, what is? When he points it at you? When he fires the first round? When the first person get shot? WHat someone actually dies? When, in your opinion, is an armed person an immediate threat?
That is not a correct summary of the Tamir Rice case as supported by evidence. You have accepted the official police version which has elements omitted and details which are not corroborated by the evidence available.
The video is inconclusive as to whether he was reaching for the weapon, and the only thing that is truly definitive is that the officer assumed the citizen to be an immediate threat prior to actually assessing him.
If we're going to talk about Rice, then lets make sure to point out how badly the dispatcher messed up. A costly mistake for sure and I'm sure they feel horrible about it. Mistakes happen isn't acceptable in the LE world, but they are going to happen because people make mistakes, so what is the solution? Rice is not an abuse of power situation either. It would be really nice if we were like Australia and guns were not an option, but until then, incidents like this will continue to happen.
Comments
Which do you find more likely.
A. Multiple cops were in on it together to murder some random guy for no reason and help each other cover it up. All involved are completely fine with this and not one refuses to go along with it.
B. The dude really had a gun and really refused to put it down and the cops actually felt threatened.
I would say B sounds much more plausible. You wouldn't agree?
As McGruff stated, police are trained to shoot center mass and to shoot until the person is no longer a threat, which means on the ground. You need to also consider that as the officers are firing, they are not counting their shots, they are looking at the threat. I would like to see anyone here if confronted by someone with a gun, fire 2 shots and call it good if the person threatening you is still standing. Hindsight is 20/20. For those who have never done so, I would encourage you to go through the shoot/no shoot simulation training that officers go through to get an idea of what they are being faced with. It's not so easy and you only have seconds to decide whether you shoot or get shot if you are facing an armed subject.
I'm sure the cops felt threatened, they're terrible shots. It sounded like 4 officers unloaded their clips and still didn't manage to kill him. Also, black man with a gun and all. It's a shame they were unable are not trained to deescalate the situation. Shoot first ask questions later, I guess.
What if this man showed up in your front yard holding this gun, are you going to go out and negotiate with him once he has refused to put it down and is making gestures to point it at you? De-escalation only works to a certain extent and under specific circumstances.
I know I wouldn't wait to see what kind of day he is having. The time it takes to ask 1 question he can fire 10 shots.
What does color have to do with it? Black, white, green, purple, it doesnt matter. if you have a gun and are displaying it in a threatening manner police have the right to protect themsleves.
I know if someone who is armed breaks into my house, I am not going to try and have a conversation with him and see how he's feeling while he's pointing a gun at me if I have the option to use force myself. If I were in a situation where someone was pointing a gun at me and I had an option to eliminate that threat, I really don't care what he would have to say at that point.
Maybe we need better methods of prevention, better means to help the mentally ill so it never reaches that point. That I would agree with. But once it reaches that point, everyone has the right to protect themselves.
It's an unfortunate incident and further exemplifies the need to address the mental health crisis in this country.
They'll never win with you. I mean... you are arguing the gun was not real so the cops were murderers. How were they to know the gun wasn't real? And exactly how were they supposed to know he had mental problems? The story said he was 'well known' to police, but never offered exactly why he would be well known to police outside of speaking to some personal issues he had at school.
I understand you are eager to bash cops any chance you get... but c'mon, man.
i m pretty sure it s a federal law that requires all fake guns to have their tips painted bright orange in order to differiantitate from real guns. The problem is morons like to paint over the orange so it looks real.
Yeah, the police have to make split second decisions and take lightning fast actions, but police apologists refuse to acknowledge that so do citizens, and without any training.
Interesting.
Was Tamir Rice waving a gun around and threatening police? What about that guy laying on his back with his hands in the air?
How many times does this need to play out before we start seriously documenting police interactions?
Yes there have been bad cops. Yes, we can do more for the mentally ill and poverty neighborhoods. But the tens of thousands of police interactions that happen EVERY DAY can't win anymore.
You ask how many more times this has to happen?
I ask how many times is a cop going to be accused of abuse for investigating child pron, how many times will a cop be accused of abuse for defending himself against someone wielding a deadly weapon?
It matters because lives have been lost and changed, cities destroyed over this anti-cop attitude.
Now is the time that we should dramatically increase the standards for police work in here in every way.
To the cop basher (such a stud yourself)... everytime a criminal gets shot wielding a weapon and defying the police... it's bad police work. That's simply not the case.
The standard for shooting a citizen to death should be "posed an immediate threat" and not "had a weapon, didn't comply".
Under your system, Tamir Rice is a case of good police work. Under my system, he is a living teenager.
No... Tamir was not a good case of
police work.
Under your rule... the cops who defended themselves against the knife wielding maniac (and never retreated to their car... drove away... and let the guy cool down) would lose their badges and face criminal charges.
Unfortunately, there are parts i this country where 12 and 13 year olds are in gangs and have a gun. SO what do you want the police to do? Wait until someone gets shot?
It is a sad story, but I place zero fault on the police in that situation. It was a toy gu where the orange tip had been removed, he had been pointing it at people, reached for it in his waistband when police arrived. Seriously, what do they need to do, wait until shots are fired before they intervene? I certainly don't expect that.
I have seen bad examples of police work, I dont argue that they don't exist. I argue that it seems like far too many police shootings now are claimed to be "abuse" when they are not. I wouldn't give those cops a medal for great police work, but I can't fault them for what happened either, given the information available to them and the circumstances. It was a tragedy, and I'mm sure those cops think about it every day.
The standard for shooting is "posed an immediate threat" and not "had a weapon" as you suggested. Someone reaching for a gun in their waistband is an IMMEDIATE threat.
Under your system you also have 2 dead cops.
So if reaching for a gun isn't an immediate threat, what is? When he points it at you? When he fires the first round? When the first person get shot? WHat someone actually dies? When, in your opinion, is an armed person an immediate threat?
Setting the standard that a police officer cannot use deadly force until deadly force is attempted against them is ridiculous. You want "citizens" to be given the chance to show they won't use the gun. Most of the videos where cops are brutally killed because they failed to use deadly force are because they kept waiting and were unsure if they could/should shoot. Police abuse is one thing to discuss that covers a lot of areas, but when it comes to police shootings there is very rarely a time where an officer has intentionally shot someone knowing they didn't need to. That's an abuse. Shooting someone who is presenting a threat to the public or their own safety, is not abuse of power. You may want to call it poor judgment if a reasonable person wouldn't/shouldn't have felt threatened, but unless they had the intention of shooting/killing someone for no reason, it's not an abuse.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, I get a kick out of the fact that a whole thread is dedicated to police abuse, but we ignore the abuses of the rest of the working world. Yep, I get it, a cop can kill you with a gun, but you know what, every aspect of that incident will be made public, is usually recorded and will be scrutinized by every Joe blow in the country. Yet, a doctor can fuck up medication dosages, operations, diagnoses, etc. which lead to long term suffering and death, but since it doesn't happen instantly most times and isn't open to the public to know, it goes unnoticed. Same with corporations, lawyers, politicians, bankers, etc. They all have abuse of power that is ultimately leading to the suffering and deaths of millions, but lets only focus on the police officers because they're an easy target.
The video is inconclusive as to whether he was reaching for the weapon, and the only thing that is truly definitive is that the officer assumed the citizen to be an immediate threat prior to actually assessing him.
That is exactly what you said in the moment when that case came up. I keep referring to it because it so clearly demonstrates how ridiculous you are approaching this material.
You've never once sided with police on any of the cases discussed at length on these boards. You've claimed abuse every single time. So... don't speak to anyone's limitations on this topic.