Are you forgetting that the police were responding to complaints from the public about an armed man waiving his gun etc? It's not like they just rolled up next to some guy at random, saw that he had a gun and blasted away, they were responding to a call. The dispatcher failed to relay critical information: the caller said it was probably a kid and a toy gun. Without that information, it was easy for the cops to make the mistake they did.
Can you explain exactly what you'd like to see changed that would prevent something like this from happening?
I'm sure that the officers could have figured this out if they had taken more than 2 seconds to assess the situation.5'7" and 170 lb.s may not have looked like a 12 year old.
Big difference between openly carrying a gun and being seen brandishing one. The police were responding to a call where someone was brandishing a gun, not simply carrying one.
Again, they're not brandishing or pointing their guns at other people therefore the police would not be called.A concerned citizen calls and the cops pull up and shoot one of these fellas dead before the car comes to a stop... again, the replies would be a tad different....
Again, they're not brandishing or pointing their guns at other people therefore the police would not be called.
PS This was in front of the Texas Statehouse and the police were already there.
Cops called on an individual with a thuggish appearance scaring people with what looks to be a pistol and is not responding to officers? No surprise he was shot. I never did anything like that when I was a kid, and I never got shot.
Cops called on an individual with a thuggish appearance scaring people with what looks to be a pistol and is not responding to officers? No surprise he was shot. I never did anything like that when I was a kid, and I never got shot.
Cops called on an individual with a thuggish appearance scaring people with what looks to be a pistol and is not responding to officers? No surprise he was shot. I never did anything like that when I was a kid, and I never got shot.
Again, they're not brandishing or pointing their guns at other people therefore the police would not be called.
PS This was in front of the Texas Statehouse and the police were already there.
Big difference between openly carrying a gun and being seen brandishing one. The police were responding to a call where someone was brandishing a gun, not simply carrying one.
I agree the cops were badly served by 911, but that's a constant risk. People are fallible and get things wrong all the time, and the cop on the beat has to take this into account. This would be different had there been shots fired, but reasonable procedure in this case would have been to stop the car a hundred feet away as Subyman says, take out a long gun, then use the PA to demand that he drop the weapon. ESPECIALLY given that this is a middle school kid. Granted, he was stupidly acting like a dick, but even had he been carrying a real gun, no one would have been at immediate risk given the huge advantage afforded by a rifle or shotgun over a handgun.The incident was reported to them as a guy with a pistol who was scaring people. Although whoever reported it said it was probably a kid and a fake gun, those details were not conveyed to the officers here. If anything, it was the dispatcher not conveying those details who was negligent.
Given what they knew, I don't see any problem with their approach. This in their minds was a situation which had to be confronted directly and neutralized because it could have been dangerous not only for them but for civilians as well. If we want police to undertake the correct approach in every situation, officers need to be given accurate information including everything that was reported by the citizen who made the call.
Even assuming, however, that there was some negligence on the part of the police here, a criminal case has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although the grand jury was only looking for probable cause, they had to consider whether the case had a reasonable chance of success at trial. Given what the officers knew going in and the fact that the toy gun didn't have the identifying orange cap, there is reasonable doubt here and because of that a trial would have been a waste of tax payer money.
Haven't watched the video because I don't like to see innocent people killed, but it's widely reported that the gap was less than two seconds. Not much use yelling anything if the bullets get there before the sound.The officers claimed that they shouted multiple times imploring the kid to drop the gun before firing. Even if that isn't true, it's what they said and I don't know of any conflicting evidence before the grand jury.
The time before firing hardly allowed the kid to process what had been demanded, much less comply. Since he had only a toy gun modified to look more real, the only reason he could possibly have been "going for his gun" would have been to hurriedly drop it. Sure, he reacted stupidly - he was twelve! Had the police responded intelligently, likely he would still be alive.are we going to go through this shit again?
the lack of indictment was the correct choice.
Regardless of what Victorian "I'm a troll" Gray has to say, when a cop tells you to raise your hands, don't go for your gun instead if you don't want to be shot.
it's really that simple.
many here can't seem to grasp the simple statement - do what the police tell you to do. Or in other words cooperate with the officer(s).
Exactly. When there are shots being fired, take down the perp as quickly as possible. Otherwise, take a few minutes to try to avoid shooting, if only to avoid hitting others.When the "armed perp" is really just an innocent kid with a fake gun, which even the (presumably untrained) civilian even recognized it as probably fake, then he is just a member of the public. The cops are supposed to serve and protect the public which in this case includes the person they shot, so yes the kids life is more valuable then the cops who signed up to be in harms way.
Just like the guy that was shot in walmart for holding a BB gun that Walmart sold. Neither was even given a chance to comply before being shot to shit by the cops. I expect them to at least attempt to deescalate situations and not to kill innocent people or people that didn't otherwise have to die.
With that, I agree. While they may not have broken any laws per se, they certainly seem ill-suited to be cops. I can accept that they may have roared right up to the kid by accident, but it's still a car, not a freakin' space shuttle that needs an overhaul before it can be reused. Just say "oh shit" and back it up. Assuming the suspect IS a shooter, that would be smarter and safer anyway considering that the cops have access to a shotgun and/or rifle.Did you listen to the dispatch call? Black male sitting on the swings who keeps pulling a gun out of his pants and pointing at people. The cop asks how many people have called about it, the dispatcher says, "just the one so far". Now why would a cop ask about how many calls the dispatcher has received? What immediate threat was reported to the cops?
These cops at the very least should have been fired for incompetence. Especially when one of them has a history of incompetence.
Yes, you were lucky. Not in that you were around "adults that would rather teach than kill", but lucky that you didn't end up in the situation in this case. The cops did not know it was a kid, nor did they know it was not a real gun. Those are two critical pieces of information. Had they know that, they might have very well have gone over and gone the "teaching" route you talked about.
The kid certainly didn't deserve to die in this case, but I've yet to see any evidence of intentional malfeasance on the cops part.
a grand jury in cuyahoga county decided not to bring criminal charges against the 2 officers involved in the tamir rice shooting
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/inde...e_decision_no_indictm.html#incart_maj-story-1
i'm glad i don't have to go into cleveland for another week
I think the principle behind the "practice" is that you don't let the obviously armed perp get a chance to get off a single shot at you when you and your fellow officer's lives are in imminent danger in the confrontation. It makes sense from a logical point of view.
Sort'a like "If I shoot first I'd probably be the last man standing."
Morally or ethically though, the waters get pretty muddy, especially from those who support the victims of such shootings.
edit - Then there's this idea where "is the armed perp's life more valuable than the officers who are attempting to detain him? Should the officers risk their lives above and beyond the call of duty to protect the general public from the armed individual?"