Butcher of Bankhead

Cops Senselessly Kill Another American Citizen

2,736 posts in this topic

How much time would be acceptably required for an officer to wait before firing? Do you think had he waited several seconds more he would have then been able to distinguish the 45 from the bb gun?

This **** is not as easy as many Monday morning QBs make it out to be. You see a gun, you protect yourself. There is no real time to think it out, if you're very lucky, you may have just enough time to react.

This was a tragedy on every front, what it was not is murder.

Or, you know, you see something that looks like a gun, you protect yourself. You hear that someone's got a gun, you drive right up next to him and defend yourself before the situation escalates. Really it's irresponsible for the police to not shoot anyone they have any reason to suspect is about to arm themselves. Discretion is an ideal best left to the prosecutor, especially if it's a cop that ends up on trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's astounding to me that despite entrusting police with so much power, we don't hold them to a higher standard than the rest of us. For all intents and purposes, they're held to a much lesser standard. And just as astounding that this lesser standard is routinely supported by people who otherwise rail against government power and overreach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You people trying to convict these cops have no idea how tough their job is. This kid pulled a weapon, and you are an idiot if you think you wouldn't have fired as well. The media is trying to divide us and the left licks it up as viciously as ever. Disgraceful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You people trying to convict these cops have no idea how tough their job is. This kid pulled a weapon, and you are an idiot if you think you wouldn't have fired as well. The media is trying to divide us and the left licks it up as viciously as ever. Disgraceful.

A cop pulls up on a kid and shoots him at point blank range in less than a second, and this is what you're upset about snak?

As usual, Republicans simply do not care about dead children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio is an open carry state, is it not? And the police said that they thought Tamir Rice was an adult when they arrived on the scene.

If that's the case, what was he doing that warranted any police involvement?

If the cops can shoot you for having a gun, then doesn't that mean they can shoot anyone who's holding a gun legally in an open carry state?

mfaulk57158 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cop pulls up on a kid and shoots him at point blank range in less than a second, and this is what you're upset about snak?

As usual, Republicans simply do not care about dead children.

Snak? Ok, what ever you say. The kid pulled a gun on cops. Game over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snak? Ok, what ever you say. The kid pulled a gun on cops. Game over.

So I take it we should shoot any and all people who have guns out when the cops come around?

I always found those open carry nuts who walk around with rifles annoying, but I never wanted to shoot them on sight. That's pretty harsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio is an open carry state, is it not? And the police said that they thought Tamir Rice was an adult when they arrived on the scene.

If that's the case, what was he doing that warranted any police involvement?

If the cops can shoot you for having a gun, then doesn't that mean they can shoot anyone who's holding a gun legally in an open carry state?

This has yet to be answered. The truth is that a black man who may have a gun is a danger to society and should be shot onsite no matter where in America. Although the prior statement will never be acknowledged it is clearly evident in the thinking that Bob and others like possess. "The cops have to defend themselves".............But from fuccin what? How is it legal to just roll up on someone and blast them because you think they have a gun?

Edited by mfaulk57158
Bunchy Carter likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio is an open carry state, is it not? And the police said that they thought Tamir Rice was an adult when they arrived on the scene.

If that's the case, what was he doing that warranted any police involvement?

If the cops can shoot you for having a gun, then doesn't that mean they can shoot anyone who's holding a gun legally in an open carry state?

From my understanding, the cops say Rice made a move toward his play gun. While I disagree with that assessment based in the footage that I've seen, they may have some better footage. Even in an open carry state, that isn't going to be tolerated by police. No cop is going to tolerate a sudden movement of a firearm, period.

There are ways to safely carry a firearm that don't include gripping that firearm in your hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding, the cops say Rice made a move toward his play gun. While I disagree with that assessment based in the footage that I've seen, they may have some better footage. Even in an open carry state, that isn't going to be tolerated by police. No cop is going to tolerate a sudden movement of a firearm, period.

There are ways to safely carry a firearm that don't include gripping that firearm in your hand.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/11/prosecutor_releases_enhanced_s.html

For better quality images of the entire sequence, you can enlarge the photos in this pdf. See 120-124 for the shooting

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2623185/2015-11-28-tr-video-ehancement-forensic-video.pdf

19291209-mmmain.png

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Enhanced surveillance images of the Tamir Rice shooting offer a closer look at what appears to be the boy walking toward a Cleveland police cruiser, reaching for his waist and lifting his arm and shoulder in the split-second before a police officer shot him.

The images are among 326 released Saturday night by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty that offer frame-by-frame analysis of what two surveillance cameras captured during the Nov. 22, 2014 shooting outside the Cudell Recreation Center.

The images released Saturday were enhanced by Grant Fredericks of Forensic Video Solutions in Spokane, Washington. Fredericks used metadata from the surveillance video to establish the timeline of events leading to Tamir's shooting. (See the images in the document viewer below.)

Fredericks is a contract instructor at the FBI National Academy and is "one of the most experienced video experts in North America," according to the company's website.

Text overlays detail what is seen in certain images.

In one frame, Tamir, who had a plastic replica gun tucked into his waistband, stands up from a bench under the recreation center's gazebo as a police cruiser drives toward him.

It is unclear if he sees the cruiser, which would come to a stop in front of him about 10 seconds later.

About four seconds after standing up, Tamir puts his hands together in front of his stomach. In the next second, Tamir walks toward the police cruiser as it reaches the gazebo.

As the nose of the cruiser moves past Tamir, the boy moves his right arm toward his waist.

In the next frame, Tamir walks toward the moving cruiser and continues moving his right arm toward his waist. The cruiser's passenger door opens.

The next frame shows Tamir lift his right shoulder and arm. The cruiser remains in motion as officer Timothy Loehmann springs from the passenger seat.

A frame later, Loehmann shoots Tamir.

The images appear to support arguments made in a trio of expert reports made public by the prosecutor's office beginning in October. In each report, the experts determined that it was reasonable for Loehmann to believe that Tamir was armed with a gun, despite the fact that the initial 911 caller said that the boy was likely a juvenile and that the gun he had was "probably fake."

That information was never relayed to the responding officers.

"This decision, in my opinion, was clearly objectively reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances," certified Florida law enforcement officer, instructor and consultant W. Ken Katsaris wrote in his analysis released last month.

Subodh Chandra, one of a team of attorneys representing Samaria Rice, Tamir's mother, in a pending civil lawsuit against the city of Cleveland and the officers involved in the shooting, released a statement saying the release proves that Tamir was not reaching into his waistband.

"The video continues to reveal police officers rushing upon 12-year-old Tamir without assessing the situation, and officer Loehmann fatally shooting the child immediately," Chandra said. "And the officers fail to administer first aid to the boy while he lay bleeding and dying on the ground."

Chandra also criticized McGinty for giving the video to media outlets.

"The frames contain editorial comments that attempt to make excuses for the officers," Chandra wrote. "Tamir, for example, may be lifting his arm in shocked reaction to being shot. The effort to characterize the evidence is hardly fair play and is one of many reasons the Rice family and clergy throughout Cleveland lack confidence in the prosecutor's fairness in this matter."

The grand jury began hearing evidence in the case in October. Tamir's family, their lawyers, local clergy and activists from around the country have demanded McGinty remove himself from the case.

They have accused him of dragging his feet and working to exonerate the police officers involved in the shooting.

McGinty drew criticism after a statement made to a TV report last month where he said that attorneys for Tamir's family members have "economic motives" in calling for his removal.

McGinty has refused to step down.

He has taken flak for releasing reports from hired experts who concluded that the officers involved in the shooting acted reasonably.

It's been more than a year since Tamir's death. His case is one of dozens of police shootings that has drawn international attention since the August 2014 fatal shooting of Michael Brown by a suburban St. Louis police officer. Officers in Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati and North Charleston, South Carolina have been indicted.

The response in communities has varied. Protests turned to riots in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore. Demonstrators marched through Chicago streets earlier this week, outraged by a year-old video that shows a police officer shoot 17-year-old Laquan McDonald 16 times.

Scenes from Chicago mirror the mostly calm protests in Cleveland where demonstrators blocked traffic along the Shoreway and tried to disrupt Black Friday shoppers at the Steelyard Commons.

Jimsmusic™ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has yet to be answered. The truth is that a black man who may have a gun is a danger to society and should be shot onsite no matter where in America. Although the prior statement will never be acknowledged it is clearly evident in the thinking that Bob and others like possess. "The cops have to defend themselves".............But from fuccin what? How is it legal to just roll up on someone and blast them because you think they have a gun?

Naw, that statement and the one you make here have been acknowledged and can be acknowledged again with one word: bull****.

A person of any race, gender, or age who REACHES FOR OR POINTS a gun at another without justification is a danger to society.

Everyone; you, me, and even a police officer has the right to defend ourselves should we believe our lives are in danger and that danger can be evidenced. As in this case.

It's horrible what happened to this child, but the officer saw him reaching for a weapon in his waistband and BELIEVED his life was in danger. This is what is required to defend himself.

Do you think he (the officer) was lying? Did he know it was a bb gun? If so, what do you base those conclusions on?

Legally, it does not matter if I pull a toy laser gun on you. If it looks real enough that a jury (or grand jury) believes that you thought your life was in imminent danger, then you could justifiably kill me and you would\should walk for it. This is why I would not do such a thing unless I was defending my life or the life of someone else.

There are many morals to this story, but the main was is don't pull a gun (real or otherwise) on a police officer. He does not have time in that split second upon seeing a weapon to reason out if it might be a bb gun with the orange plastic tip pried off in order to just make it appear to be real. He will likely react in order to protect himself and be completely justified in doing so.

Blaming cops and racism when there is no evidence of it is a never ending and pointless cycle that will lead to more tragedies. A better lesson to teach would be don't point guns at anyone unless you are justifiably defending yourself. It is not a game in any way, shape, or form.

Everyone should mourn the tragedy of this, but also learn the lesson from it, and that lesson ain't about racism.

Jimsmusic™ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tamir Rice shooting is sad. But you cant wave a gun around. No matter if it's real or not. The police shooting in Chicago where a 19 year old was killed and a grandmother was accidentally killed in the sane shooting is sad too. Have to wait for more facts to come out. But he supposedly had a baseball bat. Why not use non lethals if this is true? And the grandmother gets killed too. Just too much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio is an open carry state, is it not? And the police said that they thought Tamir Rice was an adult when they arrived on the scene.

If that's the case, what was he doing that warranted any police involvement?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/29/police-officers-tamir-rice-shooting-reacted-to-what-they-were-told-lawyer-says

The man who called 911 told the call-taker that a “guy” was pulling a gun out of his waistband and was pointing it at people outside a city recreation center. But the caller also said it could be a juvenile and the gun might be a fake.

The call-taker did not relay that information to the dispatcher who sent Loehmann and Garmback to the recreation center.

Garmback, a veteran officer, knew the area around the recreation center could be a dangerous place where gang members gathered, his attorney said.

“It’s against this backdrop that he got this call,” Maloney said.

If the cops can shoot you for having a gun, then doesn't that mean they can shoot anyone who's holding a gun legally in an open carry state?

A cop can't shoot you for "having a gun" and in ALL instances other than firing that gun, it had better be holstered at all times, ESPECIALLY in the presence of a police officer. He is not going to talk to you if you are holding a gun, he will either make you holster it, put it away, or take it away. In the cases of those idiots who carry their assault rifles slung around their necks, at least point the weapon at the floor...actually, I'm not sure how they would handle those goofs, pointing the weapon at the floor does not seem good enough. I'll try to find the requirements later just because I'm curious.

In any event, an open\carry permit in no way entitles anyone to threaten an officer's life, which pointing a gun at him\her certainly would imply..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naw, that statement and the one you make here have been acknowledged and can be acknowledged again with one word: bull****.

A person of any race, gender, or age who REACHES FOR OR POINTS a gun at another without justification is a danger to society.

The problem is that when the person is black, police are far more likely to interpret any movement as "going for a gun." Likewise, they are far more likely, generally, to perceive a black male as an imminent threat of deadly force, as if all black men are willing and ready to kill at the drop of a hat.

Do you think he (the officer) was lying? Did he know it was a bb gun? If so, what do you base those conclusions on?

As to your first question, possibly. Or maybe, as noted above, it was just deeply ingrained ideas about the imminent threat of the black male, manifested through a brutally premature misreading of the situation.

As to your third question, the many many examples of police lying about black males "going for a gun," or of police acting far more aggressively toward black males than whites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice's family had analysis from 3 experts saying he wasn't reaching for the pellet gun.

On June 11 a Cleveland municipal court judge found that Rice's shooter "should be charged with several crimes, the most serious of them being murder but also including involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, negligent homicide and dereliction of duty." He also found probable cause to charge his partner with "negligent homicide and dereliction of duty." His opinion was forwarded to city prosecutors.

Cuyahoga County prosecutors said Tuesday that they told grand jurors that they doubted they could get a conviction in the case. The lead prosecutor stressed that the grand jury declining to indict the officers matched his own recommendation.

Tamir Rice Prosecutor Indicted Innocent Men, But Not Killer Cops

Tim McGinty never intended to prosecute the officers who killed Tamir Rice. Will that cost him his job?
The grand jury process didn't fail this time. It worked exactly how prosecutors wanted it to — that's the problem.

Ohio is an open carry state, is it not? And the police said that they thought Tamir Rice was an adult when they arrived on the scene.

If that's the case, what was he doing that warranted any police involvement?

If the cops can shoot you for having a gun, then doesn't that mean they can shoot anyone who's holding a gun legally in an open carry state?

You do not wanna be a black male in possession of a BB gun in Ohio.

Surveillance video from an Ohio Walmart shows that a man fatally shot 'on site' by police earlier this month had his back to officers and was talking on a cell phone while leaning on a MK-177 BB/pellet rifle.

Video Proves Cops Shot Guy in Walmart Immediately, For No Reason

  • Video shows Ohio detective accusing her of lying and threatening her with jail
  • Tasha Thomas only told of Crawford’s death after 90-minute interrogation

Shopper who called 911 on Ohio man during Walmart gun chaos changes story

Shopper Ronald Ritchie originally told police that John Crawford III was pointing a gun at children and adults when he picked the unloaded weapon off a shelf in Walmart, but now says "at no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody."

Walmart shooting: No indictments against officers in fatal shooting of John Crawford III

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that when the person is black, police are far more likely to interpret any movement as "going for a gun." Likewise, they are far more likely, generally, to perceive a black male as an imminent threat of deadly force, as if all black men are willing and ready to kill at the drop of a hat.

As to your first question, possibly. Or maybe, as noted above, it was just deeply ingrained ideas about the imminent threat of the black male, manifested through a brutally premature misreading of the situation.

As to your third question, the many many examples of police lying about black males "going for a gun," or of police acting far more aggressively toward black males than whites.

Please don't try to make this about race, Brock. rolleyes.gif

4KUeBgf.png

BrockSamson and Willy Mo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't try to make this about race, Brock. rolleyes.gif

4KUeBgf.png

priv·i·lege

ˈpriv(ə)lij/

noun

1.

a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

Here's the problem with "White Priviledge." Do-not-think-it-means.jpeg

It isn't priviledge. It's deprivation. To call it a privilege is to say that it's something we shouldn't be affording people, that we need to take it away. That's completely wrong. If the law says people are allowed to carry AK-47s into Walmart, then it isn't a priviledge that whites are afforded. It's the deprivation of a right that blacks aren't given.

And there is a huge difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/30/tamir-rices-family-should-sue-the-police-officers-who-shot-him/

Based on the facts about the Tamir Rice shooting in Cleveland, here is how the incident appears to this retired, 30-year police lieutenant from near San Antonio who has trained more than a thousand police officers: An individual is waving a gun at people in the park. The police drive up to within feet of the individual and park their car.

The man with the gun reaches into his waistband for the gun, despite police orders not to do so. The whole incident is over in moments, and we all know the outcome now that a Cleveland grand jury has decided not to indict the officer who shot Rice.

I have concluded that the officers’ fear was justified and their response was reasonable, at that moment. Yet I have a problem with the officers’ approach to the event. Before officers can hope to control a situation, they must first control themselves. That didn’t happen here.

Any minor change in the overall dynamic might have led to a different outcome. Time and distance should have given the officers an advantage, but because they drove to within feet of Rice they lost that advantage. Events leading to the shooting, meaning the way the officers approached the situation, virtually guaranteed a fatal result if anything went wrong—as it did.

Sue Cleveland and Its Negligent Officers

I now urge the family to sue the **** out of the City of Cleveland and the individual officers for causing Rice’s death. Yeah, I know I sound like a liberal, holding two mutually exclusive views simultaneously.

However, there are two standards to be considered in this case. One: did the officers violate Rice’s civil rights underU.S. Code Title 42 1983? They did not. The second is: did the officers violate an ordinary standard of care, and exhibit gross negligence in the performance of their duties, in the way they responded to the call? From where I stand they would need an extension ladder to climb out of the hole they dug just to reach gross negligence.

I am not an attorney, so I have no idea where Ohio law is on tort actions. In a similar Texas case, the district judge found for the plaintiff because the officer put himself in a situation where shooting was his only option.

What I am advocating is akin to a medical malpractice-style suit after a patient went in for a vasectomy and came out with a sex change. The two might have started in the same ball park, but the results are in no way comparable.

These had to be the two stupidest cops ever to **** between police shoes to respond to this call in the manner that they chose. The only way the passenger officer could have redeemed himself is if he immediately turned and shot the driver officer for putting him in that position. These idiots need to be fired, because they are too stupid to be allowed access to anything more lethal than a rubber ball.

Here’s What Those Officers Should Have Done

I have put the cart before the horse and offered my conclusions without demonstrating my work. Okay, let me back up.

The officers were dispatched to a man with a gun call at a city park. The caller indicated the belief that the gun may not have been real, but that was not relayed to the officers. Doesn’t matter. What does a “reasonable police officer” versus these brain-dead clowns know? (1) Approaching a guy with a gun in and of itself is not your happy place. (2) Given distance, a handgun has limited potential for accuracy. (3) The more separation between officers, the greater the chance that a rational gunman will decline the confrontation. (4) Time equals the ability to gain information. (5) Information is power. (6) Information flows both ways.

Accepting the preceding statements as reasonable, what does a reasonable police officer do? (1) Create distance between the suspected gunman and the officers. (2) Distance creates time to assess: Is this a man with a gun, or a child? (3) Distance allows officers to gain cover and concealment, which lessens the threat level and creates time. (4) Commands by police clarify to everybody involved the intent of the actors. (5) First impressions are either confirmed or denied. (6) If denied, a new round of assessment can begin.

Let’s Consider a Similar Occurrence

I found myself in a similar situation once on a Saturday night. I was flagged down and informed that a man was staggering down the street wielding a shotgun at 1:30 in the morning. The block was a location where we had arrested a man on two consecutive Saturdays as a drunk causing a disturbance.

The radio was so busy that I was unable to inform dispatch of the situation. I pulled into the block, still unable to inform dispatch. This is not the way to answer a “man with a gun” call, but it was the 1970s and my balls were made of brass and clanked when I walked. I popped my 870 shotgun out of the rack and started making my way to the house. As I did so, dispatch put out the man with a gun call.

When I tried to “buy the call,” my sergeant, who was riding in a two-man car, broadcast over my transmission and pulled up in front of the house. As he did so, the suspect stepped out of the shadows, ten feet from the patrol car. He did indeed have a shotgun. Fortunately, it was pointed skyward.

I racked my 870. For those who are uninitiated, there is no louder, more distinctive sound that can occur in the nighttime than the working of a Remington 870 pump-action shotgun. Once heard, that distinctive noise can never be anything but an 870. I yelled at him to “Drop the gun,” then to “Drop the ******* gun,” and he did not comply. Had I been concerned for my safety, I would have fired at that point, but since it was my sergeant I gave him a little extra time. My sergeant yelled at him to put the gun down and he did so.

This guy meant no harm to anybody. He had purchased a piece-of-**** J.C. Higgens single-shot shotgun in a bar for $35 and wanted to show it off to his cousins inside the house. He didn’t drop it because he didn’t want to mess up his new gun. The sergeant later said the only thing that kept him from coming out of the car shooting was the knowledge that I was there and had the guy covered.

In this instance, everybody screwed up to a certain degree. Nobody knew that I had responded to the call. Therefore, there was no opportunity to coordinate our response. The sergeant and his driver thought they were a block away when they parked in front of the house. On the plus side, I wasn’t threatened by the drunk with the shotgun. Had he lowered the gun in a threatening manner, I had more than enough time to shoot, and at that distance I wasn’t likely to miss. The drunk got his time. Time and permission to put the gun down was all he needed.

Well-Trained Officers Reduce the Need to Shoot

I have taught “officer survival” to thousands of police officers. One of the questions I put to officers who have shot at suspects is: “Take an inventory between those times when you have fired at suspects and those times when you could have fired at suspects and didn’t. What was different?”

You could almost see the light bulb pop on. Most officers who had been involved in shootings could recount a dozen instances where a shooting would have been justified, but they did not shoot. The answer was almost always the same: “I ran out of options,” “I had no choice,” “There was nothing else I could do.”

Applying proper tactics, personal discipline, and a basic knowledge of policing do not lead to a Tamir Rice confrontation. I would challenge any police officer with a lick of pride or integrity to contact the Cleveland Police Department and tell them that, in this instance, their officers have violated a standard of care and trust that is unacceptable to the profession. Make no mistake: This isn’t about toy guns, it is not about white cops shooting black suspects, and it isn’t even about justification.

Paul Battaglia is a retired police officer who lives near in San Antonio, Texas. As a police officer, he spent 15 years assigned to narcotics, with an additional three years as a police academy coordinator. He developed and delivered training in officer survival, tactical operations for narcotics enforcement, SWAT, and a variety of search and seizure and investigative topics. After that, he spent 12 years in patrol.
Flip Flop likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the given reason for why they drove right up to him? It seems like if you're worried about a guy with a gun that'd be about the worst possible plan for self-preservation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the given reason for why they drove right up to him? It seems like if you're worried about a guy with a gun that'd be about the worst possible plan for self-preservation.

I don't know, and I agree, not just for self preservation, but in order to protect any bystanders and hopefully to not have to kill the suspect should he try to point the gun at you.

The guy from the article described them pretty well:

These had to be the two stupidest cops ever to **** between police shoes to respond to this call in the manner that they chose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the story is the were calls coming in that there was a guy pulling a gun on people as they walk by. The cops arrive, he had the gun out and raises it. Had they not fired we might have been reading 1 cop dead and shooter gunned down after. But no one wold care because it was a cop and not jimmy John pointing guns at folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the story is the were calls coming in that there was a guy pulling a gun on people as they walk by. The cops arrive, he had the gun out and raises it. Had they not fired we might have been reading 1 cop dead and shooter gunned down after. But no one wold care because it was a cop and not jimmy John pointing guns at folks.

I feel like the typos contribute to the post, like an especially puerile YouTube comment.

Billy Ocean likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the typos contribute to the post, like an especially puerile YouTube comment.

I feel like you contrite to the post lIke a puerile YouTube commwnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now