2 Outside Reviews Say Cleveland Officer Acted Reasonably in Shooting Tamir

[fromderinside]

But where are you going to find someone with the needed knowledge outside those areas?

Local psychology or sociology department.

 

[laughing dog]

All im going to say is that there is obviously something wrong when police guns down a kid with a toy gun, and its called 'reasonable' afterwards.

Do you two find it reasonable?

Did you read the article? The cop had no way of knowing it was a toy. There was nothing to indicate even a high likelihood if it being a toy. Therefore, the presumption that it was not a toy is reasonable given the potentially deadly nature of being wrong about that.

Furthermore, per the reports, the cop was most likely focused on his hands and therefore didn't have an opportunity to evaluate his age.

And a Cleveland judge said the cops should be prosecuted. The boy did not have a gun in his hand. The cops yelled at him to drop the gun when he did not have a gun in his hand. They did not give him a chance to drop the gun (i.e. get the gun and drop it). They shot him dead.

It is a tragedy that Tamir Rice is dead. It is a tragedy that so many people are vested in defending two police officers who massively fucked up and killed someone who did not pose a real threat to anyone.

 

[Axulus]

Just what are police protocols in such situations? Surely its not to jump out of your car and shoot the kid.. Seems there needs to be some place where the cop says '"Hey what's in his hand might be a gun. Let's stay inside the relative safety of the car and determine that."

That is reasonable.

Apparently being the cowboy, riding up on the scene, pulling his gun, and shooting anything in front of him, then saying to the empty park "Now its safe King. This case is closed" is protocol?

That is unreasonable.

If someone is waving a gun around, after you have received gun threat call, the first thought for a cop is "he might be trying to shoot someone". Instinct and training take over at that point. Cops are trained to stop the threat ASAP.

 

[Toni]

Just what are police protocols in such situations? Surely its not to jump out of your car and shoot the kid.. Seems there needs to be some place where the cop says '"Hey what's in his hand might be a gun. Let's stay inside the relative safety of the car and determine that."

That is reasonable.

Apparently being the cowboy, riding up on the scene, pulling his gun, and shooting anything in front of him, then saying to the empty park "Now its safe King. This case is closed" is protocol?

That is unreasonable.

If someone is waving a gun around, after you have received gun threat call, the first thought for a cop is "he might be trying to shoot someone". Instinct and training take over at that point. Cops are trained to stop the threat ASAP.

Which does not apply to the case of Tamir Rice, who was identified by the caller as a kid and the 'gun' as a toy. There were no reports of shots fired or of threats to shoot. The toy gun was not being brandished about when the police sped up to this kid and shot him dead without even bothering to stop their vehicle, identify that they were shooting the 'correct' person, or whether there was any threat at all.

They just killed him.

 

[Axulus]

If someone is waving a gun around, after you have received gun threat call, the first thought for a cop is "he might be trying to shoot someone". Instinct and training take over at that point. Cops are trained to stop the threat ASAP.

Which does not apply to the case of Tamir Rice, who was identified by the caller as a kid and the 'gun' as a toy. There were no reports of shots fired or of threats to shoot. The toy gun was not being brandished about when the police sped up to this kid and shot him dead without even bothering to stop their vehicle, identify that they were shooting the 'correct' person, or whether there was any threat at all.

They just killed him.

Did you read the article? The police where only told a "guy" was "pointing a gun at people". The failure to relay accurate info about the situation isn't the shooter's fault.

When the cops got to the scene, they were focused on the hands and saw actions that were reasonably determined to be a threat, per the reports.

 

[Toni]

Which does not apply to the case of Tamir Rice, who was identified by the caller as a kid and the 'gun' as a toy. There were no reports of shots fired or of threats to shoot. The toy gun was not being brandished about when the police sped up to this kid and shot him dead without even bothering to stop their vehicle, identify that they were shooting the 'correct' person, or whether there was any threat at all.

They just killed him.

Did you read the article? The police where only told a "guy" was "waving a gun around". The failure to relay accurate info about the situation isn't the shooter's fault.

It sure wasn't the victim's fault, either.

The FACT is that Tamir Rice was simply playing on the playground, where he played frequently. He was not 'waving a gun around' when the police pulled up on him and murdered him. Or any other time, as a matter of fact.

They did not even bother to identify if this person was the one described to them by dispatch. They just killed him. He had zero chance to identify himself, to prove that he was no threat. They just killed him.

 

[Axulus]

Did you read the article? The police where only told a "guy" was "waving a gun around". The failure to relay accurate info about the situation isn't the shooter's fault.

It sure wasn't the victim's fault, either.

The FACT is that Tamir Rice was simply playing on the playground, where he played frequently. He was not 'waving a gun around' when the police pulled up on him and murdered him. Or any other time, as a matter of fact.

They did not even bother to identify if this person was the one described to them by dispatch. They just killed him. He had zero chance to identify himself, to prove that he was no threat. They just killed him.

No one is saying he deserved to be shot and die. Kids do dumb things. Stupidity is not a crime. What is being said is that the police actions were not unreasonable given the circumstances. The report determined that, based on the incomplete info the police had, and given the focus on the hands, whose movement was reasonably assessed to be a threat due to the presence of the gun, the shooting was reasonable, within the bounds of standard protocal.

You don't dawdle around and stand there and contemplate things when you think a person is reaching for a gun and may intend to shoot you. That goes against all training and instinct and is therefore not reasonable to expect.

 

[fromderinside]

Just what are police protocols in such situations? Surely its not to jump out of your car and shoot the kid.. Seems there needs to be some place where the cop says '"Hey what's in his hand might be a gun. Let's stay inside the relative safety of the car and determine that."

That is reasonable.

Apparently being the cowboy, riding up on the scene, pulling his gun, and shooting anything in front of him, then saying to the empty park "Now its safe King. This case is closed" is protocol?

That is unreasonable.

If someone is waving a gun around, after you have received gun threat call, the first thought for a cop is "he might be trying to shoot someone". Instinct and training take over at that point. Cops are trained to stop the threat ASAP.

You are hard over on your position.

What you wrote is not a protocol it is goal for which there are specific protocols. Jumping out of one's car, putting oneself in danger, is not one of them.

What are protocols? At the very least they are to verify a situation. Getting out of the car, if there is a gun threat, makes the officer target. If the officer opens the door protecting himself he can survey the actual situation. This is protocol.

He didn't follow protocol he wanted to be John Wayne so he came out gun a blazing.

Reasonable is not a defense if he doesn't even try to follow procedure.

The only stupidity here is that of the cop. Kids are kids. They play. We, even cops, expect them to play in the park.

Stupid didn't do that. He just saw a target and shot.

If the cop were a kid we might give him some slack. He's supposed to be a trained professional who knows how to properly act in such situations. He obviously didn't.

Given that he exposed himself it is reasonable that he shot the kid with the toy. The ting is he should never have exposed himself. He should have confirmed the situation.

He did neither. He got an adrenaline rush and killed a kid acting like a kid himself.

 

[Axulus]

People seem stuck on the idea that if the cops didn't act unreasonably, then that must mean Tamir is to blame.

This is false. Think of an analogy. A little kid runs out in the middle of the street right into an oncoming car and gets hit and dies. In reviewing the situation, it was determined that it was possible the kid would've lived had the driver's reaction was just .3 seconds faster, a reaction time which some people hold. However, his actual reaction time was still within reason, and therefore the driver isn't charged with any crime.

Would you blame the kid for getting killed here?

 

[Axulus]

If someone is waving a gun around, after you have received gun threat call, the first thought for a cop is "he might be trying to shoot someone". Instinct and training take over at that point. Cops are trained to stop the threat ASAP.

You are hard over on your position.

What you wrote is not a protocol it is goal for which there are specific protocols. Jumping out of one's car, putting oneself in danger, is not one of them.

What are protocols? At the very least they are to verify a situation. Getting out of the car, if there is a gun threat, makes the officer target. If the officer opens the door protecting himself he can survey the actual situation. This is protocol.

He didn't follow protocol he wanted to be John Wayne so he came out gun a blazing.

Reasonable is not a defense if he doesn't even try to follow procedure.

You have a link from a relevant expert on the topic that standard protocol was not followed, or are you just opining your own opinion on what you think the protocol should be?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the shooting is fine, but nothing about not tending to the shot man and detaining his sister while he laid there dying? The way I see it, the teen fucked up and is dead for that. The cops made mistakes (not past a legal threshold) and there is seemingly nothing to be done about it.

This is going to basically be about whether they should have set up a perimeter instead of driving up very fast, stopping on a dime and shooting right away. I say the former would have been better and possible.

I agree it couldn've been handled better.

Interesting statement seeing it almost couldn't have been handled any worse.

But the ability to have handled it better is not the threshold for reasonableness and guilt.

It should most definitely be the threshold that gets changes made in Police policies.

 

[Toni]

It sure wasn't the victim's fault, either.

The FACT is that Tamir Rice was simply playing on the playground, where he played frequently. He was not 'waving a gun around' when the police pulled up on him and murdered him. Or any other time, as a matter of fact.

They did not even bother to identify if this person was the one described to them by dispatch. They just killed him. He had zero chance to identify himself, to prove that he was no threat. They just killed him.

No one is saying he deserved to be shot and die. Kids do dumb things. Stupidity is not a crime. What is being said is that the police actions were not unreasonable given the circumstances. The report determined that, based on the incomplete info the police had, and given the focus on the hands, whose movement was reasonably assessed to be a threat due to the presence of the gun, the shooting was reasonable, within the bounds of standard protocal.

You don't dawdle around and stand there and contemplate things when you think a person is reaching for a gun and may intend to shoot you. That goes against all training and instinct and is therefore not reasonable to expect.

How can you possibly blame Tamir Rice for what happened? And please don't claim that you are not: You point out that 'Kids do dumb things.'

What I am saying is that the police actions WERE unreasonable in those circumstances: There was no active shooter, no reports of anyone firing any kind of weapon, no threatening behavior on the part of Tamir Rice. Those are all damning enough.

The fact is that the police did nothing to determine that they were pulling up on the right person. Not. A. Damn. Thing. to identify Tamir as the individual described in the call from dispatch. They shot someone based on a pretty vague description. This someone was an unarmed child.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Which does not apply to the case of Tamir Rice, who was identified by the caller as a kid and the 'gun' as a toy. There were no reports of shots fired or of threats to shoot. The toy gun was not being brandished about when the police sped up to this kid and shot him dead without even bothering to stop their vehicle, identify that they were shooting the 'correct' person, or whether there was any threat at all.

They just killed him.

Did you read the article? The police where only told a "guy" was "pointing a gun at people". The failure to relay accurate info about the situation isn't the shooter's fault.

When the cops got to the scene, they were focused on the hands and saw actions that were reasonably determined to be a threat, per the reports.

So the police had bad information, they saw actions, they shot an innocent kid.

If he were your kid, would that be enough for you?

Just wondering.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

People seem stuck on the idea that if the cops didn't act unreasonably, then that must mean Tamir is to blame.

This is false. Think of an analogy. A little kid runs out in the middle of the street right into an oncoming car and gets hit and dies. In reviewing the situation, it was determined that it was possible the kid would've lived had the driver's reaction was just .3 seconds faster, a reaction time which some people hold. However, his actual reaction time was still within reason, and therefore the driver isn't charged with any crime.

Would you blame the kid for getting killed here?

In your analogy, you have not said one thing that the kid did to contribute to his getting hit.

The whole story of Tamir, from the beginning has been that he had a gun, that he pointed a gun, that he took the orange tip off of the gun, and he didn't respond correctly to the police.

Your analogy fails

 

[untermensche]

Just what are police protocols in such situations? Surely its not to jump out of your car and shoot the kid.. Seems there needs to be some place where the cop says '"Hey what's in his hand might be a gun. Let's stay inside the relative safety of the car and determine that."

That is reasonable.

Apparently being the cowboy, riding up on the scene, pulling his gun, and shooting anything in front of him, then saying to the empty park "Now its safe King. This case is closed" is protocol?

That is unreasonable.

If someone is waving a gun around, after you have received gun threat call, the first thought for a cop is "he might be trying to shoot someone". Instinct and training take over at that point. Cops are trained to stop the threat ASAP.

If they are then they are poorly trained.

What a reasonable person would want is to try to prevent as much harm as possible.

If that were some crazed middle-aged white woman wielding a gun I suspect the cops would have tried to communicate with her before they shot her dead.

 

[Nexus]

If someone is waving a gun around, after you have received gun threat call, the first thought for a cop is "he might be trying to shoot someone". Instinct and training take over at that point.

That sounds like terrible training and instincts. If you're responding to a call that someone is waving a gun around and they haven't shot anyone by the time you drive there it's obvious they aren't trying to shoot anyone because they would have done so already before you could arrive. The worst case scenario you're facing at that point is a mentally ill person waving a gun around for some bizarre reason perhaps a suicide by cop.

The only time cops should go in guns ablazing is when their is a confirmed shooter with causalities.

 

[maxparrish]

If someone is waving a gun around, after you have received gun threat call, the first thought for a cop is "he might be trying to shoot someone". Instinct and training take over at that point.

That sounds like terrible training and instincts. If you're responding to a call that someone is waving a gun around and they haven't shot anyone by the time you drive there it's obvious they aren't trying to shoot anyone because they would have done so already before you could arrive. The worst case scenario you're facing at that point is a mentally ill person waving a gun around for some bizarre reason perhaps a suicide by cop.

The only time cops should go in guns ablazing is when their is a confirmed shooter with causalities.

You mean police should wait until they are shot, and if the officer lives to fire back only then is it okay?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It sure wasn't the victim's fault, either.

The FACT is that Tamir Rice was simply playing on the playground, where he played frequently. He was not 'waving a gun around' when the police pulled up on him and murdered him. Or any other time, as a matter of fact.

They did not even bother to identify if this person was the one described to them by dispatch. They just killed him. He had zero chance to identify himself, to prove that he was no threat. They just killed him.

No one is saying he deserved to be shot and die. Kids do dumb things. Stupidity is not a crime. What is being said is that the police actions were not unreasonable given the circumstances. The report determined that, based on the incomplete info the police had, and given the focus on the hands, whose movement was reasonably assessed to be a threat due to the presence of the gun, the shooting was reasonable, within the bounds of standard protocal.

You don't dawdle around and stand there and contemplate things when you think a person is reaching for a gun and may intend to shoot you. That goes against all training and instinct and is therefore not reasonable to expect.

But neither you nor anyone else has stated what would have been "unreasonable." If you shoot a 12 year old dead and that is reasonable, then you must be weighing those actions against some other standard. What?

And we're not talking about some kid running out in front of a car. For Christ fucking sake, no one sees a kid and hits a kid. You don't blame a driver unless the driver was speeding down an alley or going too fast for conditions.

You still haven't stated what would have been an unreasonable action on the officer's part, proof that these "outside" opinions are just cover for the officers. Fucking recuse yourself if you have a conflict of interest.

 

[laughing dog]

That sounds like terrible training and instincts. If you're responding to a call that someone is waving a gun around and they haven't shot anyone by the time you drive there it's obvious they aren't trying to shoot anyone because they would have done so already before you could arrive. The worst case scenario you're facing at that point is a mentally ill person waving a gun around for some bizarre reason perhaps a suicide by cop.

The only time cops should go in guns ablazing is when their is a confirmed shooter with causalities.

You mean police should wait until they are shot, and if the officer lives to fire back only then is it okay?

That would be okay. But one could wait until there was actually something in the victim's hand that resembled a weapon before firing. Or one could not scream at someone to drop something that is not in their hands and then immediately fire when they try to comply.

How about "Please slowly put your hands in the air" ? Really, is it that difficult to think of ways to not have to shoot someone who is literally empty handed?

 

[Toni]

That sounds like terrible training and instincts. If you're responding to a call that someone is waving a gun around and they haven't shot anyone by the time you drive there it's obvious they aren't trying to shoot anyone because they would have done so already before you could arrive. The worst case scenario you're facing at that point is a mentally ill person waving a gun around for some bizarre reason perhaps a suicide by cop.

The only time cops should go in guns ablazing is when their is a confirmed shooter with causalities.

You mean police should wait until they are shot, and if the officer lives to fire back only then is it okay?

Seems to me that officers should not fire until they've determined there is imminent danger to the safety of themselves or of others.

It would also help if they were able to determine whether they were shooting the right person.