2 Outside Reviews Say Cleveland Officer Acted Reasonably in Shooting Tamir

[fromderinside]

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?

You shouldn't have asked because now I'm going to show you just how fragile is any position saying what police did in Cleveland is within protocol.

From Examining police training: How officers are taught to deal with armed suspects http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/how_police_are_trained_to_deal.html:

When approaching someone who's either holding a gun or indicating that they have one, police are trained to first take cover at a safe distance and create a barrier between themselves and the other person. This usually means ducking behind the police cruiser or a building. Next, officers should draw their weapons and command the suspect to drop their gun and get on the ground. The dialogue that happens between an officer and the suspect is what some experts call the most important aspect of police work. If the suspect complies, one officer should then search the suspect for any additional weapons while the other officer still has his or her gun drawn. If a concealed weapon is found, officers should place cuffs on the suspect.

Please notice the steps. Before the procedures listed the article directly criticizes what the cops did:

Experts said the way the officers approached Tamir by speeding the car up to him and stopping within feet of where the boy was standing was tactically unsound.

You might say the Cleveland officer was trying out Bush's "Shock and Awe approach" and we all saw how well that went.

Eyup what I wrote came from my own fertile little mind without a whiff of pot involved, but, with a sizable amount of reading, training, and experience, before you spouted that you thought I was just spouting off.

I wonder who is trying to clean his shorts now. Please, don't ever misjudge me on things like this. Doing so can come back on you like a truckload of pig shit.

 

[Axulus]

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.

It's not hard to imagine how it could've been unreasonable and therefore criminal, you make it seem like an impossible task. Here are five scenarios off the top of my head:

-The gun has an orange tip or is otherwise some neon color indicitive of a toy and he is still shot anyway

-He freezes and puts hands up in the air after receiving the command three times as the car was approaching and the officer shoots him anyway.

-He runs away when he hears the officer command or sees the police vehicle and is shot in the back

-His hands never reach for the toy gun at any point during the encounter with the officers and he is shot anyway

-The officers involved receive the information that the gun is "probably fake" and that Tamir is "probably a juvenile", and they still shoot him within a few seconds after exiting the vehicle anyway.

 

[Axulus]

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?

The officer gave the "hands up in the air" command three times while the vehicle was approaching, by shouting out the window. There was way more than just a few seconds to comply when you add in all the time it took for the vehicle to approach from the moment of the very first command. It was only after the officer exited the vehicle that the shooting occurred immediately upon assessing a threat to grab the gun in his waistband (which the officer had just before seen him grab from a table he was right next to and then stuff in his waistband), which the investigative reports have deemed a reasonable threat assessment given the info the cops had to work with about the situation at the time.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

The officer gave the "hands up in the air" command three times while the vehicle was approaching, by shouting out the window. There was way more than just a few seconds to comply when you add in all the time it took for the vehicle to approach from the moment of the very first command.

Assuming you heard it, and understood it was aimed at you. And that assumes your rendition is accurate.

It was only after the officer exited the vehicle that the shooting occurred immediately upon assessing a threat to grab the gun in his waistband (which the officer had just before seen him grab from a table he was right next to and then stuff in his waistband), which the investigative reports have deemed a reasonable threat assessment given the info the cops had to work with about the situation at the time.

The kid had nothing in his hand. Nothing. I repeat, nothing. An unarmed kid is dead because the police screwed up.

 

[Axulus]

The officer gave the "hands up in the air" command three times while the vehicle was approaching, by shouting out the window. There was way more than just a few seconds to comply when you add in all the time it took for the vehicle to approach from the moment of the very first command.

Assuming you heard it, and understood it was aimed at you. And that assumes your rendition is accurate.

It was only after the officer exited the vehicle that the shooting occurred immediately upon assessing a threat to grab the gun in his waistband (which the officer had just before seen him grab from a table he was right next to and then stuff in his waistband), which the investigative reports have deemed a reasonable threat assessment given the info the cops had to work with about the situation at the time.

The kid had nothing in his hand. Nothing. I repeat, nothing. An unarmed kid is dead because the police screwed up.

Did he or did he not have the toy gun in his waistband?

Did he or did he not reach for it or at least appear to reach for it in his waistband after the officers arrived seconds before he was shot?

If no to either of those two questions, then I would agree that the shooting is unreasonable and the officer should be charged and convicted. If yes to both, then I defer to the expertise of the two reports presented in the OP article in concluding that the shooting was reasonable.

 

[laughing dog]

Assuming you heard it, and understood it was aimed at you. And that assumes your rendition is accurate.

It was only after the officer exited the vehicle that the shooting occurred immediately upon assessing a threat to grab the gun in his waistband (which the officer had just before seen him grab from a table he was right next to and then stuff in his waistband), which the investigative reports have deemed a reasonable threat assessment given the info the cops had to work with about the situation at the time.

The kid had nothing in his hand. Nothing. I repeat, nothing. An unarmed kid is dead because the police screwed up.

Did he or did he not have the toy gun in his waistband?

Yes. He had nothing in his hand.

Did he or did he not reach for it or at least appear to reach for it in his waistband after the officers arrived seconds before he was shot?

Yes. And he had nothing in his hand after he was shot.

If no to either of those two questions, then I would agree that the shooting is unreasonable and the officer should be charged and convicted. If yes to both, then I defer to the expertise of the two reports presented in the OP article in concluding that the shooting was reasonable.

Why not defer to the expertise of the Cleveland judge who thought charges should be brought? Hmmmm.

BTW, how is it possible for anyone to put their empty hands up (as the police claim they yelled at Tamir Rice to do) and then drop a weapon (which the police then yelled at him to do)?

 

[Rhea]

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.

Yes, exactly. They should have followed protocol and NOT driven up fast to within feet of the boy and then shot him dead in seconds. That was certainly possibly and infinitely better.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Local psychology or sociology department.

What do those domains have to do with use of force decisions?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

He wasn't waving it around. He appeared to go for it when confronted by the cop.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I would teach my kids not to play with realistic replica guns in the first place.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Then you would have a society with no cops. No cop would work under such a ROE.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

I would teach my kids not to play with realistic replica guns in the first place.

spoken like a person with no kids

 

[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.

He wasn't waving it around. He appeared to go for it when confronted by the cop.

My mistake. The claim is that they knew he had it in his waistband and he appeared to be grabbing it. He was waving it around when the call to the police came in.

 

[Toni]

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?

The officer gave the "hands up in the air" command three times while the vehicle was approaching, by shouting out the window. There was way more than just a few seconds to comply when you add in all the time it took for the vehicle to approach from the moment of the very first command. It was only after the officer exited the vehicle that the shooting occurred immediately upon assessing a threat to grab the gun in his waistband (which the officer had just before seen him grab from a table he was right next to and then stuff in his waistband), which the investigative reports have deemed a reasonable threat assessment given the info the cops had to work with about the situation at the time.

Have you watched the videos? I have. Multiple times. Here's the link:

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=tamir+rice+video&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002

It was not 'way more than a few seconds.' It wasn't. The time frame is running along with the video. The kid is sitting at a table, then he is in front of the police car at 4:27. At 4:28, you see a flash, from the officer's firearm.


Imagine you are a kid, playing on a playground. You are doing nothing wrong, you are breaking no laws, you are doing nothing that is inherently dangerous.

A police car roars up, with officers shouting orders at you. How long before you comprehend that they think YOU are a threat? How long does it take you to respond? Really. How long? How many times have you had a police car roar up to you, screaming at you, guns drawn? How old were you? How fast did you comply with whatever was being shouted at you?

 

[Will Wiley]

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.

Then you would have a society with no cops. No cop would work under such a ROE.

Lot's of cops in lots of countries don't act like that. It's time to stop apologising for the cops who should be doing some other job.

At the very least someone with some sense should be saying to those cops..."you know what?...you are not cut out for this job..goodbye"

Instead we have morons telling them they did the right thing.

No one else was in the fucking playground. No one was in any danger.

 

[Will Wiley]

He wasn't waving it around. He appeared to go for it when confronted by the cop.

My mistake. The claim is that they knew he had it in his waistband and he appeared to be grabbing it. He was waving it around when the call to the police came in.

Why do you hate America?

 

[untermensche]

The cops drove right up to the kid.

They put themselves in a place deliberately where they had to act quickly.

How about this one.

The cops stop a little further away and try to talk to the kid first.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The cops drove right up to the kid.

They put themselves in a place deliberately where they had to act quickly.

How about this one.

The cops stop a little further away and try to talk to the kid first.

Those are the kinds of questions that get asked at a trial. What you are seeing happening is attempts to keep this incident from going to trial. You're seeing the smokescreen, the attempt to make it look like the cops were just doing their jobs and that they were not the bad guys or the guys that just fucked up here. Trust me, I've been there and I've seen this before.

If this goes to trial the cops are fucked and they know it.

 

[Frikki]

ITT Libertarians that think government agents should have great latitude when it comes to killing people.

 

[Frikki]

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.

Then you would have a society with no cops. No cop would work under such a ROE.

Oh? How do you know? Do you work in policing, do you have any experience with policing? I thought not, if I remember correctly you are a IT guy.

I regularly send police out to calls with suspected weapons and they manage to not kill people, might be because the see what is going on first before they shoot. Hell usually they go without being armed.