Tamir Rice Video Released

orubiru

anncoates wrote: »

If we was, then I was. As were the overwhelming majority of people here.

He's a child.

Let's be honest here, WE live in a culture where guns are not readily available but people would still use weapons, knives etc.

Even at 5 years old almost all Irish kids understand the concept that knives or sticks or rocks can be used to do damage to other people.

At TWELVE years old pretty much ALL of us would understand that cutting about town waving a tree branch or a rock around is unacceptable and will get you in trouble. Never mind the bother you'd be in with a gun.

At five years old I understood the severity of what happened over Lockerbie and at twelve years old I can very distinctly remember reacting to the news of the school shootings in Dunblane.

To pretend that children don't understand what they are doing when they are doing something like waving a gun around in public doesn't really help the discussion.

Yes, the death of a child in this way is shocking. You have to remember though that the USA is a nation where shootings are common enough and the way that cops are likely to deal with a call regarding a gun is pretty much well known by everyone.

This child has grown up in that kind of culture. He would have been aware of it for a few years if he'd had a sheltered life. If this was a notoriously rough neighborhood then by 12 years old most kids would have a lot of knowledge of, or at least have ideas about, the dangers in their area.

We can't excuse the police for what they've done here but pretending that the kid was some sort of innocent victim here is such bullsh!t.

You can clearly see him brandishing the gun at of the video. So, somebody calls the cops and tells them about a guy running up and down the street waving a gun... in THAT culture... with their recent history... of course the police were gonna take him down.

The kid would have at least had some idea of the potential consequences.

Gyalist

looksee wrote: »

We do not know the back story here, but even the person talking seems to admit that something was going on. Why does the title assume he was 'innocent'? It seems to establish that not all police are trigger happy. Gyalist, what point are you making, what should the police officer have done in that situation?

It was a traffic stop.

The backstory complete with an interview of the guy in the video is here.

orubiru

anncoates wrote: »

Messing around with a toy gun was not beyond the bounds then, no. Or acting in a silly fashion.

Presumably he found it somewhere unless you think he's a hardened fagin type with an arsenal of replicas.

And no matter what he was doing, if you think that, essentially a summary execution, was acceptable, we have nothing to discuss.

It wasn't a "toy" gun.

If I said to you, OK, here is a replica gun, don't worry it doesn't fire bullets. Now, I will pay you 20 million dollars if you walk down a busy street in New York pointing this fake gun at people...

My guess is that you wouldn't take my money because you well know, as someone who doesn't even live in the USA, that the cops will probably take you out. Dead.

As sensible folks will tell you, the entire system over there regarding guns is broken. The officers were in the wrong but a pretty large chunk of the responsibility has to lie with the kid.

Lets say your neighbors 12 year old kid was goofing off with some fireworks and they set fire to your own child leaving them badly scarred for life. Would you reaction be "ach well he's only 12"? Or would you correctly understand that the kids know fully the dangers of fireworks? You'd blame the neighbors kid for what happened and get whatever legal advice you can to make sure that they are punished as much as the law will allow?

anncoates

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

This wasn't a toy gun.

It was an airsoft replica gun, with its orange muzzle painted over for added authenticity.

Obviously his killing is abhorant, but the "toy gun" line is disingenuous.

People are being pedantic about the toy gun definition. If it's a replica gun that a child somehow found and was playing with, it's essentially a toy gun.

It's not being used by an adult or teenager for a hold up or something.

Even if the gun looked realistic, that video looks to be a basic shoot to kill instance.

Beano

anncoates wrote: »

Messing around with a toy gun was not beyond the bounds then, no. Or acting in a silly fashion.
.

this wasnt a toy gun. Pointing a replica firearm at members of the public is not 'silly'. its stupid.

anncoates wrote: »

Presumably he found it somewhere unless you think he's a hardened fagin type with an arsenal of replicas.
.

Can we not stick to the facts that we know?

anncoates wrote: »

And no matter what he was doing, if you think that, essentially a summary execution, was acceptable, we have nothing to discuss.

it wasnt a summary execution. Again, stick to facts. If you cant discuss this without being emotional then you are correct, we have nothing to discuss.

GoldFour4

Full blame lies with the idiot who rang it in as a possible weapon in a playground. He's a kid like, would they not investigate a little further before deciding to call in a firing squad?

Beano

anncoates wrote: »

People are being pedantic about the toy gun definition. If it's a replica gun that a child somehow found and was playing with, it's essentially a toy gun.

It's not being used by an adult or teenager for a hold up or something.

Even if the gun looked realistic, that video looks to be a basic shoot to kill instance.

Nobody is being pedantic. This was not a toy gun. If somebody pointed something this http://www.evike.com/products/25014/ at you would assume it was a toy?

anncoates

orubiru wrote: »

ILets say your neighbors 12 year old kid was goofing off with some fireworks and they set fire to your own child leaving them badly scarred for life. Would you reaction be "ach well he's only 12"?

No. I'd be horrified and devastated but kids do dumb sh!t sometimes.

I'd probably leave shooting him dead out of the discipline method though.

orubiru wrote: »

So, somebody calls the cops and tells them about a guy running up and down the street waving a gun.

A guy?

Beano wrote: »

it wasnt a summary execution. Again, stick to facts. If you cant discuss this without being emotional then you are correct, we have nothing to discuss.

Apologies. They must have edited out the part of the video where they confronted him and tried to get him to disarm.

Beano wrote: »

Nobody is being pedantic. This was not a toy gun. If somebody pointed something this http://www.evike.com/products/25014/ at you would assume it was a toy?

It's not a normal scenario. It's not a crazed wino or a gang banger. It's a 12 year old.

It would be more normal to see the random context here: 12 year old, not a robbery, not an altercation, Just a kid randomly pointing the gun. The scenario surely suggests to anybody that it's play instead of turning up and opening fire before the car has even stopped.

orubiru

anncoates wrote: »

People are being pedantic about the toy gun definition. If it's a replica gun that a child somehow found and was playing with, it's essentially a toy gun.

It's not being used by an adult or teenager for a hold up or something.

Even if the gun looked realistic, that video looks to be a basic shoot to kill instance.

Do the Police know this stuff when they show up?

Say you are the cops. You have reports of someone brandishing a gun. You get there, guy seems young but - HE'S GOING FOR HIS GUN!

Is there time to have the internal monologue required to say well maybe it's a fake and hey maybe he isn't even gonna shoot?

Once that gun is aimed on you, it could be the last few minutes of your life. Or not. Why risk it?

What if it was a real gun and one of the cops dies and the other cop shoots the kid. 2 dead, thanks to slow reactions.

malistheman

malistheman wrote: »

Full blame lies with the idiot who rang it in as a possible weapon in a playground. He's a kid like, would they not investigate a little further before deciding to call in a firing squad?

How is it their fault? They naively thought that the police would investigate what was happening.


Anyway, which of the cops is meant to be the rookie? The guy who drove up alongside the child or the shooter?

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

Do the Police know this stuff when they show up?

Say you are the cops. You have reports of someone brandishing a gun. You get there, guy seems young but - HE'S GOING FOR HIS GUN!

Is there time to have the internal monologue required to say well maybe it's a fake and hey maybe he isn't even gonna shoot?

Once that gun is aimed on you, it could be the last few minutes of your life. Or not. Why risk it?

What if it was a real gun and one of the cops dies and the other cop shoots the kid. 2 dead, thanks to slow reactions.

You don't pull up next to someone who you're worried may have a gun.

anncoates

orubiru wrote: »

Do the Police know this stuff when they show up?

If they have eyes, presumably.

The kid looked like he was wandering around playing with the gun unless there's a robbed gas station or gang war just out of sight of the CCTV.

captbarnacles

Why did the Cops drive right up to a guy holding a gun then if they thought he was a threat? Why not park further away from him and get out of the car?

Aside from anything else I love how defending the cops involves blaming a 12 year old kid for maybe (because even this is hypothetical) not following police orders. The fact that it's expected for 12 year old children to be completely aware of following procedures when dealing with the police is really sad.

Bio Mech

malistheman wrote: »

Full blame lies with the idiot who rang it in as a possible weapon in a playground. He's a kid like, would they not investigate a little further before deciding to call in a firing squad?

Ridiculous. He reported someone with a possible weapon to the police, he didn't order a hitman. Kids can pull the trigger of a real gun you know they aren't age specific.

Canis Lupus

The cops were told an individual was brandishing a gun and pointing it at people in the park. The police even after shooting Tamir reported initially that he looked 'maybe 20'..

People are getting caught up in the fact that he was a 12 year with a 'toy gun'. The police attending the scene were not advised of this. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

captbarnacles

Deleted User wrote: »

Aside from anything else I love how defending the cops involves blaming a 12 year old kid for maybe (because even this is hypothetical) not following police orders. The fact that it's expected for 12 year old children to be completely aware of following procedures when dealing with the police is really sad.

This. I reckon if I was 12 and a police car pulled up like that with officers screaming at me it is not certain what I would do. I would be terrified for sure and maybe I would try to throw the gun on the ground.

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't pull up next to someone who you're worried may have a gun.

Well, since I'm not a trained Police officer, I don't actually know what I'd do.

I wonder if my job was such that sometimes my life was in danger, how would I react? How would it affect me?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I suspect you don't either.

You are simply making an estimate on how you think you might behave in a given situation. Based on how you think people should behave in that situation.

Reality is probably a little different though. If they are trained to shoot when guns are drawn on them then they follow the training. The training specifically exists so that they won't need to stop and think when someone attacks them. They follow the process. They uphold the law. The law protects them.

anncoates

Canis Lupus wrote: »

The cops were told an individual was brandishing a gun and pointing it at people in the park. The police even after shooting Tamir reported initially that he looked 'maybe 20'...

So if I told you I saw somebody in the park aged 20 and you went down yourself, you'd still mistake a 12 year old for a 20 year old?

maniac2000

toy gun my arse... go to your local airsoft shop and look at the replica guns there.. they look, feel and shoot like real guns and they even strip down like real guns.. the orange tip that they said was missing means it was an airsoft replica gun and not a toy. this is orange tip is required on the gun by law in america http://www.replicaairguns.com/storage/thumbnails/7262430-21996420-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1361491144492 (does this look like a 'toy' to you?)

there is a big diference between a toy gun and a replica gun.

Beano

I would love to have the absolute clarity of some of the people on this thread. Everything is black or white. There is no grey in their world.

kevin12345

Canis Lupus wrote: »

The cops were told an individual was brandishing a gun and pointing it at people in the park. The police even after shooting Tamir reported initially that he looked 'maybe 20'..

People are getting caught up in the fact that he was a 12 year with a 'toy gun'. The police attending the scene were not advised of this. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

They didn't even try to figure or sort out the situation. They pulled up right beside a person suspected of having a gun and within two seconds had him gunned down. They made the mistake of not approaching from a distance and telling the person to raise their hands or whatever they were supposed to do in that type of situation. Surely what is shown in the video cannot be protocol, it looked like a drive by if anything. Very, very sad situation.

ch750536

An orange tip indicating the gun was not a real firearm had been removed, police said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/24/justice/cleveland-police-shooting/

Sympathy is lost if this is true. The whole point of the orange tip is so everyone knows it's not a real gun.

anncoates

orubiru wrote: »

Well, since I'm not a trained Police officer, I don't actually know what I'd do..

It must be a very stressful job to do but if you turn up to that scene in the video, surely the first thing that enters your head is that even if it's a real gun, the kid must have lifted from somewhere and is playing with it. The very randomness of the scene suggests a kid playing not out with the gun for a propose.

Then you try and get him to throw it down from distance?

It looks like that they went down charged up with the idea that they were going to have to take down a gun-wielding lunatic and did just that.

ch750536 wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/24/justice/cleveland-police-shooting/

Sympathy is lost if this is true. The whole point of the orange tip is so everyone knows it's not a real gun.

Not unless the child removed it?

seamus

orubiru wrote: »

If I said to you, OK, here is a replica gun, don't worry it doesn't fire bullets. Now, I will pay you 20 million dollars if you walk down a busy street in New York pointing this fake gun at people...

I'm glad you said "New York". Because if you said, "Dublin", give me that 20 mil. I'd happily walk down O'Connell Street pointing a replica weapon around. It'd be a dick move and I'd find myself looking at a couple of criminal convictions and suspended sentences, but I'd also be €20m better off.
I'd be pretty damn sure I wouldn't find myself shot dead; a Garda might rugby tackle me to the ground or the ARU will show up and tell me to drop it. But nobody is going to appear on the scene and loose bullets into me until all other options have been exhausted.

And that's the key here. Objectively, walking around waving a replica firearm is not a great idea, but it's not something likely to get you killed. It all depends on the environment in which you're operating.

And this is the problem in the US - culture. Everyone expects anyone holding a weapon to be ready to use it. So when people are holding a weapon, they use it. Somehow it's seen as a good idea to carry a weapon around an urban area for self-protection. But all that does is escalate the level of violence in that urban area. If everyone is potentially carrying a weapon for self-defence, then I'm not going to hang around and wait to see if they are, I'm going to shoot first.

Counter that with cultures where this doesn't exist, like in Europe, where it's exceptionally unlikely that you will encounter anyone carrying a weapon for self-defence, then I'm far less likely to have a quick trigger finger.

In this case, obviously there is something seriously off about the police conduct here; any rational person would say that the police should pull up at a distance and negotiate. But when you operate in an environment that tells you people carrying weapons are probably going to fire them, then you're understandably going to be nervous about giving anyone with a weapon, any leeway.

In the US, rather than increased use of force by the cops leading to a reduction in violent crime, it will likely cause an increase. If I'm planning on carrying out a robbery, I'd be an idiot to arrive with nothing but a pistol; I know the people I encounter could be armed and if the cops turn up they're going to shoot without negotiating. So screw that, I'm going to get myself a semi-automatic weapon and a bulletproof vest and fire at anyone who looks at me crooked. Any cop cars that show up will immediately be peppered with bullets.
And so the downward cycle perpetuates.

Canis Lupus

anncoates wrote: »

So if I told you I saw somebody in the park aged 20 and you went down yourself, you'd still mistake a 12 year old for a 20 year old?

How should I know. Kid had his hoodie up in this situation, I'm just quoting that was said. The CCTV footage shows everything seems to have happened pretty quickly as well.

kevin12345 wrote: »

They didn't even try to figure or sort out the situation. They pulled up right beside a person suspected of having a gun and within two seconds had him gunned down. They made the mistake of not approaching from a distance and telling the person to raise their hands or whatever they were supposed to do in that type of situation. Surely what is shown in the video cannot be protocol, it looked like a drive by if anything. Very, very sad situation.

I have no idea what procedure is. I also never said there's no blame to be attached to the police or no lessons to be learned. As I said in the other thread that got locked it was a mess for everyone involved.

maniac2000

anncoates wrote: »

It must be a very stressful job to do but if you turn up to that scene in the video, surely the first thing that enters your head is that even if it's a real gun, the kid must have lifted from somewhere and is playing with it. The very randomness of the scene suggests a kid playing not out with the gun for a propose.

Then you try and get him to throw it down from distance?

It looks like that they went down charged up with the idea that they were going to have to take down a gun-wielding lunatic and did just that.



Not unless the child removed it?

Why is everyone presuming that the first thing the cops did was drive right up and shoot first think later?

Anything could have happened leading upto the car rolling in and shots being fired.

If you look at the video the kid is looking in the direction of the car before it rolls into view.

Don't get me wrong its a **** up of a situation and shouldn't have escalated tot he extent it did but don't write anything off just because its not in view of the camera

anncoates

Canis Lupus wrote: »

How should I know. Kid had his hoodie up in this situation,.

They drove to within a few yards of him.

anncoates

maniac2000 wrote: »

Why is everyone presuming that the first thing the cops did was drive right up and shoot first think later?

Anything could have happened leading upto the car rolling in and shots being fired.

If you look at the video the kid is looking in the direction of the car before it rolls into view.

Don't get me wrong its a **** up of a situation and shouldn't have escalated tot he extent it did but don't write anything off just because its not in view of the camera

The police released that video, did they not? It says before it that it's time compressed.

Why would they release an edited video if there is a longer one that justifies the shooting?

maniac2000

anncoates wrote: »

The police released that video, did they not? It says before it that it's time compressed.

Why would they release an edited video if there is a longer one that justifies the shooting?

What I meant was they released on video captured that only shows the park. you cannot see what happens outside that camera angle.

I havn't read the article they released so it might be that it was a drive by shooting as it's referred to but I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions based on a time compressed video alone.