Tamir Rice Video Released

Tiddlypeeps

looksee wrote: »

Since scenarios are being set up as facts, how about this one:

Police are told a person with a gun is in a public area. Police turn up, only see a kid who starts to helpfully walk towards them. They pull up to ask him if he had seen anything. Kid lifts jumper to show/go for gun and rookie fires in line with training to not take chances. A more experienced cop might have dealt with the situation more calmly, but this is not 'all cops' it is one inexperienced rookie. And a gun culture.

In the video the cops pulled up very quickly and came to a quick stop. It's possible the scenario you set out is true, but it seems unlikely given how aggressively they pulled up. Although it's possible the way the video is composited is just making it seem that way.

Summer wind

Whatever happened a little boy has died and I think that is incredibly sad. The police should have approached from a distance and communicated with a loudspeaker. Why do they have to shoot to kill?

galwaycyclist

looksee wrote: »

Since scenarios are being set up as facts, how about this one:

Police are told a person with a gun is in a public area. Police turn up, only see a kid who starts to helpfully walk towards them. They pull up to ask him if he had seen anything. Kid lifts jumper to show/go for gun and rookie fires in line with training to not take chances. A more experienced cop might have dealt with the situation more calmly, but this is not 'all cops' it is one inexperienced rookie. And a gun culture.

I have a feeling this is likely what happened. Imagine how they would have looked using a loudspeaker and drawn guns telling an apparently unarmed 12 year old to lie down? That would also be all over youtube.

Rocks and hard places.

They should have stopped further back and gone in on foot. But that might still not have had a different outcome - once real guns are believed to be involved there is a hierarchy of responses in which death is the last step.

Beano

Summer wind wrote: »

Whatever happened a little boy has died and I think that is incredibly sad. The police should have approached from a distance and communicated with a loudspeaker. Why do they have to shoot to kill?

Next you'll be saying they should have shot him in the leg. :rolleyes:

galwaycyclist

Beano wrote: »

Next you'll be saying they should have shot him in the leg. :rolleyes:

By our standards - yes they should. In Ireland it is permitted for authorised persons to use lethal force in defined circumstances.

But I stress "defined", there must be threat to life and a doctrine of "minimum force" applies.

This means in sequence
* verbal warning
* warning shots (over the head)
* containing shots (at ground near feet)
* shoot for effect - to wound
* shoot to kill

Probably in the US they have enough experience of wounded people shooting back to not bother with the second last one.

Also it takes a lot of training to get accurate with a hand gun at any kind of range.

Flibbles

galwaycyclist wrote: »

By our standards - yes they should. In Ireland it is permitted for authorised persons to use lethal force in defined circumstances.

But I stress "defined", there must be threat to life and a doctrine of "minimum force" applies.

This means in sequence
* verbal warning
* warning shots (over the head) Unbelievably dangerous
* containing shots (at ground near feet) Beyond compare dangerous
* shoot for effect - to wound Dangerous to the point of making the situation worse
* shoot to kill Only acceptable option

Probably in the US they have enough experience of wounded people shooting back to not bother with the second last one.

Also it takes a lot of training to get accurate with a hand gun at any kind of range.

* warning shots (over the head) Unbelievably dangerous
* containing shots (at ground near feet) Beyond compare dangerous
* shoot for effect - to wound Dangerous to the point of making the situation worse
* shoot to kill Only acceptable option

Beano

galwaycyclist wrote: »

By our standards - yes they should. In Ireland it is permitted for authorised persons to use lethal force in defined circumstances.

But I stress "defined", there must be threat to life and a doctrine of "minimum force" applies.

This means in sequence
* verbal warning
* warning shots (over the head)
* containing shots (at ground near feet)
* shoot for effect - to wound
* shoot to kill

Probably in the US they have enough experience of wounded people shooting back to not bother with the second last one.

Also it takes a lot of training to get accurate with a hand gun at any kind of range.

* warning shots (over the head) Absolutely no. You do know that a falling bullet is very dangerous?
* containing shots (at ground near feet) absolutely no. the bullet could ricochet and hit a bystander
* shoot for effect - to wound absolutely no. you shoot for center mass. that is what ALL police forces are trained to do. even our own.

In short, you havent a clue. Once the use of a firearm is the acceptable response then you shoot for center mass until the threat is removed.

JC01

It's a tragic event no matter who you blame but personally I can see why the police acted as they did. For starts the age of the kid is irrelevant, the police didn't know what age he was when they fired. And as for them acting very aggressively re pulling up close and shooting so quickly I think it's a well known fact that American police are trained to act with maximum aggression all the time. If they weren't there would be a lot more dead cops.

Due to the whole culture of guns and crime In the States cops can and do die on routine traffic stops quite commonly never mind on a call about a suspect waving a gun about the place.

A lot of people screaming "murderers" seem to think that police over there should play by the same rules the Gardai do despite many cities over there having as many gun murders in a day or a week as we do in a year. The gun culture there might as well be from another planet compared to our "gangland wars" the Rags like to go on about.

As I said at the start though it IS a tragic event and unlike that thug who was shot in Ferguson recently I feel genuinely sorry for the kid, for reasons beyond his understanding he honestly hadnt a chance.

end of the road

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I have a feeling this is likely what happened. Imagine how they would have looked using a loudspeaker and drawn guns telling an apparently unarmed 12 year old to lie down? That would also be all over youtube.

better then him being murdered. but i suppose its better to murder him instead and have it on youtube rather then telling him to lie down and have that on youtube.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

They should have stopped further back and gone in on foot. But that might still not have had a different outcome - once real guns are believed to be involved there is a hierarchy of responses in which death is the last step.

well it was the first here, and in many other cases

end of the road

galwaycyclist wrote: »

By our standards - yes they should. In Ireland it is permitted for authorised persons to use lethal force in defined circumstances.

But I stress "defined", there must be threat to life and a doctrine of "minimum force" applies.

This means in sequence
* verbal warning
* warning shots (over the head)
* containing shots (at ground near feet)
* shoot for effect - to wound
* shoot to kill

Probably in the US they have enough experience of wounded people shooting back to not bother with the second last one.

Also it takes a lot of training to get accurate with a hand gun at any kind of range.

or maybe they just don't bother with the second last one as its much easier not to, and they love shooting

end of the road

Flibbles wrote: »

* warning shots (over the head) Unbelievably dangerous
* containing shots (at ground near feet) Beyond compare dangerous
* shoot for effect - to wound Dangerous to the point of making the situation worse
* shoot to kill Only acceptable option

no it isn't.

darced

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

JC01 wrote: »

It's a tragic event no matter who you blame but personally I can see why the police acted as they did. For starts the age of the kid is irrelevant, the police didn't know what age he was when they fired. And as for them acting very aggressively re pulling up close and shooting so quickly I think it's a well known fact that American police are trained to act with maximum aggression all the time. If they weren't there would be a lot more dead cops.

Due to the whole culture of guns and crime In the States cops can and do die on routine traffic stops quite commonly never mind on a call about a suspect waving a gun about the place.

A lot of people screaming "murderers" seem to think that police over there should play by the same rules the Gardai do despite many cities over there having as many gun murders in a day or a week as we do in a year. The gun culture there might as well be from another planet compared to our "gangland wars" the Rags like to go on about.

As I said at the start though it IS a tragic event and unlike that thug who was shot in Ferguson recently I feel genuinely sorry for the kid, for reasons beyond his understanding he honestly hadnt a chance.

they're was no excuse to drive up to someone they thought was dangerous and perform an extra judicial execution. american police are aggressive anyway. the idea that if they weren't aggressive they're would be more dead cops is not something i buy, and better a dead cop then a dead child from a PR point of view. the cops in this case and many others are simply murderers who i have no sympathy for.

Beano

end of the road wrote: »

no it isn't.

you really havent a clue.

allibastor

As sad and as stupid as the whole situation is, and as bad as it looks on the video the cops were wrong in what they did.

BUT, it is also true, we don't have nearly the same problem here with guns. we hear of something small and its big news.
There was a 3 year old who shot his mother by mistake.

We would all be giving out in any situation here, lets be honest. If the kid was thrown on the ground everyone would be saying it was brutality, if the cop got shot it would be police stupidity, if a bystander got shot it would be the police departments fault.

It is a very tragic thing to have happen, but unless the nuts in the states get rid of guns it will keep on happening.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/threeyearold-boy-accidentally-shoots-dead-his-mother-as-she-changes-her-younger-daughters-nappy-9884682.html

Flibbles

end of the road wrote: »

no it isn't.

I'm glad you decided to back up your opinion with some kind of description, or justification.


If you shoot over a persons head, where does that bullet go?

What are the chances of the bullet recoiling if you shoot the ground?

What are the chances you will hit their leg/arm?


Aiming for the biggest area is the only way to ensure you don't hit anything around them. And even then there have been injuries/casualties.

I won't pretend to be an expert on firearms, but you are clearly living in Hollywood, where the police can *360noscope* without a civilian casualty.

Putinovsky

Manic Moran wrote: »

A couple of observations.

1) to all intents and purposes, the police were confronting someone with a 1911 .45. I've taken some time looking at the picture of the thing, and barring the magazine, I can't tell the difference.
2) A .45 can kill a man just as easily if the trigger is pulled by an adult as if it were pulled by a ten year old.
3) things can happen very, very quickly, it doesn't matter if the police just showed up or not, there is a threat at the time the trigger was pulled or there was not. If you watch the footage of the police arriving in London at the scene of the chap who was beheaded, one officer was pretty much shooting before she finished getting out of the car,
4) I have no idea why the police happened to pull up that close to the boy, but one viewpoint doesn't tell a huge story,

Surprise surprise.

JC01

end of the road wrote: »

they're was no excuse to drive up to someone they thought was dangerous and perform an extra judicial execution. american police are aggressive anyway. the idea that if they weren't aggressive they're would be more dead cops is not something i buy, and better a dead cop then a dead child from a PR point of view. the cops in this case and many others are simply murderers who i have no sympathy for.

PR doesnt come into it either though.

Imagine your a rookie cop in America; will you go into a situation where you know you could be shot dead thinking "feck getting home to the wife and kids I must be really really careful not to get any bad publicity for the force"

And I'd be inclined to think they pulled up not knowing he was the person waving the gun around. They arrive on the scene knowing there's a person with a gun around the area, see a kid, Rush over to tell him to get the f*ck outta there, suddenly he's 4ft away and pulling a gun out of his trousers, how else are you gonna react rather than shoot first ask questions later?

I struggle to beleive they planned on shooting it out with him before they had pulled up because if they had they put themselves at a huge disadvantage doing so the way they did. Tactically speaking Itd be much safer to approach on foot with guns drawn and pointed rather than inside a car where at least one of them is preoccupied driving.

end of the road

JC01 wrote: »

I'd be inclined to think they pulled up not knowing he was the person waving the gun around. They arrive on the scene knowing there's a person with a gun around the area, see a kid, Rush over to tell him to get the f*ck outta there, suddenly he's 4ft away and pulling a gun out of his trousers, how else are you gonna react rather than shoot first ask questions later?

JC01 wrote: »

plenty of ways to react if trained properly. the way they did it was stupid and dangerous. shoot first ask questions later is a form of murder/extra judicial execution.

JC01 wrote: »

I struggle to beleive they planned on shooting it out with him before they had pulled up because if they had they put themselves at a huge disadvantage doing so the way they did.

well it looks like that they did plan on shooting it out with him before they drove by him and opened up. its not as if they don't have form for this over there

Manic Moran

Putinovsky wrote: »

Surprise surprise.

Are any of my points invalidated by the fact that I made them?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Don't know what to think of after watching that video. Looks like the kid is pulling the gun out as the cops are getting out of the car. Not sure if I could wait around long enough to see if it was real or not.

El Horseboxo

Flibbles wrote: »

* warning shots (over the head) Unbelievably dangerous
* containing shots (at ground near feet) Beyond compare dangerous
* shoot for effect - to wound Dangerous to the point of making the situation worse
* shoot to kill Only acceptable option

There is no shoot to kill policy in any US police department. It's shoot to eliminate the threat. Very often there are lots of shots fired as a lot of the time suspects don't fall down like they do in films. Adrenaline can keep them on their feet. The volume of bullets is not always the result of a trigger happy officer.

Any how in this case, not only was the approach of the officers very stupid and dangerous. It would have been very likely against department protocol. I don't know of Cleveland PD protocols but from my experience we're trained not to approach close to an armed suspect when arriving on scene for 2 fundamental reasons. 1. If it very difficult to draw your firearm while sitting down or in the act of getting up from a seated position. There have been numerous incidents involving self inflicted gunshot wounds by officers attempting this. And 2 it is dangerous as you are putting yourself in a barrel if the suspect opened fire. The approach should be angled so the nearsided officer has adequate cover on exit and safer passage to the rear of the vehicle.

I really can't defend any actions here. Not with how they arrived at the scene. They basically put themselves in a situation where they had to fire or risk what they may have thought was going to be fired upon situation. Horrible to be in but could have been avoided here in my opinion.

Also seems there may have been some communication issues with dispatching.

steddyeddy

They shot a kid with a toy gun. A kid is shot and you get some spineless cops saying that "they were scared/we had to protect ourselves. There was a gaurd a few years ago who ran after a man carrying a shotgun and successfully arrested him. They first need to employ intelligent cops and ones with balls.

steddyeddy

Beano wrote: »

* warning shots (over the head) Absolutely no. You do know that a falling bullet is very dangerous?
* containing shots (at ground near feet) absolutely no. the bullet could ricochet and hit a bystander
* shoot for effect - to wound absolutely no. you shoot for center mass. that is what ALL police forces are trained to do. even our own.

In short, you havent a clue. Once the use of a firearm is the acceptable response then you shoot for center mass until the threat is removed.

Again they shot an unarmed kid. There was no threat except the one in their white trash, ill educated scared heads.

Letree

steddyeddy wrote: »

They shot a kid with a toy gun. A kid is shot and you get some spineless cops saying that "they were scared/we had to protect ourselves. There was a gaurd a few years ago who ran after a man carrying a shotgun and successfully arrested him. They first need to employ intelligent cops and ones with balls.

How often could you do that in a country with as many guns as america. It would be suicidal in the long run. Why would the cop risk his life like that. They do a dangerous job and need to protect themselves. In this case though the cops messed up bad by going so close in the car.

steddyeddy

Letree wrote: »

How often could you do that in a country with as many guns as america. It would be suicidal in the long run. Why would the cop risk his life like that. They do a dangerous job and need to protect themselves. In this case though the cops messed up bad by going so close in the car.

The murderers killed a young boy. They drove in close to a kid who might have had a gun and shot him. The shoot to kill policy isn't working.

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again they shot an unarmed kid. There was no threat except the one in their white trash, ill educated scared heads.

You can make your point without resorting to hyperbole and racist comments.

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

You can make your point without resorting to hyperbole and racist comments.

I was referring to their intelligence. Cops in America aren't the best and brightest.

ceadaoin.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was referring to their intelligence. Cops in America aren't the best and brightest.

Have you seen the 'toy' gun in question? It doesn't look like a toy at all, in fact it's a replica firearm.

I don't think the kid should have been killed but I don't know how you can expect the officer to know that he wasn't a threat considering the gun looked exactly like a real one.

steddyeddy

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Have you seen the 'toy' gun in question? It doesn't look like a toy at all, in fact it's a replica firearm.

I don't think the kid should have been killed but I don't know how you can expect the officer to know that he wasn't a threat considering the gun looked exactly like a real one.

Why in the name of all that's intelligent would you drive in closer to a kid you thought was a threat putting yourself in a position where you feel you have to shoot? Apart from the obvious intellectual deficiencies.