# No Charges in Tamir Rice Case



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> White officer won't face charges in killing of Cleveland boy
> 
> The Associated Press
> MARK GILLISPIE
> ...


http://www.aol.com/article/2015/12/...10|htmlws-main-nb|dl1|sec1_lnk3&pLid=48009901


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Any charges considered for the parents for letting the kid run around with a toy gun with the orange tip removed? IMO that is "endangering the welfare".

I didn't expect criminal charges but I sure hope those cops got some retraining because if they wouldn't have pulled the car up within 6 feet of the kid they would have had more than a nanosecond to evaluate the situation and get it under control without shooting the "suspect".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Any charges considered for the parents for letting the kid run around with a toy gun with the orange tip removed? IMO that is "endangering the welfare".


I don't know if they knew about it before the shooting



> Rice's mother said that the toy gun had been given to him to play with by a friend minutes before the police arrived, that police tackled and put her 14-year-old daughter in handcuffs after the incident, and that police threatened her with arrest if she did not calm down after being told about her son's shooting


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Any charges considered for the parents for letting the kid run around with a toy gun with the orange tip removed? IMO that is "endangering the welfare".
> 
> I didn't expect criminal charges but I sure hope those cops got some retraining because if they wouldn't have pulled the car up within 6 feet of the kid they would have had more than a nanosecond to evaluate the situation and get it under control without shooting the "suspect".


The latest I read the driver was trying to stop much farther back but the car slid on the wet grass. Which is what I thought happened when I watched the video.

Trust me no cop willingly chooses to set it up so he has to exit a unit when its within 6' of someone dispatch has reported as armed with a handgun.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

What they don't put reverse in cop cars?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

It was adrenalin.
Rushing to a scene where a report of an active shooter, full speed, lights and sirens going......ready, set, GO!
Things happen fast and it takes a LOT of training and control to keep it all IN control.
Like the report said, if any number of things hadn't taken place together, the boy would likely still be alive.
I'm an older white guy, and even in a normal traffic stop, I remember to keep my hands in sight, be still and don't make sudden moves. It only takes a second....
There is a lot to learn from this terrible event, and learning it the hard way isn't pleasant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> What they don't put reverse in cop cars?


When the call was made, Rice was on the swings and the caller was in the Gazebo.

By the time they got there, the caller had left, and Rice had moved to the Gazebo. I think they didn't realize he had the gun until they were already too close


----------



## Jokarva (Jan 17, 2010)

Tragic for all involved. Tamir may have been reaching to just show the gun off to officers, we'll never know. But when a reportedly armed person reaches for their waist when cops arrive, that situation's bound to end badly.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

The evening news report aired the 911 recording where the caller told dispatch that he saw someone on the swings pulling a handgun out of his pants and pointing it at people and that it might be a toy but he didn't think it was safe to be pointing even a toy gun at people in a public park.

The recording of the central dispatcher to the patrol unit in the report did not include the possibility of it being a toy gun. She only informed the patrol unit of a black male sitting on the swings brandishing a handgun.

One of the police command interviewed also stated that the dispatcher failed to convey to the responding officers the possibility it was a toy and actually indicated to the patrol unit that it was a real gun and others had already been threatened by the suspect instead of the uncertainty that the initial 911 call contained.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

This is just sad. Sad for everyone. I feel sorry for the kid, his parents, and the cops.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The recording of the central dispatcher to the patrol unit in the report did not include *the possibility* of it being a toy gun. She only informed the patrol unit of a black male sitting on the swings brandishing a handgun.
> 
> One of the police command interviewed also stated that the dispatcher failed to convey to the responding officers *the possibility* it was a toy and actually indicated to the patrol unit that it was a real gun and others had already been threatened by the suspect instead of the uncertainty that the initial 911 call contained.


The *possibility* of it being "a toy" isn't relevant when you have split seconds to make decisions.

No matter how things were worded, the caller nor the dispatcher *knew* if it was real or not, so relaying speculation serves no purpose .

It's being used now as more of an excuse than a valid concern, bacause no dispatcher will ever tell an officer "Don't worry, it *might* be a toy"

Much is made of the fact Rice was 12 years old, but they don't often mention he was also
5'7" and 175 lbs


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The starting salary while in the Police Training Academy is $10.50 per hour. Upon successful completion of the Academy, the salary for patrol officer is $45,904.64 per year. 

Police officers in Cleveland earn an annual *mean salary of $57,520* with a mean hourly wage of $27.66 and a median hourly wage of $27.80, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.criminaljusticedegreesch...by-metro-area/cleveland-officer-requirements/


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I'm old enough to remember when toy guns looked as real as possible and didn't have orange tips. 
Then a cop made a bad call and killed a kid with a toy gun and the big push came for the orange tip law. 
I stated at the time that it would lead to deaths due to the opposite ,assuming any thing without a orange tip was a killer.


----------



## FireMaker (Apr 3, 2014)

Then there are those that take actual guns and paint the end orange. We encountered this both on the street and during search warrants. I did a presentation at a church one time with five or six toy guns with one real gun mixed in. The folks walked by the table and were allowed to look but not touch. Afterwards, they selected what they thought was real. Not one person selected the real gun. The toys look so real. If a child is waving or holding a pistol in a manner that puts people at risk, that child/adult will likely be shot.

We let our son play with toy guns, never outside. Not even the backyard. That was our choice and responsibility to keep our son safe. Tamirs safety was his responsibility and that of parents. It IS a matter of education.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I haven't seen the enhanced video, but not bringing criminal charges may be a good call. This was apparently the result of poor communications and inadequate training. We deserve better. I think the Cleveland incident is a good case for civil liability. The family will sue the city for millions, and probably win.

But this case is very different from the case in Chicago. While the cops in Cleveland bungled it, they seem to have acted in good faith by honestly believing that the gun could have been real. That's not the case in Chicago. There's video evidence that refutes police reports that the victim was coming towards them. In fact, the video shows the victim walking away from them. I believe those cops in Chicago are in a lot of trouble.

I think we can expect police reform from all of this. Body cams are just the beginning. Cops have to assume that they're being videoed all the time now, and they'll be accountable for false police reports. I suspect that before long we'll have a Supreme Court determination saying that we have the right to take cell phone video of police activity. The good old boy network can't save them any more.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I haven't seen the enhanced video, but not bringing criminal charges may be a good call. This was apparently the result of poor communications and inadequate training. We deserve better. I think the Cleveland incident is a good case for civil liability. The family will sue the city for millions, and probably win.
> 
> But this case is very different from the case in Chicago. While the cops in Cleveland bungled it, they seem to have acted in good faith by honestly believing that the gun could have been real. That's not the case in Chicago. There's video evidence that refutes police reports that the victim was coming towards them. In fact, the video shows the victim walking away from them. I believe those cops in Chicago are in a lot of trouble.
> 
> I think we can expect police reform from all of this. Body cams are just the beginning. Cops have to assume that they're being videoed all the time now, and they'll be accountable for false police reports. I suspect that before long we'll have a Supreme Court determination saying that we have the right to take cell phone video of police activity. The good old boy network can't save them any more.


Cell phone videos have already exposed lies against cops, so maybe it's a good idea.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Cell phone videos have already exposed lies against cops, so maybe it's a good idea.


Cops need to start looking at it that way.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Nevada said:


> I haven't seen the enhanced video, but not bringing criminal charges may be a good call. This was apparently the result of poor communications and inadequate training. We deserve better. I think the Cleveland incident is a good case for civil liability. The family will sue the city for millions, and probably win.
> .



Yes I'm pretty sure the rice child didn't take a shot at the cops.


----------



## joejeep92 (Oct 11, 2010)

So how would you respond in a split second life or death situation where you have to decide if an individual has a real gun and intends to do you harm or has a pellet gun? Remember, you have a fraction of a second to decide and as a trainee officer, little past experience to go off of. Also remember, if you choose wrong, your kids lose a dad. ( Do not know if the officer in question had children) It disgusts me when we, as a nation, sit back and analyze decisions over the course of months that originally the officer had milliseconds to make. You can armchair it all you want but the reality is the officer made the best decision with the information he had at the time. He arrived on scene for an individual pointing a gun at civilians, not a 12 year old with a toy gun. He was met with a 5'7" 195 lb individual who instantly lifted his shirt and reached for what appeared to be a weapon at short range, by the time he would have found out if it was real or not, it could have been too late.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes I'm pretty sure the rice child didn't take a shot at the cops.


The standard isn't to wait to be shot at first. A cop is authorized to use lethal force if he reasonably thinks his life is in danger. In this case it reportedly appeared in the video that the kid was drawing a weapon. The grand jury thought that was sufficient justification. Not having seen the enhanced video, I'm not in a position to question the evidence.

But the dispatcher had knowledge that it was a kid and likely a toy gun, yet the dispatcher didn't pass that information on the the cop. That was negligent enough for a civil lawsuit. As I said, the family will sue for millions and probably win.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Cell phone videos have already exposed lies against cops, so maybe it's a good idea.


Always best to know the truth, whether it convicts or acquits either side.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But the dispatcher *had knowledge that it was a kid and likely a toy gun*, yet the dispatcher didn't pass that information on the the cop. That was negligent enough for a civil lawsuit. As I said, the family will sue for millions and probably win.


She had no "knowledge" of that at all.
She had a guy on the phone who was* guessing* at both those facts.

The person on the scene making the call couldn't be certain so there's no way a dispatcher could be either.

There was nothing negligent in the dispatcher's actions


----------



## joejeep92 (Oct 11, 2010)

I also find it insulting that the news media needs to insert "a white officer" and "a black youngster". Seems to me those type of incendiary remarks are not needed now when they do not pertain to the outcome of the event or the case.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was nothing negligent in the dispatcher's actions


That's for a jury to decide.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> She had a guy on the phone who was* guessing* at both those facts.


Actually, the caller told the dispatcher that the gun was "probably" fake.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-...un-could-be-fake-or-that-suspect-was-juvenile


----------



## joejeep92 (Oct 11, 2010)

Yes,but if she puts that out over the radio, she could be responsible for an officer walking into a "probably" fake gun which "really" isn't. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Treat every gun as if it is loaded (and real) until proven otherwise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's for a jury to decide.


If they base the decision on just the facts they can only reach one conclusion.

You have *2 seconds* to decide if this is real or not:
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/gun.jpg











https://stephiblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/colt1911.jpg












> Actually, the caller told the dispatcher that the gun was *"probably"* fake.





> probÂ·aÂ·bly
> [&#712;prÃ¤b&#601;bl&#275;, &#712;prÃ¤bl&#275;]
> ADVERB
> *almost* certainly; as far as one knows or can tell:


"Probably" Synonyms:
maybe, possibly, perhaps


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

joejeep92 said:


> Yes,but if she puts that out over the radio, she could be responsible for an officer walking into a "probably" fake gun which "really" isn't. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Treat every gun as if it is loaded (and real) until proven otherwise.


I'm not sure I'm comfortable with you owning a gun is you aren't even interested in the facts.

"DON'T tell me anything. I'm coming in with my guns blazing!"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with you owning a gun is you aren't even interested in the facts.
> 
> "DON'T tell me anything. I'm coming in with my guns blazing!"


There were no "facts" left out, and speculation can't be used in place of what is known. 
Any reasonable person would have felt threatened in the same situation


----------



## joejeep92 (Oct 11, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with you owning a gun is you aren't even interested in the facts.
> 
> "DON'T tell me anything. I'm coming in with my guns blazing!"


Well aren't you a pleasant cup of high and mighty. I want to know the facts, I make a business of knowing the facts. I never said I did not, I only said that telling the officers it is probably a fake gun puts them at ease, putting someone going into a potentially deadly situation at ease is paramount to killing them yourself. Probably is not a fact, it is a suggestion by an untrained observer who is more than likely not an expert or even a casual owner of firearms. I don't base my life on suggestions, I base it on facts.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There were no "facts" left out, and speculation can't be used in place of what is known.
> Any reasonable person would have felt threatened in the same situation


I was a first responder for 9 years. The dispatcher gave us all kinds of speculation. I was happy to hear anything that might help. If the informant thinks it looks like a heart attack or an overdose then why wouldn't I want to know that?


----------



## joejeep92 (Oct 11, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I was a first responder for 9 years. The dispatcher gave us all kinds of speculation, and I was happy to hear anything that might help.


In my experience, any speculation that came from the dispatcher was just that, speculation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> _I was a first responder_ for 9 years. The dispatcher gave us all kinds of speculation. I was happy to hear anything that might help. If the informant thinks it looks like a heart attack or an overdose then why wouldn't I want to know that?


You were an EMT, not a LEO
Speculation is a large part of *medicine* but not law enforcement.

They relay the symptoms and facts they know, and they don't guess about things they don't know. In your situation you need to know what to expect so you know what equipment is required. 

A cop doesn't need to know someone is *unsure* a gun is real


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You were an EMT, not a LEO
> 
> Speculation is a large part of *medicine* but not law enforcement.



They speculated the gun was real.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Nevada said:


> The standard isn't to wait to be shot at first.



It should be.


----------



## joejeep92 (Oct 11, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> It should be.


So to give a perp a good, fair chance, we must first let them have first shot. Duel style I suppose...fourty paces in the town square like gentlemen?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> It should be.


The off duty cop at the NC mall should have waited to see if he would be shot first? If you are going to have a firearm...with the cops...you should know the outcome will not be good for you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> They speculated the gun was real.


They can't afford to think any other way. They have to assume it's real until proven differently

To think otherwise is foolish and unrealistic



> Originally Posted by AmericanStand View Post
> It should be.


See the last line above


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Like I heard else where the only place a 
Cops job is easy is a police state. 
Choose your sides.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> *Like I heard else where* the only place a
> Cops job is easy is a police state.
> Choose your sides.


Don't confuse empty rhetoric with reality
You can hear lots of stupid stuff on the internet


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> It should be.


Really?
Why is that?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't confuse empty rhetoric with reality
> *You can hear lots of stupid stuff on the internet*


Truer words were never spoke.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't confuse empty rhetoric with reality
> 
> You can hear lots of stupid stuff on the internet



Well let's see if you can put some substance in your rhetoric. Why and how don't you agree with the statement.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Really?
> 
> Why is that?



Because the cops are here to keep people safe NOT the other way around.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Well, I back the cops 100% in this case. I've seen the photos.
Cut the orange tip off to make it look more real, pull it from your waistband and point it at arms length...yeah, good enough for me. Did he expect a cookie?


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Because the cops are here to keep people safe NOT the other way around.


Cops are NOT there to protect and serve. Ask the supreme court.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Well let's see if you can put some substance in your rhetoric. *Why and how don't you agree *with the statement.


I already explained that



AmericanStand said:


> Because the cops are here to keep people safe NOT the other way around.


That's another misconception


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Because the cops are here to keep people safe NOT the other way around.


They aren't paid to commit suicide, they aren't paid to let the bad guys get an advantage.
Cops are people who want to go home to their families at the end of the day.
If they hesitate, it too late.
If someone is stupid enough to point a gun at a cop, punch a cop, try to make a cop think he has a gun, then the human race gains a couple IQ points


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I think we can expect police reform from all of this. Body cams are just the beginning. Cops have to assume that they're being videoed all the time now, and they'll be accountable for false police reports. I suspect that before long we'll have a Supreme Court determination saying that we have the right to take cell phone video of police activity. The good old boy network can't save them any more.


Body cams bring up their own problems with privacy issues.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The standard isn't to wait to be shot at first. A cop is authorized to use lethal force if he reasonably thinks his life is in danger. In this case it reportedly appeared in the video that the kid was drawing a weapon. The grand jury thought that was sufficient justification. Not having seen the enhanced video, I'm not in a position to question the evidence.
> 
> But the dispatcher had knowledge that it was a kid and likely a toy gun, yet the dispatcher didn't pass that information on the the cop. That was negligent enough for a civil lawsuit. As I said, the family will sue for millions and probably win.


I don't know about that. Even if the cops had been told it MIGHT have been a fake gun the odds are they would have reacted the same way due to the speed of the events. Especially if the defendants do one reenactment using an exact copy of the pellet gun and another using a real handgun w/o telling the jury which is which before hand. I'd be willing to bet most of them would think "I'd shot both of them because I couldn't tell which was a toy."

Think about this. Your are home when someone starts frantically knocking on your door. You arm yourself and when you get to the door its your neighbor who tells you they came home and found someone in their house with a gun which might have been a toy. Right after they say this your door is yanked open and a man walks in with a gun in his hand and starts to point it at you. Are you going to: 1) try to shoot him as fast as possible or 2) let him point it at you so you can take a few seconds to determine if its a real firearm or a toy?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

basketti said:


> Always best to know the truth, whether it convicts or acquits either side.


The problem is w/o video of the entire event its easy to be wrong based on the video. I saw a good example of it. There was cell phone video of two cops with a black guy on the ground 'abusing' him complete with him screaming that they were killing/hurting him. But there was also dash cam video which showed that before the cops took the guy to the ground he had attacked them and all the officers did was dog pile him to get him cuffed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with you owning a gun is you aren't even interested in the facts.
> 
> "DON'T tell me anything. I'm coming in with my guns blazing!"


The facts are simple. In a possible life or death situation I'm going to take the action which lead to the greatest probability of me being alive when its over.

If you point a toy gun at someone with a real gun and get shot its not the fault of the guy with the real gun.

If I told you I saw some barrels of what might be, but probably wasn't, hazmat in that building that's burning are you going to just walk in or are you going to treat it like a hazmat situation until YOU ARE SURE it isn't?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

TraderBob said:


> Cops are NOT there to protect and serve. Ask the supreme court.


Actually the courts have ruled they are. What they have ruled is police are there to protect and serve society in general but you as an individual have no right to police protection.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Actually the courts have ruled they are. What they have ruled is police are there to protect and serve society in general but you as an individual have no right to police protection.


Society is made up of individuals. If they aren't sworn to protect individuals, then why are so many of them for gun control? Shouldn't they want individuals to protect themselves?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

TraderBob said:


> Society is made up of individuals. If they aren't sworn to protect individuals, then why are so many of them for gun control? Shouldn't they want individuals to protect themselves?


Most street cops aren't for gun control. Its the upper level political types who jump on the gun control band wagon.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> They aren't paid to commit suicide, they aren't paid to let the bad guys get an advantage.
> 
> Cops are people who want to go home to their families at the end of the day.
> 
> ...



All now and worship at the feet of the cops least they feel uncomfortable and kill us all. 

I disagree with your most basic premise. 

Cops like solders ARE paid to commit suicide . 
When the need arises. 
School shooting kids dying, do you expect the cops to risk their lives and go into a dangerous situation or do we expect them to wait till he kills all the kids and let the shooter die from starvation. 

Like wize when dealing one on one with a citizen all doubt should be resolved in the citizens favor.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Would this have happened if the gun observation was made at a greater distance. What was the need for them to be so close.


----------



## joejeep92 (Oct 11, 2010)

Wanda said:


> Would this have happened if the gun observation was made at a greater distance. What was the need for them to be so close.


In the original call to dispatch the reporting party was on the gazebo so one could speculate that the officers went to the gazebo to speak to the reporting party.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

watcher said:


> Think about this. Your are home when someone starts frantically knocking on your door. You arm yourself and when you get to the door its your neighbor who tells you they came home and found someone in their house with a gun which might have been a toy. Right after they say this your door is yanked open and a man walks in with a gun in his hand and starts to point it at you. Are you going to: 1) try to shoot him as fast as possible or 2) let him point it at you so you can take a few seconds to determine if its a real firearm or a toy?


Nah, according to the "gun experts" on this forum, you should let the BG take the first shot so you know for sure it's a real gun.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> All now and worship at the feet of the cops least they feel uncomfortable and kill us all.
> 
> I disagree with your most basic premise.
> 
> ...


What a sad world you must live in.
Tell you what, you do what they do for a while
They are not paid to commit suicide, and they aren't paid to be stupid.
Putting yourself on the line to save another is one thing, putting your life on the line to see if someone is bluffing is another.
I know cops, have friends who are cops, and every day, they go to work knowing that they might not make it home.
These people are police because they think they can make a difference.
It doesn't pay very well, they work terrible hours, and every time they server a warrant, pull somebody over, get involved in a chase, they know they might not be alive in another 5 minutes.
I doubt the cop haters would have the courage or the dedication to serve.
The haters make themselves feel big by bashing their betters.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Wanda said:


> Would this have happened if the gun observation was made at a greater distance. What was the need for them to be so close.


What was the distance?
Wouldn't a greater distance make it harder to tell if the gun was real or not?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

joejeep92 said:


> In the original call to dispatch the reporting party was on the gazebo so one could speculate that the officers went to the gazebo to speak to the reporting party.




Still not a very good plan. If they were focused on the gazebo it would have left them wide open to an ''ambush'' I would think. I would think there training would tell them to access the situation before roaring in.:shrug:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> All now and worship at the feet of the cops least they feel uncomfortable and kill us all.
> 
> I disagree with your most basic premise.
> 
> ...


No one is paid to commit suicide. That is absurd.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

Right decision made


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> No one is paid to commit suicide. That is absurd.


Cops & firefighters are expected to risk their lives as part of their jobs, within reasonable limits, but they are not expected to sacrifice their lives.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Putting yourself on the line to save another is one thing, putting your life on the line to see if someone is bluffing is another.



No they are EXACTLY the SAME !


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> The haters make themselves feel big by bashing their betters.



"Their betters"?
A yes A worshipper.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Putting yourself on the line to save another is one thing, putting your life on the line to see if someone is bluffing is another.


More times than not, cops & firefighters deal with people who are having a bad day in one way or another -- perhaps the worst day of their lives. You encounter people in all kinds of frames of mind. Knowing that, the act of pausing when you suspect someone might be bluffing is risking your life to save that person. His live might be worth saving.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> More times than not, cops & firefighters deal with people who are having a bad day in one way or another -- perhaps the worst day of their lives. You encounter people in all kinds of frames of mind. Knowing that, the act of pausing when you suspect someone might be bluffing is risking your life to save that person. His live might be worth saving.


Do firefighters carry guns?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Do firefighters carry guns?


Only the battalion chief. Why does it matter? Are suggesting that since I didn't carry a gun I didn't risk my life for others?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Still not a very good plan. *If* they were focused on the gazebo it would have left them wide open to an ''ambush'' *I would think*.
> 
> * I would think* there training would tell them to access the situation before roaring in.:shrug:


There's a lot of speculation going on with that premise. 

None of it changes the fact Rice had what *appeared* to be a real gun and he reached for it while approaching the car.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> No they are EXACTLY the SAME !


No, they are not.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> "Their betters"?
> A yes A worshipper.


A worshiper?
Because I know cops to be humans?
Because they have families who love them?
Is that why you are so hateful?
Tell you what, you go on hating them, and when you need help, call a meth head.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Cops & firefighters are expected to risk their lives as part of their jobs, within reasonable limits, but they are not expected to sacrifice their lives.


Well said.
They are expected to use reasonable caution and clock out at the end of their shift alive.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's a lot of speculation going on with that premise.
> 
> None of it changes the fact Rice had what *appeared* to be a real gun and he reached for it while approaching the car.




Would you say they were following standard police procedure to place themselves at very close range?


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

Wanda said:


> Would you say they were following standard police procedure to place themselves at very close range?


That is a different story, did they commit murder. .....no, did they follow protocol, not commenting on that one, as it is under Administrative review


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

glock26USMC said:


> That is a different story, did they commit murder. .....no, did they follow protocol, not commenting on that one, as it is under Administrative review




If it is used by people in this thread as a reason for firing there weapon quickly, I believe it is a valid point of discussion.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

Lets just fo this....... put yourself in that park, as a concealed carry permit holder, who has their firearm on them.

You are walking by an individual, and he begins to walk towards you, lifting up his swearshirt, and reaching, and begins pulling out a "firearm"........what would you, as a Concealed carry permit holder, do?

This is just to put it into perspective, as a "human being" and not a police officer


----------



## SmokeEater2 (Jan 11, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I was a first responder for 9 years. The dispatcher gave us all kinds of speculation. I was happy to hear anything that might help. If the informant thinks it looks like a heart attack or an overdose then why wouldn't I want to know that?



And dispatch doesn't always receive correct information from callers. I'm FD not a cop but it's very common to arrive on scene and find out that the situation is completely different from what we were told by dispatch.

99% of the time it's not their fault, They only know what the caller told them.

So, We respond to a lot of structure fire pages that turn out to be smoke from the chimney or someone cooking on the grill in the back yard etc.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Would you say they were following standard police procedure to place themselves at very close range?


You can't confront and arrest a suspect over the phone or through binoculars

Police work on the street involves close contact, and handguns can be deadly much farther than most can use them effectively.

They were told the caller was in the Gazebo, which is another example of why telling them some things over the radio doesn't really mean a lot.

How close do you think they should have been when they confronted Rice?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can't confront and arrest a suspect over the phone or through binoculars
> 
> Police work on the street involves close contact, and handguns can be deadly much farther than most can use them effectively.
> 
> ...



How long did the distance give them to access the situation? Was there an alternative that was simply ignored. Technical and ethical contain a lot of the same letters but are not the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> How long did the distance give them to access the situation? Was there an alternative that was simply ignored. Technical and ethical contain a lot of the same letters but are not the same.


No amount of watching from a distance would have served any purpose.
The 911 called had already done that
It wouldn't have told them if the gun was real

*What distance do you think was "correct" to confront Rice?*


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

There is a link between distance and time to access the situation. Why have to make a split second decision if a more discreet approach would allow more time.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

Wanda said:


> There is a link between distance and time to access the situation. Why have to make a split second decision if a more discreet approach would allow more time.


Does that change the fact, he reached, and brandished a firearm? 

How long would you give an individual, that is threatening your life?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> There is a link between distance and time to access the situation. Why have to make a split second decision if a more discreet approach would allow more time.


You are now just repeating yourself.

The assessment of the event was completed before the LEO's arrived:

"A male pointing a gun at people"

No amount of time spent watching him would have given them any more positive information. 

Nothing short of getting their hands on the gun was going to resolve the situation

*What distance do you think they should have been for the confrontation?*


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

glock26USMC said:


> Does that change the fact, he reached, and brandished a firearm?
> 
> How long would you give an individual, that is threatening your life?



By law as long as they want. 
Except if you are a cop then ya just kill any harmless child ya like.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> By law as long as they want.
> Except if you are a cop then ya just kill any harmless child ya like.


Harmless, huh......by what definition


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> *By law * as long as they want.
> Except if you are a cop then ya just kill any harmless child ya like.


You obviously have no real understanding of self defense laws and I often think you really don't mean most of the things you say simply because they are so unrealistic


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You are now just repeating yourself.
> 
> The assessment of the event was completed before the LEO's arrived:
> 
> ...


Well if I had to put a number on it, closer to 20 feet. Since the car slid past where they intended to stop, why not back up to their original "target" and go from there? 

I don't think criminal charges were warranted in this case but there is definitely something to be learned from how it unfolded that might prevent a future tragedy.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> How long did the distance give them to access the situation? Was there an alternative that was simply ignored. Technical and ethical contain a lot of the same letters but are not the same.


Its my understanding that the reported shooter was NOT where the officers arrived. The report was, IIRC, that he was on or near the swings. Again based on what I remember, the caller stated HE was in the location were the officers arrived.

To me the logical thing to do would be to arrive at the location of the person making the call and talk to him to get as much info as possible, such as having him point out the person in question. 

One of the first thoughts I had when I saw the video was I wonder if the driver meant to stop where he did or if the car slid putting it much closer than he wanted (I posted this thought in another thread). I read not that long ago that the driver said that was happened. 

From the video I watched frame by frame their actions were correct based on the situation they were in and the actions of the guy. Here's my take on it from another post.

_We know from the reports that the cop was told that there was a report of a person with a gun. Now knowing this watch the video frame by frame starting at 7:01 and see if you see what I do. Realize this is not high def video and unlike on TV shows you can't make a video sharper so you can see more detail.

There's a person sitting at a table in the location where the suspected armed person has been reported.

He stands up and starts walking.

The police car shows up.

Keep your eye on the suspect. What is he doing as the police are stopping? It looks to me he's moving his hands down toward his waist. Why? Maybe he's cold or more likely to me based on knowing how kids think he doesn't want the cops to see the gun because he's afraid he'll be in trouble and is trying to hide it.

Next comes a very interesting frame. We see the car stopped, the officer part way out of it and the suspects right arm seems to move from dangling at his side to being bent at the elbow. Was he trying to show that the gun was a toy? Was he raising his hands to show thy were empty? Was he going to flip the cops off or offer them a stick of gum? We'll never know with 100% certainty. 

Next frame it looks like the shot has been fired because the suspect is bending at the waist and the cop seems to have his arms extended.

Next frame shows the suspect down and the cop half way to the rear of the car with arms still extended aimed at the suspect. It looks as if he's retreating from what he thinks is a danger to him.

Next frame shows the cop has disappeared behind the car (later frames show he probably had fallen down in his rush to get behind it) and the driver's side door just opening.

Rest of the video shows him continuing to retreat and putting the car between himself the the suspect. Again showing that he felt the suspect was a danger, otherwise why try to get a couple thousand pounds of steel between him and the suspect?

Personally I think the cops made a major mistake; they needlessly placed themselves in a dangerous position/situation when it was not needed. They should have never put the car that close to someone they thought was armed. I'd be interested to know why they were on the grass side of the anti-vehicle post and if the reason the car was so close because it slid due to being in the mud/snow/ice.

If the car had stopped farther away they could have exited and used it as cover to allow them more time to assess the situation. With with the first cop coming out of the car within a few feet of someone he though was armed his first reaction to any sudden movement is going to be to defend himself.

Given what I saw on the video and knowing the cops had been told there was an armed person at the scene I think the shooting was justified, a tragedy of errors but still justified._


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Watcher, to every reasonable person who has been thru dangerous encounters in life, your assessment is probably as close to the truth as we'll ever know.
The big elephant in the room is the same one when this started........
Why the heck did this kid think it was ok to have a real-looking toy gun out at a city park and pointing it at people?
I was instructed about such things before Halloween at a very young age (5 or 6) and the "gun" in my little pirate costume was homemade out of wood, but to me looked pretty real and cool, lol.
My "instructions" included what the color of my bottom would look like if I didn't follow them to the letter.

Y'all realize that a 6 year old would never be mistaken for a teen or an adult?
That a wooden replica of a cap and ball pistol would not be confused with a modern semi-automatic?
How is it this memory is still fresh in my mind, 45 years later, long after the man who taught me left this world?
Lastly, is it obvious that little boy is alive and typing on the internet in the 21st century now?
BTW, this was in the early 70's in a white suburb, so don't play the "times have changed" or the race card either.

IOW, the lion's share of the blame for this tragedy falls directly at the feet of the parents of the boy.
It isn't PC to say so, it isn't comforting and maybe not even "nice", but it's the darn truth.
Your boy is dead because you didn't teach him about the serious things in life soon enough.
Case closed.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You obviously have no real understanding of self defense laws and I often think you really don't mean most of the things you say simply because they are so unrealistic



Well that first part might be true. 
Perhaps you can help. 
Could you point me at Illinois case law that would tell me how long a weaponless man can stand in the street threatening to kill me before I can kill him. 
As for the second part When I comment about how things should be you point out it's unrealistic. 
When I comment on how things are you point out that's not the way they should be. 

I think you just like to tell people they are wrong.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Well that first part might be true.
> Perhaps you can help.
> Could you point me at Illinois case law that would tell me how long a weaponless man can stand in the street threatening to kill me before I can kill him.
> As for the second part When I comment about how things should be you point out it's unrealistic.
> ...


pretty simple there buddy...when he acts on those threats and you feel your life is in danger. That's exactly how long he has left to live.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Well that first part might be true.
> Perhaps you can help.
> Could you point me at Illinois case law that would tell me how long a weaponless man can stand in the street threatening to kill me before I can kill him.
> As for the second part When I comment about how things should be you point out it's unrealistic.
> ...


This kid wasn't weaponless, he had a real looking gun.
As far as the cops knew, it was real.
They acted accordingly.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Well that first part might be true.
> Perhaps you can help.
> Could you point me at Illinois case law that would tell me how long a weaponless man can stand in the street threatening to kill me before I can kill him.
> As for the second part When I comment about how things should be you point out it's unrealistic.
> ...


Well, the first thing you would need to know is what qualifies as a "weapon", it is not the same definition as a "firearm".

This isn't going to qualify as a statute definition as I outlined above, but I'm sure with a few keystrokes, you could find it quickly, I got some plumbing and carpentry to do........

http://law.justia.com/codes/illinois/2005/chapter53/1934.html

* (720 ILCS 535/0.01) (from Ch. 38, par. 82) 
Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Air Rifle Act. 
(Source: P.A. 86&#8209;1324.) 
(720 ILCS 535/1) (from Ch. 38, par. 82&#8209;1) 
Sec. 1. As used in this Act: 
(1) "Air rifle" means and includes any air gun, air pistol, spring gun, spring pistol, B&#8209;B gun, paint ball gun, pellet gun or any implement that is not a firearm which impels a breakable paint ball containing washable marking colors or, a pellet constructed of hard plastic, steel, lead or other hard materials with a force that reasonably is expected to cause bodily harm. 
(2) "Municipalities" include cities, villages, incorporated towns and townships. 
(3) "Dealer" means any person, copartnership, association or corporation engaged in the business of selling at retail or renting any of the articles included in the definition of "air rifle". 
(Source: P.A. 86&#8209;349.) 


(720 ILCS 535/2) (from Ch. 38, par. 82&#8209;2) 
Sec. 2. It is unlawful for any dealer to sell, lend, rent, give or otherwise transfer an air rifle to any person under the age of 13 years where the dealer knows or has cause to believe the person to be under 13 years of age or where such dealer has failed to make reasonable inquiry relative to the age of such person and such person is under 13 years of age. 
It is unlawful for any person to sell, give, lend or otherwise transfer any air rifle to any person under 13 years of age except where the relationship of parent and child, guardian and ward or adult instructor and pupil, exists between such person and the person under 13 years of age, or where such person stands in loco parentis to the person under 13 years of age. 
(Source: Laws 1965, p. 2977.) 
(720 ILCS 535/3) (from Ch. 38, par. 82&#8209;3) 
Sec. 3. It is unlawful for any person under 13 years of age to carry any air rifle on the public streets, roads, highways or public lands within this State, unless such person under 13 years of age carries such rifle unloaded. 
It is unlawful for any person to discharge any air rifle from or across any street, sidewalk, road, highway or public land or any public place except on a safely constructed target range. 
(Source: Laws 1965, p. 2977.) *


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Watcher, to every reasonable person who has been thru dangerous encounters in life, your assessment is probably as close to the truth as we'll ever know.
> The big elephant in the room is the same one when this started........
> Why the heck did this kid think it was ok to have a real-looking toy gun out at a city park and pointing it at people?



For the same reason he would not allowed to drive, drink or do many other things, he was a 12 y.o. and hence stupid. Heck at 12 I had survived several stupid actions and had several more in my future. 




farmrbrown said:


> IOW, the lion's share of the blame for this tragedy falls directly at the feet of the parents of the boy.
> It isn't PC to say so, it isn't comforting and maybe not even "nice", but it's the darn truth.
> Your boy is dead because you didn't teach him about the serious things in life soon enough.
> Case closed.


They do hold a large share but the biggest blame goes to simple human nature. Boys and young men (and women) have, do and always will make stupid and sometimes dangerous decisions. Who lives through them is up to God.

And like it or not there's nothing we mere mortal humans can do about it. All the laws we can make, all the rules about toy guns and all the regulations we force upon the police will not stop young people from doing things which result in their deaths.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Well that first part might be true.
> Perhaps you can help.
> Could you point me at Illinois case law that would tell me how long a weaponless man can stand in the street threatening to kill me before I can kill him. .


 I don't know about IL case law but in most states the answer is; as long as it takes before he makes what you interpret as an aggressive move toward you. Once someone who has threatened you makes action you are allowed to use force, even deadly force, to defend yourself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Well if I had to put a number on it, closer to* 20 feet*. Since the car slid past where they intended to stop, why not back up to their original "target" and go from there?
> 
> I don't think criminal charges were warranted in this case but there is definitely something to be learned from how it unfolded that might prevent a future tragedy.


So *7 yards* (21 feet) is the "magic number"?

What *exactly *would the *difference* have been had Rice been 21 feet away, reaching for what everyone assumed was a real firearm?

Keep in mind even most mediocre shots can hit a man-sized target at 25 *yards*, or 75 feet


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Well that first part might be true.
> Perhaps you can help.
> Could you point me at Illinois case law that would tell me how long a *weaponless* man can stand in the street threatening to kill me before I can kill him.
> As for the second part When I comment about how things should be you point out it's unrealistic.
> ...



Rice wasn't "weaponless" so in this context your scenario doesn't fit.

You also didn't say "weaponless" until now, so let's not backpedal:



> How long would you give an individual, that is threatening your life?


If you want a real answer to that question, look up "disparity of force". 

I still say many of your comments are totally unrealistic, and I don't "like" or "dislike" pointing that out. It's just my opinion based on observations


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> This kid wasn't weaponless, he had a real looking gun.
> 
> As far as the cops knew, it was real.
> 
> They acted accordingly.



he was weaponless. 
He had a toy. 
So they killed him. 

Those are the facts.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> They do hold a large share but the biggest blame goes to simple human nature. Boys and young men (and women) have, do and always will make stupid and sometimes dangerous decisions. Who lives through them is up to God.
> 
> And like it or not there's nothing we mere mortal humans can do about it. All the laws we can make, all the rules about toy guns and all the regulations we force upon the police will not stop young people from doing things which result in their deaths.



Well, we'll have to disagree on that point.
My daddy had a way of "reasoning" that was so effective, even his death didn't stop the enforcement of the rules he taught me.
He said I had to be 16 to touch the guns in his gun cabinet and when he died, I waited until I was 16 before I did.

I was not an abused child, but the few times I got my bottom tanned, were all I needed to know how the rules of life worked.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> I don't know about IL case law but in most states the answer is; as long as it takes before he makes what you interpret as an aggressive move toward you. Once someone who has threatened you makes action you are allowed to use force, even deadly force, to defend yourself.



"You interpret"
Those are the weasel words that are the problem. 
As is obvious on this site people interpret things differently. 

A guy stickers his hands in his pockets so everyone can see he isn't throwing a punch and someone else interprets it as going for a gun. 
Shouldn't people be held accountable for the accuracy of their observations. ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> "You interpret"
> Those are the weasel words that are the problem.
> As is obvious on this site people interpret things differently.
> 
> ...


If he's just threatened to kill you, it's a reasonable assumption to think he's reaching for a gun.

A hand in a pocket along with an implication there's a gun can easily get you convicted of "armed robbery" in many states

You can't keep remodeling your scenario until you get a perfect fit to match what you are trying to say


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, we'll have to disagree on that point.
> My daddy had a way of "reasoning" that was so effective, even his death didn't stop the enforcement of the rules he taught me.
> He said I had to be 16 to touch the guns in his gun cabinet and when he died, I waited until I was 16 before I did.
> 
> I was not an abused child, but the few times I got my bottom tanned, were all I needed to know how the rules of life worked.


You are saying that you didn't do anything stupid when you were young?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> "You interpret"
> Those are the weasel words that are the problem.
> As is obvious on this site people interpret things differently.


They are not weasel words because what you would see as a threat might be different than what I do or what I see as a threat today I would not have years ago.

Years ago an irate, physically well developed man charging me with empty hands yelling "I'm going to kill you!" would not have been interpreted as a large enough threat for me to resort to using deadly force. Today I would. Why? Because today I am physically unable to prevent an attacker like that from causing me grievous bodily harm or death the way I was back then. 




AmericanStand said:


> A guy stickers his hands in his pockets so everyone can see he isn't throwing a punch and someone else interprets it as going for a gun.
> Shouldn't people be held accountable for the accuracy of their observations. ?


You have to look at the overall situation, its called threat assessment. What is threatening in one situation isn't in another. What is threatening from one person isn't from another. What is threatening to one person isn't to another.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> he was weaponless.
> He had a toy.
> So they killed him.
> 
> Those are the facts.


He had a weapon, he had a firearm that was made by him to look real (which is a crime in itself).

You can paint thr pic, he was a good kid playing with a toy, all you would like.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> Well if I had to put a number on it, closer to 20 feet. Since the car slid past where they intended to stop, why not back up to their original "target" and go from there?
> 
> I don't think criminal charges were warranted in this case but there is definitely something to be learned from how it unfolded that might prevent a future tragedy.


Because backing up would have given the subject more time to access his weapon. It's difficult for a police officer to defend himself when seated in a car with his gun in the holster. Once they slid past the intended spot, they had no reasonable option but to go from there. Twenty feet away would not have been a much better position anyway. A person can easily be killed by a handgun at 20 feet, so it would not offer the officers much protection, and would actually present a disadvantage as it would be more difficult to see the gun and determine whether it was real. I agree that there were things they could have done better. That's true of everything that ever happens in real life. Nobody gets everything perfectly under less than ideal circumstances.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If he's just threatened to kill you, it's a reasonable assumption to think he's reaching for a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why not ? Are you going to kill me on the first try if I'm not perfect ?
I'm trying to explain something not playing some weird game. 
So yes I can keep changing explanations till I achieve understanding. 
Or I can give up if I think it's not worth it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

glock26USMC said:


> He had a weapon, he had a firearm that was made by him to look real (which is a crime in itself).
> 
> You can paint thr pic, he was a good kid playing with a toy, all you would like.



Weapon ? Firearm. ? Wasn't it a harmless chunk of plastic ?

Is the penalty for a 12 year old for whatever crime he committed Immediate death by cop and to be adjudicated by the same cops ?


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Do you expect the police to be psychic? They only know what they can see. They saw what looked like a gun.

The child's death was not a penalty, but an unfortunate result of his own poor choices.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Why not ? Are you going to kill me on the first try if I'm not perfect ?
> I'm trying to explain something not playing some weird game.
> So yes I can keep changing explanations* till I achieve understanding. *
> Or I can give up if I think it's not worth it.


What you are not understanding is the reality of this case vs some fantasy you keep restructuring



> AmericanStand;
> Weapon ? Firearm. ? *Wasn't it a harmless chunk of plastic ?*
> 
> Is the penalty for a 12 year old for whatever crime he committed Immediate death by cop and to be adjudicated by the same cops ?


You can't keep pretending anyone knew that before shots were fired,
and it wasn't for "whatever crime".

It was for presenting what any *reasonable* person would think was a deadly threat.

They didn't know his age and they didn't know the gun wasn't real.
Those are the only facts that can be considered to determine justification for the use of deadly force.

Even had they known he was 12, that would make no difference, since 12 year olds are quite capable of killing 

He was 5'7" and 175 lbs, so you couldn't look at him and guess the age.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

kuriakos said:


> do you expect the police to be psychic? They only know what they can see. They saw what looked like a gun.
> 
> The child's death was not a penalty, but an unfortunate result of his own poor choices.


Ã1000.......


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kuriakos said:


> Do you expect the police to be psychic? They only know what they can see. They saw what looked like a gun.
> 
> The child's death was not a penalty, but an unfortunate result of his own poor choices.


What police need to avoid is public perception that if they call the police they'll probably make matters worse. The police need to produce desirable results more often so the public believes the police will help, not hurt matters.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

.............


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What police need to avoid is *public perception* that if they call the police they'll probably make matters worse. The police need to produce desirable results more often so the public believes the police will help, not hurt matters.


It would be easy to change that perception if the media would report the *millions *of LEO interactions with the criminal element where no one gets injured instead of endless harping on the few cases in which someone does.

They also need to keep in mind all these people contributed to their own incidents, and they aren't running around killing random "children" for no reason.

The public is too easily swayed


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They also need to keep in mind all these people contributed to their own incidents, and they aren't running around killing random "children" for no reason.


No, but the recent domestic dispute incident in Chicago is a good example of an undesirable result. Someone calls the police for help with a domestic dispute, then two people are shot dead as soon as the police arrive. It's not likely that two people would be dead if the police were never called, so I would consider that to be an undesirable result.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> You are saying that you didn't do anything stupid when you were young?



Oh, I could NEVER say that and get away with it. When I started driving, and then drinking, the only reason I'm alive is God looks after fools and drunks, lol.
If he had lived until I was a teen, things might have been different.
But when the subject is firearms, there has never been any time I was stupid.
Even when someone ELSE has one, no sir. That was impressed upon me my a very good, smart man.
Thanks Dad.:thumb:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No, but the recent domestic dispute incident in Chicago is a good example of an undesirable result. Someone calls the police for help with a domestic dispute, then two people are shot dead as soon as the police arrive. *It's not likely that two people would be dead if the police were never called*, so I would consider that to be an undesirable result.


They were called because one man was threatening to beat another with a baseball bat, and he was shot when he approached the officers while still holding said bat. 

Your *speculation* as to whether there would have been fewer deaths is just that alone.

It's regrettable the woman was hit, but the lion's share of the blame lies with the initial assailant

Undesirable event, yes.

Avoidable event, yes

Totally LEO's fault, no


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were called because one man was threatening to beat another with a baseball bat, and he was shot when he approached the officers while still holding said bat.
> 
> Your *speculation* as to whether there would have been fewer deaths is just that alone.
> 
> ...


But still an undesirable result. It happens, but it's in everyone's interest to avoid undesirable results.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But still an undesirable result. It happens, but it's in everyone's interest to avoid undesirable results.


That's just common sense, but it all started with one guy and a bat making the poor choices. 

The others weren't there because they wanted to be, and the police can't "avoid" answering calls.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's just common sense, but it all started with one guy and a bat making the poor choices.
> 
> The others weren't there because they wanted to be, and the police can't "avoid" answering calls.


My point is that when an undesirable result occurs someone should examine the incident to determine if there's a way that the result could be avoided. I don't see that happening. All I'm seeing is the cops being cleared, then it's back to business as usual.

When I was a firefighter we had reviews of undesirable results. The purpose of the review was to determine if there was something that could be done to avoid that same result in the future. Could they provide different equipment, more manpower, better training, or whatever.

Trust me, I saw some doozies during that 9 years. But the fire service was committed to taking steps to not let it happen again.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

They can "take steps" but it's not ever going to stop all such incidents.
One has to be realistic when talking about human behavior


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They can "take steps" but it's not ever going to stop all such incidents.
> One has to be realistic when talking about human behavior


My problem is that I've seen no indication that they're even trying. If they're trying they aren't telling us about it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> My problem is that I've seen no indication that they're even trying. If they're trying they aren't telling us about it.


Would their feeding you empty rhetoric make you feel better?

There's really not a lot they can change that will stop people from being injured or killed, and other people from complaining about it all.

They used to use blackjacks and "batons" until people complained, and then Tasers and Pepper Spray until people died or they just simply didn't do the job.

It's not a Disney movie so there may never be a happy ending


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Would their feeding you empty rhetoric make you feel better?
> 
> There's really not a lot they can change that will stop people from being injured or killed, and other people from complaining about it all.
> 
> ...


Mark my words. Cops will either change the way they confront the public themselves, or find themselves being handed a new set of rules to follow. Public outrage is growing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Mark my words. Cops will either change the way they confront the public themselves, or find themselves being handed a new set of rules to follow. *Public outrage is growing*.


No, it's really not.

The vast majority don't give it any thought at all. 

Todays BLM is the OWS from not so long ago, and by next year at this time they will likely be a bad memory also.

If you pointedly ask, they might feign some indignation, but if you ask what they have *done* about it, they will act sheepish and say (if honest) "Nothing at all"

If you want to see *true* "outrage", cut off their cell phones for a couple of days


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

Renoved due to others having issue with it


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

It seems that Chicago police are getting a lot of push-back from the public. I saw cameras mentioned, but nothing was said about cell phones.:shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> It seems that Chicago police are getting a lot of *push-back from the public.* I saw cameras mentioned, but nothing was said about cell phones.:shrug:


The public will "push-back" even when they are clueless.

Remember "hands up, don't shoot"?

That was a lie that's still parroted by the public "pushing back"


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

glock26USMC said:


> Unfortunately, that wasnât all Rice was doing, which security camera footage clearly documented. He did three things that caused a reasonable 911 caller to think he was committi ng multiple felonies.
> 
> Riceâs final poor decision was to attempt to draw his weapon as a marked Cleveland Police car came to a stop just feet away,



Your insistence on calling a toy a weapon indicates how far from the normal population the police have distanced themselves. 

Just like the polices insistence on being able to kill children with toy guns. 


Just plain sad.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Your insistence on calling a toy a weapon indicates how far from the normal population the police have distanced themselves.
> 
> Just like the polices insistence on being able to kill children with toy guns.
> 
> ...


Why would you insist on calling this a toy?

I showed you the Illinois statute that it was classified as a weapon,(see post #95) but besides all that.........if parents are teaching kids that BB guns are toys, they don't need to be having kids.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Your insistence on calling a toy a weapon indicates how far from the normal population the police have distanced themselves.
> 
> *Just like the polices insistence on being able to kill children with toy guns.
> *
> Just plain sad.


Any *reasonable* person would have assumed it was a real weapon.

They are purposely designed to look and feel as real as possible for training purposes. 

You keep wanting to judge them on information learned only *after* the shooting was over

What is "sad" is how you want to substitute emotional rhetoric for facts and logic even when you know the truth


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep wanting to judge them on information learned only *after* the shooting was over



Well DUH you see this country was founded on the idea that there wasn't a crime till it was committed. 
We didn't charge people with crimes that hadn't happened. 
Now we seem fine with charging people with THINKING of a crime. 
You seem ok with killing someone because YOU think they might commit a crime. 









Bearfootfarm said:


> What is "sad" is how you want to substitute emotional rhetoric for facts and logic even when you know the truth


Why do you insist on lying about me ?Please stick to the truth. 
Sneaky name calling reveals you for what you are. 
To be very clear I am not a party to YOUR VERSION of the truth.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Mark my words. Cops will either change the way they confront the public themselves, or find themselves being handed a new set of rules to follow. Public outrage is growing.


Maybe "public" needs to rethink how they confront cops?
It's pretty easy, show your hands, don't fight, spit, curse, bite, kick, hit, or grab.
When a cop tells you to get on the ground, you need to get on the ground, not reach in your pocket for some skittles.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yes remember the only proper place for the public is worshipping at the feet of the cops.

Thank you CH for that reminder.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

If 50 average lawful gun owners ,rushed at high-speed into this kind of situation, and fired a fatal shot; would all of them walk away? It would be interesting to see if lessor charges would be filed in most of the cases. My view is that there was very poor judgment on both sides of the case.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes remember the only proper place for the public is worshipping at the feet of the cops.
> 
> Thank you CH for that reminder.


Of course, you either missed the point or deliberately twisted what I said.
Would you like it if people didn't have to do what the cops said?
Why even have cops?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Well DUH you see this country was founded on the idea that there wasn't a crime till it was committed.
> We didn't charge people with crimes that hadn't happened.
> Now we seem fine with charging people with THINKING of a crime.
> You seem ok with killing someone because YOU think they might commit a crime.


If you'll look back at post #95, you'll find that Rice had already committed a crime when the 911 call was made. I posted the Illinois statute, even walking around a public park pointing a BB gun, is a crime.
That's because they aren't toys and should be handled in the same way as handling a firearm.
It may not be the way some see it, but it's the truth and it was darn sure that way in MY house.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

OPPS folks I'm going to have to reevaluate a bunch of my posts in light of the child having a actual weapon. For some reason I confused it with a toy with the orange tip removed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Weapon ? Firearm. ? Wasn't it a harmless chunk of plastic ?
> 
> Is the penalty for a 12 year old for whatever crime he committed Immediate death by cop and to be adjudicated by the same cops ?


Seems to me the best option for the police is to just not respond to calls about a person with a firearm until AFTER someone has been shot and the person with the weapon has left the area. Then we can be assured they will not shoot a kid because then there will be no doubt the weapon was real plus the kid wouldn't be there to be shot. Prefect solution!

When you think about it its kind of stupid for blacks to call the cops, after all its clear all cops want to do is kill them. If it weren't for the racist cops coming into 'the hood' there wouldn't be any violent black deaths at all. It is clear the people in 'the hood' know that black lives matter therefore no black would EVER kill another, right?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What police need to avoid is public perception that if they call the police they'll probably make matters worse. The police need to produce desirable results more often so the public believes the police will help, not hurt matters.


Hum . . .maybe the best way to do that is to have a six month moratorium on police response in the neighborhoods where the people feel that calling the police only makes things worse.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Mark my words. Cops will either change the way they confront the public themselves, or find themselves being handed a new set of rules to follow. Public outrage is growing.


And the public will see the law of unforeseen consequences hit massively. When these rules cause fewer and fewer good people to go into law enforcement. 

For decades I would often suggest law enforcement as a career for young people who had a desire to help people and 'make the world better'. No more. AAMOF, now if someone tells me they are think about it I will try to talk them out of it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Maybe "public" needs to rethink how they confront cops?
> It's pretty easy, show your hands, don't fight, spit, curse, bite, kick, hit, or grab.
> When a cop tells you to get on the ground, you need to get on the ground, not reach in your pocket for some skittles.


Understand that police have authorization (license) to use deadly force only because the people gave them that authorization. But the one consistent feature of license is that it's revocable. If the public thinks that authorization isn't being used responsibly they can limit it, or even revoke authorization altogether.

That's not without precedent. The Chicago police detail assigned to the major airports are not authorized to carry guns, even though they went to the police academy with other Chicago police who carry guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/unarmed-aviation-officers/

Really, it's up to them. They'll either police themselves or find themselves being policed by others. I don't see why good cops would mind policing themselves, if only to weed out any bad cops.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Well DUH you see this country was founded on the idea that there wasn't *a crime* till it was committed.
> We didn't charge people with* crimes* that hadn't happened.
> Now we seem fine with charging people with *THINKING of a crime*.
> You seem ok with killing someone because YOU think they might commit a crime.
> ...


I didn't lie about you 
You said: 


> Yes remember the only proper place for the public is *worshipping at the feet of the cops*.





> Is the penalty for a *12 year old* for whatever crime he committed *Immediate death by cop* and to be adjudicated by the same cops ?





> Just like the polices insistence on being able to *kill children with toy guns.*


Those all used buzzwords designed to elicit an emotional response

This case isn't about Rice "committing a crime".
It's about presenting a threat to the LEO's

Those statements taken together once again lead me to believe you're not being very realistic.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Your insistence on calling a toy a weapon indicates how far from the normal population the police have distanced themselves.
> 
> Just like the polices insistence on being able to kill children with toy guns.
> 
> ...


Is this man carrying a real weapon or a toy?











Are both of these weapons? Are they both toys? Is one a weapon and the other not? If you saw someone pull either from their pants and point it at you would you be scared?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Understand that police have authorization (license) to use deadly force only because the people gave them that authorization. But the one consistent feature of license is that it's revocable. If the public thinks that authorization isn't being used responsibly they can limit it, or even revoke authorization altogether.
> 
> That's not without precedent. The Chicago police detail assigned to the major airports are not authorized to carry guns, even though they went to the police academy with other Chicago police who carry guns.
> 
> ...


Did you read the article you posted? Small excerpt. Doesn't sound like they are going to be very helpful, just more targets.

The documents advise locking doors, turning off lights and remaining quiet and calm.

"We must also ensure that unarmed security personnel ... do not attempt to become part of the response, but could be invaluable to the evacuation efforts," the documents said.

In addition, a training video shown to aviation police officers has the same instructions: "If evacuation is not possible, you should find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you. Block entry to your hiding place and lock the door."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> If 50 average lawful gun owners ,rushed at high-speed into this kind of situation, and fired a fatal shot; would all of them walk away? It would be interesting to see if lessor charges would be filed in most of the cases. My view is that there was very poor judgment on both sides of the case.


The "speed" of the situation makes no difference.
Only the details of the actions matter.

Police are held to the same standards as all others in that they are only authorized to use deadly force to to stop a *threat* of death or serious injury, which is exactly what happened in this case.

It makes no difference if it's later found the gun wasn't real, because the "threat" was still real
* to any reasonable person* at the time of the incident.

You still haven't answered my question

*How close do you think is the "correct" distance for the initial confrontation?*


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> If 50 average lawful gun owners ,rushed at high-speed into this kind of situation, and fired a fatal shot; would all of them walk away? It would be interesting to see if lessor charges would be filed in most of the cases. My view is that there was very poor judgment on both sides of the case.


Actually the standard for the use of deadly force is much higher for police than for 'average lawful gun owners'. So with the same facts a non-LEO would probably not even faced a grand jury.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Did you read the article you posted? Small excerpt. Doesn't sound like they are going to be very helpful, just more targets.
> 
> The documents advise locking doors, turning off lights and remaining quiet and calm.
> 
> ...


I was only saying that authorization to use deadly force can be revoked. I wasn't commenting on whether airport police in Chicago should or shouldn't be armed, I was only pointing out that they aren't.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I was only saying that authorization to use deadly force can be revoked. I wasn't commenting on whether airport police in Chicago should or shouldn't be armed, I was only pointing out that they aren't.


And I was pointing out the uselessness of their presence. But I do thank you for it as I will question using airports that employ those restrictions.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> And I was pointing out the uselessness of their presence. But I do thank you for it as I will question using airports that employ those restrictions.


You'll also want to avoid England, as the majority of their police officers are not authorized to carry guns. Interestingly, 82% of English police surveyed want it to stay that way.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19641398

As the article points out:
_
"Sadly we know from the experience in America and other countries that having armed officers certainly does not mean, sadly, that police officers do not end up getting shot."_


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> You'll also want to avoid England, as the majority of their police officers are not authorized to carry guns. Interestingly, 82% of English police surveyed want it to stay that way.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19641398
> 
> ...


That's ok.
I have it on good authority that not going back to England was a common sentiment here for the last 200+ years.........:lookout:


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> You'll also want to avoid England, as the majority of their police officers are not authorized to carry guns. Interestingly, 82% of English police surveyed want it to stay that way.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19641398
> 
> ...


I go to the UK regularly, seems that don't have as large a problem with armed gangs. Last time I was there in October, don't care for the larger cities but do have to be there at times.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Nevada View Post
> You'll also want to avoid England, as the majority of their police officers are not *authorized* to carry guns.


You're confusing an "authorization to carry guns" with the basic human *right* of self defense.

You don't give up one with the other


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're confusing an "authorization to carry guns" with the basic human *right* of self defense.
> 
> You don't give up one with the other


Most of us are not authorized to carry a gun at work. Cops are at work, so they follow company rules if they want to keep working there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Most of us are not authorized to carry a gun at work. Cops are at work, so they follow company rules if they want to keep working there.


You aren't going to see any major changes in US police policies.
The number of shootings don't justify them


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You aren't going to see any major changes in US police policies.
> The number of shootings don't justify them


I doubt the outrage will end until something changes with police policy. It's not the number of shootings, it's how the public reacts to it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You aren't going to see any major changes in US police policies.
> The number of shootings don't justify them


Actually we already have. Body cams are being deployed in several places now and since it only helps clarify eyewitness accounts, it keeps everyone more honest.

Dash cams were not the norm a generation ago either, but the reason departments use them now is the same - accurate recording of events.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I doubt the outrage will end until something changes with police policy. It's not the number of shootings, *it's how the public reacts to it*.


The public reacts to media hype, not reality.
The "outrage" is also media hype and largely nonexistant


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't lie about you
> 
> You said:
> 
> ...



Nothing in those words was designed to elicit a emotion responce. 
Please refrain from your lies.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The public reacts to media hype, not reality.
> The "outrage" is also media hype and largely nonexistant


That's true, public perception isn't necessarily reality. But fair or not, public perception is shifting in favor of cops needing to practice more restraint.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Understand that police have authorization (license) to use deadly force only because the people gave them that authorization. But the one consistent feature of license is that it's revocable. If the public thinks that authorization isn't being used responsibly they can limit it, or even revoke authorization altogether.


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of police powers. Police have no license to use deadly force. They have a right to defend themselves and others, the same IRREVOCABLE right the rest of us have.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kuriakos said:


> You have a fundamental misunderstanding of police powers. Police have no license to use deadly force. They have a right to defend themselves and others, the same IRREVOCABLE right the rest of us have.


You couldn't be more mistaken. Cops are on the job. They only carry a gun because their employer authorizes them to do it. Most of us were forbidden to carry a gun a work. In fact, most employers warn their employees that if they bring a gun to work it's automatic dismissal.

Airport cops being unauthorized to carry guns is a good example.

Americans have no irrevocable right to carry a gun at work. Where did you get the idea that such a right existed?


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You couldn't be more mistaken. Cops are on the job. They only carry a gun because their employer authorizes them to do it. Most of us were forbidden to carry a gun a work. In fact, most employers warn their employees that if they bring a gun to work it's automatic dismissal.
> 
> Airport cops being unauthorized to carry guns is a good example.
> 
> Americans have no irrevocable right to carry a gun at work. Where did you get the idea that such a right existed?


You have twisted my words ridiculously. Read them again. I didn't say what you claim I said. But I think you know that and you're simply being extremely dishonest by characterizing what I said the way you did.

Carrying a gun is authorized by the job. Deadly force necessary to self defense is a right we all have and it cannot be unauthorized by an employer. All taking away their guns does is remove their most effective deadly force tool, but they still have the right to use deadly force to save their life or that of another.

Look, you've made a big point about being a firefighter and how that somehow makes you an authority on such things, but YOU couldn't be more mistaken about this. I've actually done the job we're talking about, as a sworn law enforcement officer. I've also prosecuted two police officers for crimes committed while they were on duty. I know a thing or two about this stuff.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

glock26USMC said:


> You want to keep it 100% well here you go:
> I'm just as sick of the Tamir Rice case as the next guy, but it&#8217;s also my job to debunk lies and information on firearms and firearms laws, so I&#8217;ve been sucked back into this story at least one more time to debunk a pair of idiotic articles written by out-of-their depth leftist writers who allege that Tamir Rice was &#8220;just open carrying.&#8221;
> Tamir Rice was never &#8220;open carrying&#8221; by even the most charitable definition of the term.
> Rice was concealing (not open carrying) a replica firearm by sticking it in the waistband of his pants under a loose-fitting hoodie. To carry a firearm in that manner, you must be 21 years of age, receive a minimum of 12 hours of handgun training (10 hours of classroom instruction and 2 hours of range time) from a certified instructor, demonstrate competency with a handgun through written and shooting tests, pass a criminal background check, and meet certain residency requirements.
> ...



Unless you are the author of this article: http://bearingarms.com/no-tamir-rice-was-not-open-carrying/
you are *plagiarizing.*
I am a little surprised that someone so active on so many boards is unaware of what plagiarism is and how frowned upon it is. 
I would think after the Alice debacle, CMG would take a dim view of it as well.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

basketti said:


> Unless you are the author of this article: http://bearingarms.com/no-tamir-rice-was-not-open-carrying/
> you are *plagiarizing.*
> I am a little surprised that someone so active on so many boards is unaware of what plagiarism is and how frowned upon it is.
> I would think after the Alice debacle, CMG would take a dim view of it as well.


I didnt change any wording, just posted it, and it wad posted anonymously, no credit to anyone, or i would of


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

glock26USMC said:


> I didnt change any wording, just posted it, and it wad posted anonymously, no credit to anyone, or i would of


clearly, it does have an author and you tried to pass it off as your own. That, is plagiarizing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Is that not the kind of thing that caused the uproar close to a year ago. Mods posting things as if they were their own. I realize you are not a Mod here but you are a mod for other forums for the company and now you have posted two things that we know of that you did not credit.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

basketti said:


> clearly, it does have an author and you tried to pass it off as your own. That, is plagiarizing.


Never said it was mine !

And just to clarify, "posted by", doesn't mean the same as "written by"

There is a difference


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

glock26USMC said:


> Never said it was mine !


you absolutely did. When you posted it without saying it wasn't yours that was a clear implication that it was your work.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

basketti said:


> you absolutely did. When you posted it without saying it wasn't yours that was a clear implication that it was your work.


And against the rules of all forums.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

basketti said:


> you absolutely did. When you posted it without saying it wasn't yours that was a clear implication that it was your work.


Posted by and written by, are two different things.

Thanks for worrying about my posting though


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

glock26USMC said:


> Posted by and written by, are two different things.
> 
> Thanks for worrying about my posting though


No, they aren't.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

basketti said:


> No, they aren't.


Okay....... whatever you say


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Also posted in other GMC forums unattributed just like the last time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=glo...ie=UTF-8#q=glock26USMC+today+I+stopped+caring


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

It was removed, didn't know i couldn't post a article, circling the Internet


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

glock26USMC said:


> It was removed, didn't know i couldn't post a article, circling the Internet


This was pointed out to you the last time you did it and you acknowledged and changed your post then. Denying you don't know it know seems to be disingenuous.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

glock26USMC said:


> It was removed, didn't know i couldn't post a article, circling the Internet


Posting it without putting it in quotes and having a link to a source could be a copyright violation

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/537625-ht-rules-approved-members.html



> Copying/Pasting: Please ensure that if you are copying an article, you copy a short paragraph with a link back to the original article and please provide a brief summary. Please review videos and articles to ensure they meet HT standard for profanity.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Posting it without putting it in quotes and having a link to a source could be a copyright violation
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/537625-ht-rules-approved-members.html


My apologies, didn't know who exactly wrote it, therefore i didn't.

It is all over the Internet, some anonymously 

Its removed


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

glock26USMC said:


> My apologies, didn't know who exactly wrote it, therefore i didn't.
> 
> It is all over the Internet, some anonymously
> 
> Its removed


Everywhere I've found it, its been attributed.


----------



## LT2108 (May 28, 2014)

Don't worry, I will not be back


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

glock26USMC said:


> Don't worry, I will not be back


Maybe the bazillion other boards you post at won't figure out that you plagiarize. It's pretty amazing that you find the time to be an LEO at all with all of the posting you do under multiple names.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

glock26USMC said:


> Don't worry, I will not be back


Well crap!!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

glock26USMC said:


> Don't worry, I will not be back



A shame, I have found him informative.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Interesting this debate seems to have gone off track in the second post with only farmer brown having a clear idea that the gun in question was a BB gun unfortunately while in post #95 he discusses BB guns it isn't till post number #138 that I caught onto what he was saying. 
Lol even after that the orange tip debate continued. !
OPPS!
Excuse me folks mea culpa.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Actually we already have. Body cams are being deployed in several places now and since it only helps clarify eyewitness accounts, it keeps everyone more honest.
> 
> Dash cams were not the norm a generation ago either, but the reason departments use them now is the same - accurate recording of events.


And history has shown us that in most cases the story told by the police is the correct one. People seem to not know that criminals tend to lie about things.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> And history has shown us that in most cases the story told by the police is the correct one. People seem to not know that criminals tend to lie about things.


The police are not always interacting with criminals.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> A shame, I have found him informative.


True. There was really no point in calling him out that way. He deserved better.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> True. There was really no point in calling him out that way. He deserved better.


Yes he did, not well done.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Nevada said:


> True. There was really no point in calling him out that way. He deserved better.


Oh, cry me a river, Nevada. Plagiarism is stealing and it's not the first time he's been caught doing it here. I wouldn't worry overly much either. It wasn't his first swan song either. He said he wouldn't be back after he was called out by someone else for plagiarizing the "Today I stopped caring" thread.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Yes he did, not well done.


I wasn't here or I would have intervened. I was engaged in configuring a laptop.

If someone didn't like the way another member presented an outside quote then it could have been framed in a helpful manner, maybe suggesting a way to add a reference link. Outright accusing him of plagiarism wasn't fair, since he obviously had no intention of taking credit for the quote.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

He did the same thing twice and denied the second time that he did not know better even though it was pointed out the first time and he understood what he did and acknowledged it. I have a copy of his original post acknowledging his mistake.

He is a a mod on other forums by the same owner. The same company that had this happen before causing a huge out flux of friends and posters. 

He knew better.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

basketti said:


> Oh, cry me a river, Nevada. Plagiarism is stealing and it's not the first time he's been caught doing it here. I wouldn't worry overly much either. It wasn't his first swan song either. He said he wouldn't be back after he was called out by someone else for plagiarizing the "Today I stopped caring" thread.


He posted it...that's all...get over yourself.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

glock26USMC said:


> Don't worry, I will not be back


They ran another one off.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Cornhusker said:


> They ran another one off.


Define "they"....


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Why do you think Glock don't post much after 3pm ?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I wasn't here or I would have intervened. I was engaged in configuring a laptop.
> 
> If someone didn't like the way another member presented an outside quote then it could have been framed in a helpful manner, maybe suggesting a way to add a reference link. Outright accusing him of plagiarism wasn't fair, since he obviously had no intention of taking credit for the quote.


Perhaps you missed the point. He didn't present it as an outside quote. He presented it as his own words. Which he has done before and been called out on it for by someone else. 
Accusing him of plagiarims was absolutely fair. It was exactly what he did and he DID take credit for it since it was never quoted. He just typed it up like it came right out of his own head.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I wasn't here or I would have intervened. I was engaged in configuring a laptop.
> 
> If someone didn't like the way another member presented an outside quote then it could have been framed in a helpful manner, maybe suggesting a way to add a reference link. Outright accusing him of plagiarism wasn't fair, since he obviously had no intention of taking credit for the quote.


Yeah, it looks like if it was such a concern maybe having a mod discuss it with him might have been more productive.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

no really said:


> Yeah, it looks like if it was such a concern maybe having a mod discuss it with him might have been more productive.


But then how would everybody know who was "RIGHT" and who "WON"?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

After hearing a few more details of who glock was I'm very disappointed. 
I thought he added to the conversation 
But I also think. Calling him out on his theft was fair. 
I'm concerned his leaving reveals far more about his character than his posts did. 

Sometimes people make mistakes. The good ones admit it say I'm sorry and try to correct the problem. 
Others deny , blame others then can't face the disgrace and run away. 
Let's pray this loss of face doesent cause him to harm himself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm concerned his leaving reveals far more about his character than his posts did.


Many say they are leaving but the majority really don't or if they do, they soon return.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

This thread has grown to 200 replies, multiple tangents and varied degrees of posted dramatics all a result of multiple social factors combining that resulted in the death of the preteen.

The instant communication aspect of cellular phones played a part.

The relay via radio dispatch lacking complete situation reporting played a factor.

The change from kids playing with western style two gun holsters, chrome plated cap guns and cheap felt cowboy hats as recently as 20 years ago has graduated to many emulating the street gang attitude due to television and video games and playing "gangsta" with more realistic play guns.

Parents being more egg and sperm donors has also resulted in more 8 to 16 year olds joining street gangs as shooters as the adult street gang members who are the shot callers fill the parental void and know if the minor gets caught they only go to juvenile detention for 7 or 8 years at most.

Police departments of course must train to respond to the possibility of a teen or preteen gang member proving themselves to their gang "family".

The police of course are doing a job few people are willing to take and have families of their own that they want to ensure they have the best chance to return home to after their shift ends.

In this incident, after the police response and events, the officers apparently experienced shock at the loss of a preteen life due to a report of a less than lethal toy grade gun.

The grand jury obviously considered all the various factors in deciding despite the result of the combined social environmental factors that the officers responded per acceptable standard of conduct and all elements combined ended in the unfortunate loss of a young life.

Although the choice of not bring charges against the officers was made, both will carry the anguish of the situation for the rest of their lives and careers (if they choose to remain in law enforcement).

Cleveland lost a young life and the confidence of two or more officers.

A future response by police in that city or another may leave a widow and children without a father or mother if a future officer hesitates for a split second thinking they may be confronted by a child with a toy when in reality they are facing a young street gang member out to "make his bones".

The ultimate solution is for a multiple prong response of parents taking parenting more seriously, LEAs considering the bogey aspect influencing standard response to threat situations, community programs for children involving parents, law enforcement and civic and social organizations to decrease the influence of teen street gangs.

Boys and Girls clubs, municipal sponsored activities and LEA monitored teen hangout locations , which generally result in officers and teens getting to better know each other, more police foot, bike or horse patrols combined with better parenting skills combined with enforcement of existing laws and statutes would reduce incidents as this child's death and provide a less threatening society evident within just a few years without the need of the media hype and all the political image bills currently being introduced like ticker tape and confetti at a parade.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The police are not always interacting with criminals.


So? The fact still stands that when the eye witness testimony is vastly different than the LEO version most of the times the video shows the cop's story is the correct one.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> So? The fact still stands that when the eye witness testimony is vastly different than the LEO version most of the times the video shows the cop's story is the correct one.



So ?
If you had a eight hour shift on 96 tapes of 5 minutes of a security guard who steals from his employer most of them would show him doing his job , perhaps even heroically. 
Just one would Show him for what he is.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So ?
> If you had a eight hour shift on 96 tapes of 5 minutes of a security guard who steals from his employer most of them would show him doing his job , perhaps even heroically.
> Just one would Show him for what he is.


Logic failure. A person's actions reflects on him and his personality. A member's actions does not automatically reflect on the group he's a member of. If you have 99 cops doing their job and 1 who does nothing but park his car and sleep through his shift you can not say that the entire police force is lazy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> So? The fact still stands that when the eye witness testimony is vastly different than the LEO version most of the times the video shows the cop's story is the correct one.






watcher said:


> Logic failure. A person's actions reflects on him and his personality. A member's actions does not automatically reflect on the group he's a member of. If you have 99 cops doing their job and 1 who does nothing but park his car and sleep through his shift you can not say that the entire police force is lazy.



How do you square the top post with the bottom ?
When you say most of the time do you mean individually or force wide ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> How do you square the top post with the bottom ?
> When you say most of the time do you mean individually or force wide ?


It means simply "*most *of the time"

"Most" has nothing to do with "who"


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> So? The fact still stands that when the eye witness testimony is vastly different than the LEO version most of the times the video shows the cop's story is the correct one.





AmericanStand said:


> How do you square the top post with the bottom ?
> When you say most of the time do you mean individually or force wide ?



I can't say where he *meant* to put the apostrophe in "cop's story", but according to his grammar and other indications in his posts, it would mean individually. "Story" isn't plural either.



Bearfootfarm said:


> It means simply "*most *of the time"
> 
> "Most" has nothing to do with "who"



In the sentence structure of the English language in this case, "most" has everything to do with "who".
It's better to focus on logic, rather than grammar, when debating opinions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I can't say where he *meant* to put the apostrophe in "cop's story", but according to his grammar and other indications in his posts, it would mean individually. "Story" isn't plural either.
> 
> 
> In the sentence structure of the English language in this case, "most" has everything to do with "who".
> It's better to focus on logic, rather than grammar, when debating opinions.





> Originally Posted by watcher View Post
> So? The fact still stands that when the eye witness testimony is vastly different than the LEO version most of the *times* the video shows the cop's story is the correct one.


"Most of the *TIMES*"

You can't *convey* logic if you can't understand grammar

The "who" is "cops" (with or without an apostrophe) singly or in total


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Most of the *TIMES*"
> 
> You can't *convey* logic if you can't understand grammar
> 
> The "who" is "cops" (with or without an apostrophe) singly or in total


I'm glad you said that, instead of me, lol.


I should probably give you the benefit of the doubt when you divide sentences to infer their meanings, but I get the feeling that you know the whole sentence is to be used.
Since the phrase "most of the times" IS in the same sentence, to what or whom is that referring to, in your opinion?:shrug:


You seem to be able to even argue with yourself, lol.





Bearfootfarm said:


> It means simply "*most *of the time"
> 
> "Most" has nothing to do with "who"


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ok here is what I get from post 203 
If any particular cops statements 
OR any group of cops statements
Are reviewed against dash and body tapes most of the time they will agree. 

BUT the other side of that is sometimes they don't.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Ok here is what I get from post 203
> If any particular cops statements
> OR any group of cops statements
> Are reviewed against dash and body tapes most of the time they will agree.
> ...


 The problem MOST people have , is with the reaction of the 
whole police force when these tapes come out!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> How do you square the top post with the bottom ?
> When you say most of the time do you mean individually or force wide ?


Force wide. If you took all the video across the nation where there was an accusation against the officer(s) involved and compared the officer's version of events and the complainant's version to the video, in almost every case you would discover that the officer's version more closely matches what the video shows.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I can't say where he *meant* to put the apostrophe in "cop's story", but according to his grammar and other indications in his posts, it would mean individually. "Story" isn't plural either.


Oh great, grammar policing 

It simple. You have a bunch of incidents and a bunch of videos and therefore a bunch of cops with stories about what happened. Now each video is of an individual incident and each cop involved would have his version of what he did and what he saw. Therefore you have a bunch of cops with a bunch of stories while at the same time you have each individual cop having his own individual story.

So when you look at each individual cop's story in each individual incident from the batch of videos you will find that what the cop said happened in the individual incident is what happened.

That means in the majority of cases the cops are telling the truth and are not just a gang who likes beating people in general and black people in specific.




farmrbrown said:


> In the sentence structure of the English language in this case, "most" has everything to do with "who".
> It's better to focus on logic, rather than grammar, when debating opinions.


English should be banned. Its one of the poorest way to communicate known to man.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Ok here is what I get from post 203
> If any particular cops statements
> OR any group of cops statements
> Are reviewed against dash and body tapes most of the time they will agree.
> ...


Seeing as how we agree that there are only a few times when the cops are not truthful does it make sense to say cops (in general) are bad guys, ala black lives matter?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> The problem MOST people have , is with the reaction of the
> whole police force when these tapes come out!


I think there is a big thing most people are forgetting. Cops are people and they have bad days. If your life was video 24/7 do you think someone could find an incident where you were 'bad'? 

Until we have a robocop who has no emotions to interfere with his work we will always have times when a cop "loses" it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> I think there is a big thing most people are forgetting. Cops are people and they have bad days. If your life was video 24/7 do you think someone could find an incident where you were 'bad'?
> 
> 
> 
> Until we have a robocop who has no emotions to interfere with his work we will always have times when a cop "loses" it.



I agree with you cops are people. They are flawed and thus need to be subject to review. 

The best cop I know is a felon. 
Well he commits felonies. 

You see he sometimes has agreed to help people commit crimes. 
Isn't that conspiracy ?
But it's ok since those other people are cops. 

Now when he walks into court why is this persons testimony accepted as true while the accuseds testimony is considered doubtfull ?
Yes 99% of the time he is law abiding but so is a bank robber.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Wanda View Post
> The problem MOST people have , is with the *reaction of the
> whole police force *when these tapes come out!


The "whole force" has no reaction.
A few officials speak and the majority say nothing, whether they agree or not

Saying the whole force reacts the same is like saying this whole forum reacts the same


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many say they are leaving but the majority really don't or if they do, they soon return.


You nailed it. 
Back again....


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Here's my take on this whole matter - the cops should have not gotten so close to the kid to begin with - they should have stopped 30 yards or so away and assessed the situation - then see what the kid was doing - pulling up so close to the kid put the cops in position where a split second reaction was needed - the cops were stupid IMO - some cops are just too trigger happy

I know if I worked somewhere and made a mistake that took someone's life - I would be fired - this cop should be fired for making a stupid mistake - 

I'm a white guy but I can see why so many black people are after the cops because of the way some treat them - the one thing I have against many blacks is the language that they use when dealing with the cops - when I watch some of those You Tube videos dealing with police harassment I feel sorry for the black guy until he starts using gutter language - I guess the cops get pretty mad when that happens


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm glad you said that, instead of me, lol.
> 
> 
> I should probably give you the benefit of the doubt when you divide sentences to infer their meanings, but I get the feeling that you know *the whole sentence is to be used.*
> ...


It's clearly referring to "videos", since that's exactly what it says:




> Originally Posted by watcher View Post
> So? The fact still stands that when the eye witness testimony is vastly different than the LEO version *most of the times the video* shows the cop's story is the correct one.


This is just another of your typical distractions


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's clearly referring to "videos", since that's exactly what it says:
> 
> The fact still stands that when the eye witness testimony is vastly different than the LEO version most of the times* the video shows the cop's story* is the correct one.
> 
> This is just another of your typical distractions


Not really.

I'm actually trying to stay focused on what watcher was saying......most of the time, cameras back up the cops' version of events.

Rather unimportant in the whole scheme of things?
Oh yeah.

I just don't understand the need to misrepresent what someone says when you disagree with their opinion. When the facts are on your side, as in this case, there's no need at all in order to prove your point.:shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Not really.
> 
> *I'm actually trying to stay focused on what watcher was saying.*.....most of the time, cameras back up the cops' version of events.
> 
> ...


Sure you are


----------

