# Tamir Rice shooting was 'justified'



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34499044



> A white police officer was justified in shooting and killing last year a black 12-year-old boy who was carrying a toy gun in Cleveland, Ohio, two outside experts have concluded.
> 
> The conclusions come ahead of an expected decision by a grand jury on whether criminal charges are warranted.
> In June, a judge ruled the policeman should be charged with murder.
> ...


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I believe the conclusions are correct in spite of how sad the situation is.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

It doesn't matter what "two outside experts" say about it, it's the grand jury that matters. I don't see much point in publishing the article and even less in posting it.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Unfortunately what many people call justice is really revenge.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> It doesn't matter what "two outside experts" say about it, it's the grand jury that matters. I don't see much point in publishing the article and even less in posting it.


People always complain if the police investigate themselves, which is why it does matter what outside experts say.

Grand juries only hear what prosecutors want them to hear, so their decisions are often biased, even if they are "official"

Outside investigators have no ties to either side, and look at all the facts.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> People always complain if the police investigate themselves, which is why it does matter what outside experts say.
> 
> Grand juries only hear what prosecutors want them to hear, so their decisions are often biased, even if they are "official"
> 
> Outside investigators have no ties to either side, and look at all the facts.


If these "experts" are not named and their credentials are unknown, it's fluff. 

Grand juries decide if enough evidence exists to bring charges, so of course they are reviewing evidence from the prosecutor's side. What else would they work from? 

They aren't deciding guilt or innocence, only whether or not there is good enough evidence to proceed with the case. So you could say, they are auditing the prosecutor's work. That isn't biased in nature.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

So 2 prosecutors and a retired FBI agent said his actions were correct. No bias there I am sure.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> If these *"experts" are not named* and their credentials are unknown, it's fluff.
> 
> Grand juries decide if enough evidence exists to bring charges, so of course they are reviewing evidence from the prosecutor's side. What else would they work from?
> 
> They aren't deciding guilt or innocence, only whether or not there is good enough evidence to proceed with the case. So you could say, they are auditing the prosecutor's work. *That isn't biased in nature*.


Those who need to know who they are, and what credentials the possess already know.

Anyone else truly interested could easily find that information:
Kimberly A Crawford, Legal Instructor, FBI Academy, (retired)
S. Lamar Sims, Senior Assistant District Attorney, Denver, CO.

If only one side is presented, how could the process *not* be biased?
The reports will be shown to the Grand Jury, so they are hardly "fluff"


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those who need to know who they are, and what credentials the possess already know.
> 
> Anyone else truly interested could easily find that information:
> Kimberly A Crawford, Legal Instructor, FBI Academy, (retired)
> ...


If it was so easy for you to find the experts, why couldn't the author of the article? Which also failed to say that their reports were part of the grand jury evidence. The article is what I was referring to as "fluff" and now I'm even more convinced.

There isn't a "side" in a grand jury process. Again, they are reviewing evidence and making a judgement on whether it is enough to indict and proceed with a trial. It's a yes or no question, not a matter of guilt or innocence.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> If it was so easy for you to find the experts, *why couldn't the author of the article? * Which also failed to say that their reports were part of the grand jury evidence. The article is what I was referring to as "fluff" and now I'm even more convinced.
> 
> There isn't a "side" in a grand jury process. Again, they are reviewing evidence and making a judgement on whether it is enough to indict and proceed with a trial. It's a yes or no question, not a matter of guilt or innocence.


Not every article includes every detail you might want to know.
It gave all the information needed to find more details for anyone interested

You also claimed it didn't name the investigators, but one name is in the portion I quoted in the OP.



> Retired FBI agent *Kimberly Crawford*, in a review of the shooting...


You can't blame the author for "fluff" if you didn't read what they wrote

Actually, they were both named in the article, so you're calling it "fluff" but you didn't even read it:



> In another report, Colorado prosecutor *Lamar Sims* also concluded that "Officer Loehmann's belief that Rice posed a threat of serious physical harm or death was objectively reasonable, as was his response to that perceived threat".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> So 2 prosecutors and a retired FBI agent said his actions were correct. No bias there I am sure.


Who would you suggest to do the investigations?
I think someone who understands the laws involved makes sense


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

The phrase "bad company brings bad luck" comes to mind. The child in this case was part of a culture where waving a gun around is thought to be cool. The company/culture he was a part of brought bad luck. I certainly don't blame the officer in this case. The kid didn't know better since that is all he probably ever knew. So one could probably blame the culture in which he was raised. So the ones who are really to blame are his family, friends and associates. Don't want your children shot? Then teach them it isn't proper to pretend to intimidate people with a gun. Most of us were taught to always treat a gun if it were loaded and never point a gun at someone. (unless in absolute need of self defense) He obviously wasn't taught this. He was 12, he was old enough, not a 6 year old playing cops and drug gangs. Sad, but it is what happens without proper teaching.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who would you suggest to do the investigations?
> I think someone who understands the laws involved makes sense


It has been amply proven that prosecutors are biased towards defending cops. Cops are their lifeblood. The FBI agent I might give a little more weight to but they are still biased. Anyone watching the video who thinks the cop was justified is heavily biased in favor of cops and excessive force.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

And that argument about playing with guns is absurd. I played with guns. So did every kid on my block. We ran all over our local park aiming our toy guns at ourselves and other people and we never got shot.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

BlackFeather said:


> The phrase "bad company brings bad luck" comes to mind. The child in this case was part of a culture where waving a gun around is thought to be cool. The company/culture he was a part of brought bad luck. I certainly don't blame the officer in this case. The kid didn't know better since that is all he probably ever knew. So one could probably blame the culture in which he was raised. So the ones who are really to blame are his family, friends and associates. Don't want your children shot? Then teach them it isn't proper to pretend to intimidate people with a gun. Most of us were taught to always treat a gun if it were loaded and never point a gun at someone. (unless in absolute need of self defense) He obviously wasn't taught this. He was 12, he was old enough, not a 6 year old playing cops and drug gangs. Sad, but it is what happens without proper teaching.


I'm wondering if you saw the video? Initially I thought it was a real tragedy but didn't assign blame to the cops. They were responding to a 911 call; they didn't know it was a toy gun. Then I saw the video, that kid was shot within a nanosecond. He didn't get a heartbeat of time to follow the command to "drop it" or whatever it was they yelled at him. Most people who don't have training, freeze up for a minute when someone starts barking commands at them. It takes a little time for them to process the situation, unlike soldiers and well trained dogs where a command has become a reflex. 

I'm glad for all the scrutiny this case can get, and I'm especially glad nobody's fate is in my hands on this one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> It has been amply proven that prosecutors are biased towards defending cops. Cops are their lifeblood. The FBI agent I might give a little more weight to but they are still biased.
> 
> Anyone watching the video who thinks the cop was justified is* heavily biased* in favor of cops and excessive force.


You didn't answer my question
Who do you think should investigate?

I think anyone with common sense would have shot him under identical circumstances, and it sounds like you're biased against the cops if you can't see that.

How is it "excessive force" to shoot someone who pulls a gun on you as they approach?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> And that argument about playing with guns is absurd. I played with guns. So did every kid on my block. We ran all over our local park aiming our toy guns at ourselves and other people and we never got shot.


That was then, this is now. How many mass shootings had been in the news when we were kids? How many people were so gun-phobic as to call 911 at the sight of a gun back then? Excuse me, that was before 911. You would just dial "0" for a real, live operator who would connect to the police.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> That was then, this is now. How many mass shootings had been in the news when we were kids? How many people were so gun-phobic as to call 911 at the sight of a gun back then? Excuse me, that was before 911. You would just dial "0" for a real, live operator who would connect to the police.


Exactly
The blame falls on the anti-gun morons who set out to make people fear guns


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not every article includes every detail you might want to know.
> It gave all the information needed to find more details for anyone interested
> 
> You also claimed it didn't name the investigators, but one name is in the portion I quoted in the OP.
> ...


I didn't read it close enough! It was not obvious that the anonymous "experts" reference in the first paragraph were the same people talked about several paragraphs later. OK, that clears it of the "fluff" charges but still not very well written, especially coming from BBC.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You didn't answer my question
> Who do you think should investigate?
> 
> I think anyone with common sense would have shot him under identical circumstances, and it sounds like you're biased against the cops if you can't see that.
> ...


Have you seen the video? You must just be really hot to shoot people because there is no way I would have done what that cop did. The kid didn't pull a gun he appeared to have his hands in his pockets as they screeched in. He was ambling towards them. He was falling down the second the police officer opened his door. 

Not to mention there are people in the park who are unconcerned about him. A person walks past him, there is a guy sitting at the picnic table behind him the whole time he is walking back and forth with his toy gun. If he is so scary why aren't they running away? 

Police show up at around 6:57

[YOUTUBE]sdAYPQd1H1A[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> That was then, this is now. How many mass shootings had been in the news when we were kids? How many people were so gun-phobic as to call 911 at the sight of a gun back then? Excuse me, that was before 911. You would just dial "0" for a real, live operator who would connect to the police.


Well I don't know about Missouri but around here there are still kids playing in yards and parks with toy guns. And we have plenty of violence here in Arkansas. I guess our police are just smart enough to be able to tell a kid with a toy from an adult with a real gun who actually poses a real threat. By your logic they should be shooting any open carry dude walking down the sidewalk with a military style rifle.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> And that argument about playing with guns is absurd. I played with guns. So did every kid on my block. We ran all over our local park aiming our toy guns at ourselves and other people and we never got shot.


Ever point one at a cop?

I know a woman who wound up with a broken jaw because she thought it would be funny to sneak up and grab her boyfriend (now husband) from the back. She didn't seem to realize that cops react differently than most people when suddenly grabbed, i.e. they don't tend to just yell and jump.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> *Have you seen the video?* You must just be really hot to shoot people because there is no way I would have done what that cop did. The kid didn't pull a gun he appeared to have his hands in his pockets as they screeched in. He was ambling towards them. He was falling down the second the police officer opened his door.
> 
> Not to mention there are people in the park who are unconcerned about him. A person walks past him, there is a guy sitting at the picnic table behind him the whole time he is walking back and forth with his toy gun. *If he is so scary why aren't they running away?
> *
> Police show up at around 6:57


Yes I've seen the video, and he did in fact reach for the gun, and reportedly "pulled it out" which is why he was shot. 

It makes no difference what you would have done, and I believe you've said before you would never carry a gun, so again, you are already biased.

Maybe the others somehow knew it wasn't a real gun.
Maybe they weren't paying attention to him at all.
It's not relevant to the shooting, and he was "scary" enough to have been reported

The person who called 911 was sitting in the pavilion, but left before police arrived


The legal "experts" who have seen the original videos in detail found no reason to think the shooting wasn't justifiable

You *still* haven't said who you think should do any investigations


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Well I don't know about Missouri but around here there are still kids playing in yards and parks with toy guns. And we have plenty of violence here in Arkansas. I guess our police are just smart enough to be able to tell a kid with a toy from an adult with a real gun who actually poses a real threat. By your logic they should be shooting any open carry dude walking down the sidewalk with a military style rifle.


You are reading waaaaaay more into that than what I wrote. 

The point being, the times have changed. Some parents won't let their kids have a toy gun, won't allow one in the house. Can you imagine anyone being that adamant about a toy gun when you were a kid? Some people today are so skeered at the mere sight of a gun, they call 911. And then all the tragic shootings, it creates a tension about guns that just didn't used to be there. 

It has nothing to do with how superior apparently everyone from Arkansas is to the rest of us. :icecream:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

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.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They should have never put the car that close to someone they thought was armed


The man who called said he was in the pavilion.

He's seen in the earlier portion of the video

I believe the cops may have thought that's who was sitting there when they pulled up


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The man who called said he was in the pavilion.
> 
> He's seen in the earlier portion of the video
> 
> I believe the cops may have thought that's who was sitting there when they pulled up


But they didn't know. If you think there is an armed person in the area why would you drive right up to someone you don't know where you had to open your door and exit the vehicle within 5 feet of him? First off if you think someone is a threat to you distance is your friend. 

Second you are almost completely vulnerable as you exit a car.  Ever try to draw a weapon when seated? Ever try to do it while seated in a car? Now if you do get your weapon clear of the holster you still have the problem of exiting in what would be a direct line of fire. 

IMO they should have stopped the car well back from the pavilion and used their car as cover until they determined the threat posed to them.

I've watched the video several times and I still can't tell for sure if the driver meant to drive that close or if it wound up there due to a combination of speed and lack of traction.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> You are reading waaaaaay more into that than what I wrote.
> 
> The point being, the times have changed. Some parents won't let their kids have a toy gun, won't allow one in the house. Can you imagine anyone being that adamant about a toy gun when you were a kid? Some people today are so skeered at the mere sight of a gun, they call 911. And then all the tragic shootings, it creates a tension about guns that just didn't used to be there.
> 
> It has nothing to do with how superior apparently everyone from Arkansas is to the rest of us. :icecream:


We had a recent drug bust locally and as always, the police showed pictures of the associated weapons seized in two separate photos. 

One picture intended for information purposes were not illegal in any way but was a large selection of paint ball and pellet guns seized at the same time, which looked remarkably realistic and can be bought in any Walmart and sporting store in Canada. 

The two shown in the other picture were the only two guns that the dealers could actually be charged with but both pellet versions were shown in the the pellet gun version as well. 

When my kids played with toy guns, there was no mistaking the fact that they were toys from any distance and I would suggest that most here probably played with similar but the toys have become so realistic that an unfortunate situation was bound to happen.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who would you suggest to do the investigations?
> 
> I think someone who understands the laws involved makes sense



No that is the problem you have the cops investigating the cops and they rule for the cops ,imagine that?

What the independent investigators said was essentially the cops did what cops do. 

I'm sorry but any reasonably intelligent person knows that you do not kill 12-year-old children for playing with toys ,if the system is set up to do that the system is flawed


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Been reading your arguments about the cops thought that might've been in danger. 

So what?

A Cops duty is to the safety of the populace not their own. 
If their primary duty was to keep themselves safer they could stay home.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> No that is the problem you have the cops investigating the cops and they rule for the cops ,imagine that?
> 
> What the independent investigators said was essentially the cops did what cops do.
> 
> I'm sorry but any reasonably intelligent person knows that you do not kill 12-year-old children for playing with toys ,if the system is set up to do that the system is flawed


To me it would depend entirely on if the toy with the altered orange tip ,making it to look real was pointed at you or at me . Somethings you only get to be wrong once in this life . Being stupid can still get a person killed kid or cop .:runforhills:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

You are gonna base a child's life on the quality Of the cheapest part on a 25 cent toy ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> No that is the problem you have the cops investigating the cops and they rule for the cops ,imagine that?
> 
> What the independent investigators said was essentially the cops did what cops do.
> 
> I'm sorry but any reasonably intelligent person knows that you do not kill *12-year-old children for playing with toys* ,if the system is set up to do that the system is flawed


This "kid" was 5' 7", and weighed 195 lbs, and was reaching for what looks exactly like a real firearm.

Any "reasonably intelligent person" would have done what the officer did.

As soon as Rice was down he called it in as him being "20 years old", based on appearance.

Even had they known his real age, it still could have been a real gun, and a 12 year old can kill you as easily as anyone else.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> You are gonna base a child's life on the quality Of the cheapest part on a 25 cent toy ?


Too bad we have to come down to a world where the violence is so widespread and constant that it is that way. Shouldn't be. Shouldn't be that violence is so widespread that it no longer shocks that a child is killed and all the noise is about the races of those involved.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> *But they didn't know*. If you think there is an armed person in the area why would you drive right up to someone you don't know where you had to open your door and exit the vehicle within 5 feet of him? First off if you think someone is a threat to you distance is your friend.


What they *did* know is the caller said* he* was sitting in the pavilion and Tamir was "in a swing"

I suspect they thought he was the caller until they saw the gun:

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


> In a 9-1-1 call, *a caller, who was sitting in a nearby gazebo*, reported that someone, possibly a juvenile, was pointing "a pistol" at random people in the Cudell Recreation Center.
> 
> The caller twice said that the gun was "probably fake," but was unable to identify if the weapon was real or not; the orange barrel markings used to identify toy weapons had been removed.[17]
> 
> ...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes I've seen the video, and he did in fact reach for the gun, and reportedly "pulled it out" which is why he was shot.
> 
> It makes no difference what you would have done, and I believe you've said before you would never carry a gun, so again, you are already biased.
> 
> ...


The person who made the 9-11 call should have been shot. I hope they feel guilty for the rest of their lives. 

A jury should make the decision on whether what the police officer did was appropriate or not. Anyone can throw in their 2 cents but in the end it doesn't mean anything. Yay for them that they thought it was justified. Yay for you. Yay for me that I don't. In the end none of our opinions matter a hill of beans.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> This "kid" was 5' 7", and weighed 195 lbs, and was reaching for what looks exactly like a real firearm.
> 
> Any "reasonably intelligent person" would have done what the officer did.
> 
> ...


There is no way in the time frame involved that the cop saw a gun. I don't see a gun in the video. Do you see a gun? At best he saw a kid's hands moving downwards.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Been reading your arguments about the cops thought that might've been in danger.
> 
> So what?
> 
> ...


Their jobs require them to face danger, it does not require them to place themselves in danger when there are other options. If there's call of an armed robbery in progress at a store they are not required to charge into the store making targets of themselves.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> To me it would depend entirely on if the toy with the altered orange tip ,making it to look real was pointed at you or at me . Somethings you only get to be wrong once in this life . Being stupid can still get a person killed kid or cop .:runforhills:


If I were a criminal who thought I'd need to shoot a cop I'd spend a few bucks for a can of dayglo orange paint. That moment of hesitation the cop would have when he saw a flash of orange could mean I win.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You are gonna base a *child's* life on the quality Of the cheapest part on *a 25 cent toy* ?


It was based on his actions, which was brandishing a realistic weapon in public, and reaching for it when police arrived.

Repeatedly calling him a "child" or a "kid" is an attempt to replace logic and facts with emotion and hype. Also, your price estimate is simply false.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You are gonna base a child's life on the quality Of the cheapest part on a 25 cent toy ?













How long did it take you to tell the difference? And you are not under stress and the picture is taken from what looks like about 2 feet.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> Their jobs require them to face danger, it does not require them to place themselves in danger when there are other options. If there's call of an armed robbery in progress at a store they are not required to charge into the store making targets of themselves.



Right but that's exactly what they did and they are using that as a excuse to kill innocent children.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What they *did* know is the caller said* he* was sitting in the pavilion and Tamir was "in a swing"
> 
> I suspect they thought he was the caller until they saw the gun:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice


The 911 operator knew this. But according to everything I have read this info was not given to the responding officers. All they were told was there was a man with a gun. I don't know if they were told his exact location at the time of the call or not but in that situation not treating every person as a suspect until proven otherwise is the only sensible thing to do. 

I've called 911 several times and I have always made sure that the responding officers were given a good description of me by the dispatcher. Most times I can hear what the dispatcher is telling the officers while I'm on the phone. But I still don't do anything which could be considered aggressive and don't get upset when they treat me like a criminal upon arrival.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> How long did it take you to tell the difference? And you are not under stress and the picture is taken from what looks like about 2 feet.



Lol it wouldn't make any difference how fast you decided you would be dead.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol it wouldn't make any difference how fast you decided *you would be dead*.


You really don't have much firearm experience, do you?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> This "kid" was 5' 7", and weighed 195 lbs, and was reaching for what looks exactly like a real firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 So we kill 12 year olds for being big ??

Personally I feel the cops need to take their head out of thier rectum and pay I attention to what's going on. 
Their training should teach them not to put them selves in situations requiring instantaneous life threatening decisions. 
And the public should require that when that type of decisions need to be made they should always be in favor of the public.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You really don't have much firearm experience, do you?



Lol apparently far more than you. 
While looking down a muzzle of two guns it doesn't matter which is the .45 Long before you draw or slap you are dead. 
Life isn't like the movies. You don't slap the gun out of his hand and disarm. You might try and you might win but the chances are poor.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> *So we kill 12 year olds for being big ??*
> 
> Personally I feel the cops need to take their head out of thier rectum and pay I attention to what's going on.
> 
> ...


He was shot because of his actions, and his size gives no indication of his young age. (not that it matters) 




> Lol apparently far more than you.
> While looking down a muzzle of two guns it doesn't matter which is the .45 Long before you draw or slap *you are dead. *
> Life isn't like the movies. You don't slap the gun out of his hand and disarm. You might try and you might win but the chances are poor.


Most people shot with a handgun do not die, and many shot "at" aren't even hit, which again shows me you really don't have much real knowledge about the subject. 

As I've said before, some of your ideas seem totally unrealistic
Do some research about "force on force" and "getting off the X"


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He was shot because of his actions, and his size gives no indication of his young age. (not that it matters)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tamir Rice died and I do believe that was a hand gun the officer had, must have been a lucky shot eh?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He was shot because of his actions, and his size gives no indication of his young age. (not that it matters)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well if getting shot is no big deal why do you use that as a justification for cops to kill kids ?
My ideas are unrealistic ?
Lol ok go back to the picture. Two guns one of which might be a BB gun. Look at that picture. You are inches from two guns aimed at your eyes. If he decides to pull the triggers what do you think is gonna happen ?
Perhaps I'm unrealistic to think someone's going to get hit in the face by two projectiles. 

If you think otherwize let's set it up an see. 
You face the guns , I will pull the triggers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Tamir Rice died and I do believe that was a hand gun the officer had, must have been a lucky shot eh?


He's one of the 15-20% who die from handgun wounds


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Well if getting shot is no big deal why do you use that as a *justification for cops to kill kids *?
> *My ideas are unrealistic ?*
> Lol ok go back to the picture. Two guns one of which might be a BB gun. Look at that picture. You are inches from two guns aimed at your eyes. If he decides to pull the triggers what do you think is gonna happen ?
> Perhaps I'm unrealistic to think someone's going to get hit in the face by two projectiles.
> ...


I didn't say it was "no big deal".
I said most don't die. That's reality

You still want to use the emotional "kid" terminology, which ignores the reality he had what appeared to be a real firearm.

You're unrealistic to say (among other things) "someone is *going to* die" just because they are shot.

I don't know how to state it plain enough for you to understand, since you keep rewording what I say.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Tamir Rice died and I do believe that was a hand gun the officer had, must have been a lucky shot eh?


The cop was either very good or very lucky in terms of the shot. He exited a car, drew his weapon and hit a target while under stress all in the matter of seconds.

I know a lot of good shooters and a few really good shooters and I don't think many of them could do that repeatedly w/o a lot of practice. AFAIK, that drill is not part of any police training program out there.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't say it was "no big deal".
> 
> I said most don't die. That's reality
> 
> ...



Lol I think you are trying to weasl out. Come on let's set it up like in the picture. Like you said most don't die.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> The cop was either very good or very lucky in terms of the shot. He exited a car, drew his weapon and hit a target while under stress all in the matter of seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of good shooters and a few really good shooters and I don't think many of them could do that repeatedly w/o a lot of practice. AFAIK, that drill is not part of any police training program out there.



Or perhaps he planned it that way ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol I think you are trying to weasl out. Come on let's set it up *like in the picture*. Like you said most don't die.


I'm not surprised you want to focus on the fantasy picture and ignore the reality of the actual event.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Isn't it sad when a young thread still in its prime falls victim to testosterone poisoning?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not surprised you want to focus on the fantasy picture and ignore the reality of the actual event.


The reality I see is a youth pretending to be a bad guy, and a cop being informed a bad guy had been seen at such and such address and responded appropriately when faced with what he beleived to be a bad guy with a gun. He took him out before he had a chance to become another random shooter of innocent people.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not surprised you want to focus on the fantasy picture and ignore the reality of the actual event.



Ok let's focus on the reality. 
A cop killed a unarmed child. 
Enough said


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Ok let's focus on the reality.
> A cop killed a unarmed child.
> Enough said


He wasn't "unarmed"
He was armed with a "pellet gun"

Once again you refuse to acknowledge the reality that he had what appeared to be a real firearm, and he had been pointing it at others

In the eyes of *the law*, he wasn't "unarmed".

Had he robbed someone using that pistol, he would have been charged with "armed robbery"

Anyone using reasonable judgement would have shot him.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Would you make up your mind ?are we going to argue reality or fantasy ? Or is it just your fantasies that we can discuss ?
Reality ; child
Reality. ; unarmed 
Reality ; killed by cop.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

How old does a "child" have to be in order to pull a trigger? How good does a cop have to be in order to tell the difference between a 22 caliber handgun (quite deadly especially if loaded with a magnum round) and a pellet gun which has a bore nearly identical to the 22?

Put yourself in this officers shoes..... An armed person has been reported, you arrive at the scene and see a youth brandishing a weapon... What's your next move when said individual turns their attention along with said weapon towards you?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How old does a "child" have to be in order to pull a trigger? How good does a cop have to be in order to tell the difference between a 22 caliber handgun (quite deadly especially if loaded with a magnum round) and a pellet gun which has a bore nearly identical to the 22?
> 
> Put yourself in this officers shoes..... An armed person has been reported, you arrive at the scene and see a youth brandishing a weapon... What's your next move when said individual turns their attention along with said weapon towards you?


Have you watched the video? He was not brandishing a weapon. At best he had it in his pocket and was reaching for his pocket. It's not like he was walking around waving it in the air. :umno:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Have you watched the video? He was not brandishing a weapon. At best he had it in his pocket and was reaching for his pocket. It's not like he was walking around waving it in the air. :umno:


Nope, but if you have a link to the video I would appreciate the opportunity to see it, I have been basing my comments on the article presented by the op which said the kid was waving the weapon in the air and that the cop had no way to know that it was not a deadly weapon as he had been told it was.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Have you watched the video? He was not brandishing a weapon. At best he had it in his pocket *and was reaching for his pocket*. It's not like he was walking around waving it in the air. :umno:


That's a single heartbeat away from being able to fire.

Any reasonable person would see that as a threat.

No one said he was "brandishing" when shot (although he was in the earlier portions of the video), so I'm not sure why that matters.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, but if you have a link to the video I would appreciate the opportunity to see it, I have been basing my comments on the article presented by the op which said the kid was waving the weapon in the air and that the cop had no way to know that it was not a deadly weapon as he had been told it was.


The early portion of the video shows a man seated in the pavilion, and Rice walking back and forth on the sidewalk waving the gun around an pointing at random people who are mostly off camera. The man in the pavilion was the 911 caller.

Before the police arrived the caller left, and Rice was seated in the pavilion when the police pulled up, with the gun on the table. He jumped up, stuck the gun in his waistband and approached the car. When he was nearly there, he started reaching for the gun and was then shot


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The early portion of the video shows a man seated in the pavilion, and Rice walking back and forth on the sidewalk waving the gun around an pointing at random people who are mostly off camera. The man in the pavilion was the 911 caller.
> 
> Before the police arrived the caller left, and Rice was seated in the pavilion when the police pulled up, with the gun on the table. He jumped up, stuck the gun in his waistband and approached the car. When he was nearly there, he started reaching for the gun and was then shot


If that's what happened I have to side with the cop.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I guess this discussion all hinges on how much risk you expect a cop to take. 
I believe that cops should be there to "Serve and PROTECT "

This I expect a cops job to be risky and dangerous. 
Some here seem to feel a cop should kill every threat he can conger up.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If that's what happened I have to side with the cop.



Right because a citizen should never be allowed to have a gun ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who would you suggest to do the investigations?
> 
> I think someone who understands the laws involved makes sense



I suggest someone that understands right and wrong. 
Perhaps local clergy or the child's mother ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Right because a citizen should never be allowed to have a gun ?


There is a huge difference between carrying a hand gun properly holstered and waving it around, pointing at people in a threatening manner. Why is that so difficult to understand.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is a huge difference between carrying a hand gun properly holstered and waving it around, pointing at people in a threatening manner. Why is that so difficult to understand.



The kid didn't even have it out.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The kid didn't even have it out.


The 911 caller says otherwise. Just because he didn't have it out the second the cops arrived doesn't change the fact that someone saw him with it and he was pointing it at people. 

If you are smart you don't make sudden moves of any kind when facing a person you know to be armed and is most likely feeling threatened. 

Think about. Say you have a friend who you know has a CCW and you have a key to his house. Would you think it would be wise to sneak into his home one night while he was out, leave the door open a crack and jump out from behind the couch when he walked into the dark livingroom?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, but if you have a link to the video I would appreciate the opportunity to see it, I have been basing my comments on the article presented by the op which said the kid was waving the weapon in the air and that the cop had no way to know that it was not a deadly weapon as he had been told it was.


It's back a page or 2 here.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The early portion of the video shows a man seated in the pavilion, and Rice walking back and forth on the sidewalk waving the gun around an pointing at random people who are mostly off camera. The man in the pavilion was the 911 caller.
> 
> Before the police arrived the caller left, and Rice was seated in the pavilion when the police pulled up, with the gun on the table. He jumped up, stuck the gun in his waistband and approached the car. When he was nearly there, he started reaching for the gun and was then shot


Not true. Like I said watch the video. The police never saw a kid with a gun waving. Never. The guy in the pavilion and the person who walked past the kid weren't too worried. If you are genuinely concerned it's a real gun and the kid is dangerous you don't sit there watching him for 5 minutes now do you?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Show me the waving gun here:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Kid was dead 1 second after that because the cop's door flew open and he shot him point blank. Cops didn't need to pull up that close. They could have handled it much differently. It is utter BS to excuse the shooting based on their poor handling from start to finish. I mean honestly if it's a kid with a real gun he won't be casually walking towards the cops now will he? He'd be running away. Course then they just would have shot him in the back. Maybe then he'd get some sympathy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> If you are smart you don't make sudden moves of any kind when facing a person you know to be armed and is most likely feeling threatened.
> 
> ?



True but kids are not always smart and he might not of perceived the cops feelings. 

Seems like you want the kid to be more professional than the cop.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> The 911 caller says otherwise. Just because he didn't have it out the second the cops arrived doesn't change the fact that someone saw him with it and he was pointing it at people.
> 
> ?



So the cops just pulled up and shot some randum guy ? 
Remember according to you they should be looking for someone with a gun out. 

So they get to kill anyone who didn't have a gun out ?

Remember to the kid didn't HAVE a gun.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Kid was dead 1 second after that because the cop's door flew open and he shot him point blank. Cops didn't need to pull up that close. They could have handled it much differently. It is utter BS to excuse the shooting based on their poor handling from start to finish. I mean honestly if it's a kid with a real gun he won't be casually walking towards the cops now will he? He'd be running away. Course then they just would have shot him in the back. Maybe then he'd get some sympathy.


I agree that the cops erred when they drove that close to someone when they were responding to a "man with a gun" call. As I have pointed out I wonder if they wanted to stop farther back but slid on the mud/snow.

Yet who knows what a person might do. The following is a video of someone doing something stupid with TWO cops right beside him and paying for it with his life. Now if someone told you the story w/o the video would you think someone was that stupid?


*WARNING: THIS IS ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF SOMEONE BEING SHOT. Do not watch if such things might upset you.* 

[YOUTUBE]J6Un1vzCLYM[/YOUTUBE]


BTW, could you tell what he pulled out of his pants was "just a BB gun"?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So the cops just pulled up and shot some randum guy ?
> Remember according to you they should be looking for someone with a gun out.


No I said they were looking for someone WITH a gun. 




AmericanStand said:


> So they get to kill anyone who didn't have a gun out ?


He made a threatening move. Action is always faster than reaction. In a situation like this you have *fractions of seconds* to respond or die.




AmericanStand said:


> Remember to the kid didn't HAVE a gun.


Actually he DID have a gun. Here's a picture of it.










Anyone should be able to tell that's a toy right?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

You still want to defend cops killing a innocent child. 
It sounds like any excuse will do for you. 
I hate the way you liberals have changed this country from a place where you are punished for what you do to a place where you are killed for what you MIGHT do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Right because a citizen should never be allowed to have a gun ?





> Originally Posted by AmericanStand
> So the cops just pulled up and shot some randum guy ?
> Remember according to you they should be looking for someone with a gun out.





> Originally Posted by AmericanStand View Post
> So they get to kill anyone who didn't have a gun out ?





> Remember to the kid didn't HAVE a gun.


You just lose credibility when you try to use irrational arguments


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You just lose credibility when you try to use irrational arguments



Is that why you didn't post any ?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You still want to defend cops killing a innocent child.
> It sounds like any excuse will do for you.
> I hate the way you liberals have changed this country from a place where you are punished for what you do to a place where you are killed for what you MIGHT do.


I will state here and now I will defend the shooting as being justified based on the facts.

The facts are as follows:

The innocent child had a very realistic looking pellet pistol and was pointing it at people. 

Proved by the 911 call and police evidence photos of the weapon. Picture of weapon can be found in post # 40 and #81 of this thread. You can listen to the 911 call here http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-tamir-rice-911-call-20141126-htmlstory.html


The cops were told there was a person has been pulling a gun out of his pants and pointing it people. They were also given a description of him being black and wearing a camouflage hat and a grey jacket with black sleeves. 

Proven by the radio traffic between the dispatcher and the officers. Listen to it here http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/tamir-rice-shooting-officers-were-not-told-the-gun-could-be-fake-or-that-suspect-was-juvenile).


The cops arrived to find a person wearing such clothing.

Proven again by the radio traffic.


The innocent child reached toward his waist/pocket as the officers arrived.

Proven by the video tape. Link to that is in post #20 of this thread.


This is conjecture based on the video tape. The officer thought the innocent child posed a threat to him because after firing he was trying so hard to get away from the innocent child he fell down while attempting to get the car between him and the toy gun the innocent child had.


So given the facts the officer was justified in using deadly force in this case. Could it have been handled differently? Sure. Could different actions have resulted in a different outcome? Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that when police respond to a call of a man with a gun they don't have the advantages we do after the fact.

In my life time there have been four times when I have interacted with law enforcement officers (not counting game wardens) when I was openly armed and I haven't been shot by the police a single time. Why? Because I didn't do anything stupid!! 

Like it or not people, especially kids, do stupid things and some times those things result in them being hurt or even killed. But when they do these things the only person to blame is the individual doing the stupid thing even if the harm was caused by a second person.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> I will state here and now I will defend the shooting as being justified based on the facts.
> 
> The facts are as follows:
> 
> ...


Very well said!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Show me the waving gun here:


He wasn't waving it around at that time.
Once again you're arguing against a point no one made.

The person who made the 911 call didn't just sit around.
He reported it and left the area



> I mean honestly if it's a kid with a real gun he won't be casually walking towards the cops now will he? He'd be running away


If he intended to shoot them he wouldn't run away.
You cannot speculate as to what anyone would do.
We can only go by what really did happen

They didn't know he was "a kid"
They knew it was a "male subject with a gun"

Your picture shows that male with his hands near his pockets where he could be concealing a weapon, and it's quite possible he started to pull it out just before he was shot, since that fits what the officers said. Even the caption suggests he was reaching for his waistband


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

I "love" how the term "innocent child" is bantered about as if someone can determine "innocence" simply by looking at someone. 

There are way too many cases of "children" in gangs and otherwise to murder and maim to say "Oh well: if it's just a CHILD he must be innocent and thus present no danger."

Besides, lots of genuinely innocent people do STUPID things...and die from a bad case of stupidity.

That's what happened in this case. He yanked out what looks like a real gun and pointed it at the police who did have real guns. That was very, very stupid: and so he died from a bad case of stupidity.

And actually, the second he pointed what appeared to be real gun at the police (or anyone else), he was no longer "innocent" but guilty of having committed a crime. If someone points what appears to be real gun at someone, that's still terroristic threatening or a similar offense.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Targe said:


> I "love" how the term "innocent child" is bantered about as if someone can determine "innocence" simply by looking at someone.
> 
> There are way too many cases of "children" in gangs and otherwise to murder and maim to say "Oh well: if it's just a CHILD he must be innocent and thus present no danger."
> 
> ...


This innocent young lad should be well in line to receive this years Darwin Award.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

So we kill children for making a mistake and give the mature trained cops a pass ?

Every bit of this is the cops fault. 
Poor responce behavior , failure to ascertain the threat of the weapon , over reaction. All part of a chain of mistakes the cops made.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nature is harsh.
Foolishly go walking in the woods unprepared...that mistake could end up with you don't walk out.

It is what it is.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So we kill children for making a mistake and give the mature trained cops a pass ?
> 
> Every bit of this is the cops fault.
> Poor responce behavior , failure to ascertain the threat of the weapon , over reaction. All part of a chain of mistakes the cops made.


Ah, wrong. Cause and effect. If you remove the cause you remove the effect. If the child had not been pointing a gun at people the cops would have never been called. Therefore the entire event is a result of HIS action not the police's reaction to it. 

Your logic is like the old saying about its not the fall off a 10 story building that kills you, its the sudden stop at the end.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The child was playing with a toy and no danger to anyone. 
Al the mistakes made after that were the cops. 
Cops not doing their job right. 
I can call in a Martian space attack don't you think the cops should check it out before requesting a nuke strike ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So *we kill children for making a mistake* and give the mature trained cops a pass ?
> 
> Every bit of *this is the cops fault*.
> Poor responce behavior , *failure to ascertain the threat* of the weapon , over reaction. All part of a chain of mistakes the cops made.





> The child was playing with a toy and no danger to anyone.
> Al the mistakes made after that were the cops.
> *Cops not doing their job right.*
> I can call in a Martian space attack don't you think the cops should check it out before requesting a nuke strike ?


More false, irrational arguments won't change anything at all.

If you call in a "Martian attack", don't point any "ray guns" at the police when they show up at your location


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More false, irrational arguments won't change anything at all.
> 
> 
> 
> If you call in a "Martian attack", don't point any "ray guns" at the police when they show up at your location



I certainly wouldn't because I realize that many people like You are cops and they feel any failure to worship and finigrate should result in death.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I certainly wouldn't because I realize that many people like You are cops and they feel any failure to worship and finigrate should result in death.


Think whatever you want.
It doesn't help you gain any credibility if you can't discuss things realistically


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

From what I hear I'm not the one here that needs more credibility.


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> I certainly wouldn't because I realize that many people like You are cops and they feel any failure to worship and finigrate should result in death.


What does "finigrate" mean -?


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> The child was playing with a toy...


A "child" whose age was indeterminate in a split second assessment and a "toy" which looked like a real gun. It still does; seeing it in the photo and even knowing it's not "a real gun", it still looks real. The police officers had no way of knowing it was not real.




AmericanStand said:


> ...and no danger to anyone.


Said with the "benefit of hindsight". And actually, he WAS a danger: he endangered himself with his stupidity and he paid the ultimate price.




AmericanStand said:


> Al the mistakes made after that were the cops.


See preceding observation.




AmericanStand said:


> Cops not doing their job right.


I'd ask you to explain what they should have done differently but I think you've already demonstrated that you think they should have exercised psychic abilities.




AmericanStand said:


> I can call in a Martian space attack don't you think the cops should check it out before requesting a nuke strike ?


Absurd analogy. "Martian space attacks" have never occurred and any such report would not be credible. Conversely, people with guns have, do and will continue to point those guns at police and even shoot and kill police officers, often in unprovoked ambushes. A report was made, the police responded, saw someone with what appeared -and still appears- to be a "real gun" who pointed the gun at them in a hostile manner. They reacted according to what their senses and training told them. 

Your cop-hating agenda aside, if Tamir Rice had pulled that thing out and pointed it at you, I doubt very seriously you would have thought _"Oh; just a kid with a toy."_


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Targe said:


> What does "finigrate" mean -?



Genuflect


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> Genuflect


So why not just use the word genuflect instead of making up a new word ? Seriously-?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It's a old word sometimes I may use some rather rare wording without thinking about it. 
Lol seriously I wasn't sure if the word genuflect would be understood either when I explained. It's not perfectly accurate it doesn't carry all the nuances of supplication and fear.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I don't think it was justified. It was preventable. The police car pulled up too close to the kid too fast, and put themselves in a poor situation. Why couldn't they have stayed a distance, told the kid to drop the gun, and if he didn't, then shoot him in the leg or something?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

More "innocent children":
http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news...=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=wdsu


> NOPD: Boys, *6 and 11*, accused of threatening man with gun





> Two boys, ages 6 and 11, are accused of threatening to shoot a man in the Marigny, New Orleans police said.
> 
> The incident happened about 12:35 p.m. Friday near the intersection of Royal and Marigny streets.
> 
> ...


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

double post


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The child was playing with a toy and no danger to anyone.


It wasn't known that the gun was a toy, so the child could have very well been considered a danger. `12 years old is old enough to intentionally cause harm. That said, I still think the officer put himself in danger and shouldn't have had to use deadly force.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> And that argument about playing with guns is absurd. *I played with guns. So did every kid on my block. We ran all over our local park aiming our toy guns at ourselves and other people* and we never got shot.


Why did you and your friends do that?


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

wendle said:


> The police car pulled up too close to the kid too fast, and put themselves in a poor situation. Why couldn't they have stayed a distance, told the kid to drop the gun, and if he didn't, then shoot him in the leg or something?


I was with you until the "shoot him in the leg" comment. 

I agree: their tactics are impeachable; but Tamir Rice was still stupid.

As for shooting people in the leg, that's not all that easy to do and someone with a gunshot wound to the leg is still quite capable of returning fire. Sort of how in football, you want to hit the quarterback high since his main weapon is throwing the ball and he can still do that on his way down. Besides, contrary to movies, people don't always "go down" with one shot, even when it's to the chest. 

Barnaby Jones could whip out his .38 snubbie and hit a guy in the leg who was 20 yards away running like O.J. Simpson through the airport...but the reality is that's pretty hard to do in the best of situations.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wendle said:


> I don't think it was justified. It was preventable. The police car pulled up too close to the kid too fast, and put themselves in a poor situation. Why couldn't they have stayed a distance, told the kid to drop the gun, and if he didn't, then shoot him in the leg or something?


Real life isn't like the movies. If you check most of the rounds fired in a "gun fight" do not hit the person that was being shot at. This is with trained officers who are trained to shoot for the center of a person. That's a target that is about 18" wide. A leg is about 1/3 that size. Also unlike in the movies shooting someone in the leg doesn't blow them off the feet. 

Watch the video I posted with the guy drawing a gun on the two officers and tell me how likely making a leg shot on the guy would be.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

One thing I want to reinforce here. It was NOT KNOWN that the gun was not a real firearm until AFTER the shooting. Even the 911 caller said it MIGHT NOT be a real firearm.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wendle said:


> I don't think it was justified. It was preventable. The police car pulled up too close to the kid too fast, and put themselves in a poor situation. Why couldn't they have stayed a distance, told the kid to drop the gun, and if he didn't, then shoot him in the leg *or something*?


They chose the "or something" 
It's the only logical reaction
They told him multiple times "show your hands", and he didn't

Shooting to "wound" is not really an option since it doesn't stop the threat fast enough to insure they can't still shoot you. That's for TV and movies


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Would it be OK if the police officer just drove up close and fired there weapon out of the window?:shrug: That would give them a lot more protection!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Would it be OK if the police officer just drove up close and fired there weapon out of the window?:shrug: That would give them a lot more protection!


Darren Wilson fired his first shots while still in his vehicle, when Michael Brown was trying to beat him.

I don't think they realized Rice was the one in the pavilion until they were already too close, since the caller said he was in the pavilion and Rice was "on a swing"


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

So you are OK with shooting from the vehicle? How close does the ''target'' need to be? Do you think that this could be the next tactic employed by police departments to increase safety for there officers?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Would it be OK if the police officer just drove up close and fired there weapon out of the window?:shrug: That would give them a lot more protection!


In some situations not only would that be OK but it could be the wisest thing to do.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> So you are OK with shooting from the vehicle? How close does the ''target'' need to be? Do you think that this could be the next tactic employed by police departments to increase safety for there officers?


Shooting out of the window would be a bad tactical thing to do for several reasons. To get a good line of sight you'd have to have the car broadside to the target putting nothing but the thin door between you and the threat. Its quite difficult to draw your weapon while seated. Its very difficult shoot at a 90+ degree angle from your body, which you would have to do if trying to shoot from a car window. When firing out a window you would have to extend your arms out and expose your entire head.

The proper procedure is to point the car toward the threat, open the door, lean slightly and fire though the gap between the car body and the door. This allows you to have the engine between you and the threat. Plus it allows you to use door frame to steady your aim while the frame provides some cover and concealment for your head.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> So you are OK with shooting from the vehicle? How close does the ''target'' need to be? Do you think that this could be the next tactic employed by police departments to increase safety for there officers?


If someone is pointing a gun (or what a reasonable person would think is a gun) at you while you are seated in a vehicle, that is clearly justification to use deadly force to stop the threat.

The distance would vary with the firearm involved

It doesn't "increase safety" for the officers since vehicles are more "concealment" than "cover" when you're seated in the passenger areas, and mobility is severely limited


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Fennick said:


> Why did you and your friends do that?


Because they were kids playing cops n robbers, in a wonderful time period before so many of the grown ups became terrified of guns.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

There seem to be two schools of thought on how a police officer should respond to a report of a man with a gun. 
They boil down to 
1 see if he has a gun then take appropriate action. 
2 kill him then examine him to see if he has a gun. 


I vote for method 1


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If someone is pointing a gun (or what a reasonable person would think is a gun) at you while you are seated in a vehicle, that is clearly justification to use deadly force to stop the threat.



NO

Why would it be ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> If someone is pointing a gun (or what a reasonable person would think is a gun) at you while you are seated in a vehicle, that is clearly justification to use deadly force to stop the threat.





AmericanStand said:


> NO
> 
> Why would it be ?


That's a pretty silly question, don't you think?
I'd suggest you do some research on "deadly force" statutes if you think it's not a threat


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> There seem to be two schools of thought on how a police officer should respond to a report of a man with a gun.
> They boil down to
> 1 see if he has a gun then *take appropriate action*.
> 2 kill him then examine him to see if he has a gun.
> I vote for method 1


Again you are being unrealistic.

Number 1 is exactly what the officers did
Number 2 is your unrealistic fantasy

You want to ignore the fact no shots would have been fired had Rice not reached for his gun. (and yes it was a "gun" in the context of the event, so don't try to tell me it was only a toy again)


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Because they were kids playing cops n robbers, in a wonderful time period before so many of the grown ups became terrified of guns.


But why were they playing cops n robbers? Why was that kind of play - crime stoppers vs. criminals, or even cowboys vs. indians, or soldiers vs. soldiers - encouraged? That kind of play focuses on guns and killing so why is guns and killing encouraged in children? Why is it encouraged in adults? 

It's not just in childish games, it's aimed at adults too with the main focus of so many movies, tv shows, video games, board games and books and other forms of "_entertainment_" being all about guns and killing. Or swords and killing. Or bows and arrows and killing. But nowadays mostly guns because that's what the weapon culture is all about now.

So why are people inculcated into guns and killing from childhood onwards?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> It's a old word sometimes I may use some rather rare wording without thinking about it.
> Lol seriously I wasn't sure if the word genuflect would be understood either when I explained. It's not perfectly accurate it doesn't carry all the nuances of supplication and fear.


I knew what you meant.

I think you should not ever stop using rare words that you're comfortable with and don't feel like you have to explain your use of them to others. There's nothing wrong with being a language snob as long as a person doesn't come across as being a pompous pseudo-intellectual at the same time.

If people don't know what a word means and are genuinely interested they will look it up or ask you nicely, the consequence being they become more literate and better spoken. It's one of the positive side effects of using internet. If certain people can't be bothered to look it up and instead they harrass you about it then they are just demonstrating that they are ignorant fools who don't value good language and better education. That is their problem, not yours.

This way you are educating or re-educating people in the common language and correct context that so many people are becoming forgetful, lazy and careless about. After a while you'll see that some other people will start correctly using the same new "old" words that you use. When they do that other people catch on and follow suit and start including those words in their own vocabularies too.

It's all good for people's education to be renewed.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Fennick said:


> I knew what you meant.
> 
> I think you should not ever stop using rare words that you're comfortable with and don't feel like you have to explain your use of them to others. There's nothing wrong with being a language snob as long as a person doesn't come across as being a pompous pseudo-intellectual at the same time.
> 
> ...



:goodjob:


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

Fennick said:


> I knew what you meant.
> 
> I think you should not ever stop using rare words that you're comfortable with and don't feel like you have to explain your use of them to others. There's nothing wrong with being a language snob as long as a person doesn't come across as being a pompous pseudo-intellectual at the same time.
> 
> ...


That's a wonderful diatribe that was obviously directed toward me. Thing is, the word "finigrate" didn't appear when I did an internet search (before I asked the OP what it means)...still doesn't other than a link to his post here on this website. I didn't "call out" the OP for that but since you want to make it your banner cause, let's do this.

Since you're full of advice about how people should "look it up" perhaps you can direct me to an internet return for the word "finigrate". I "googled it" and got no returns...other than a link to his post here on this website. 

If it's in "the common language" as you say, I'm sure you can prove me wrong. And we all know you would LIKE to do that. Can you?

:happy:


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Targe said:


> That's a wonderful diatribe that was obviously directed toward me. Thing is, the word "finigrate" didn't appear when I did an internet search (before I asked the OP what it means)...still doesn't other than a link to his post here on this website. I didn't "call out" the OP for that but since you want to make it your banner cause, let's do this.
> 
> Since you're full of advice about how people should "look it up" perhaps you can direct me to an internet return for the word "finigrate". I "googled it" and got no returns...other than a link to his post here on this website.
> 
> ...


You didn't look hard enough. Finigrate is synonymous with genuflect. Try again looking for synonymous words.

You DO know what a synonym is, don't you?


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

Fennick said:


> You didn't look hard enough. Finigrate is synonymous with genuflect. Try again looking for synonymous words.
> 
> You DO know what a synonym is, don't you?


Oh wow...that was so hurtful. Thing is, it didn't hurt my feelings or my credibility. Wonder what it hurt then, hmmm?

C'mon now, tough guy: sock it to me! Give me the internet source for the word "finigrate" either as the "main word" or as a "synonym". 

:heh:


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Look son, it's obvious now you've shown your hand and demonstrated you have a problem with control issues and you turn into a bully when you can't be in control. That's something for all of us to remain aware of from now on if reading your posts or responding to you. Like I said before, I'm not playing your bully game so take a hike.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> There seem to be two schools of thought on how a police officer should respond to a report of a man with a gun.
> They boil down to
> 1 see if he has a gun then take appropriate action.
> 2 kill him then examine him to see if he has a gun.
> ...


Ah. . .so you finally agree that the cops took the appropriator action here. After all everyone is willing to agree the person shot had a gun.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> NO
> 
> Why would it be ?


You have clearly never been on the "wrong" side of a firearm. I can tell you that it is a life changing event to look into the muzzle of a weapon.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Targe said:


> So...you still can't find an internet reference for the word can you? :sob:
> 
> Oh well: guess you'll know better next time than to try to tame this tiger.
> 
> :happy2:


I can. I googled it and got this link:

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/544385-tamir-rice-shooting-justified-7.html

That was too easy, funny but too easy.


----------

