What the fuck has first aid got to do with anything? How does that effect whether the shooting was justified?
Oh, and I’m pretty sure they deliberately shot him. What matters is if they deliberately defended their lives, or deliberately went out to kill someone. That makes all the difference.
So let’s give a vague (but accurate) description of the Tamir Rice killing:
-Cops were called, and had reason to believe that a juvenile boy had a gun
-They approached him, and some amount of communication and interaction occurred
-They shot him, later claiming they had made some requests of him, he had not complied, and he had reached for what they thought was a gun
-It turned out he didn’t have a gun
You’ve argued eloquently that a situation like this CAN reasonably be found to be self defense. The fact that it was actually an unarmed kid makes it tragic, but does not in and of itself mean it could not be self defense. I agree.
But you also agree, I assume, that there could be a situation which accurately fits the above description, but in which due to various specific details, the cops should in fact be found guilty of murder or manslaughter or something… the claim of self defense found to be unsupported. Agreed?
If so, what in the precise details surrounding the Tamil Rice killing make you so certain that the correct outcome is the first rather than the latter?
Seconded.
ETA: And no, it has really never, ever been explained. All I can see is that somehow mind reading is involved.
(post shortened)
As long as you’re being accurate, at 5 feet 7 and weighing 195 pounds, Rice didn’t look like your average 12 yr old. And it doesn’t appear that the responding police officers were notified that the suspect might be a juvenile, or that the gun might be fake.
A city police officer shot and killed Rice on November 22. A citizen had called the 911 center to report a “guy with a pistol” outside a city recreation center, but the responding officers weren’t told the caller said the gun might be “fake” and the guy might be a juvenile. Rice actually had a pellet gun.
*…All the officers thought Rice was older than 12
The initial call to 911 described a male with a gun at the recreation center, who might have been a juvenile. Officers at the scene said they thought Rice was 16-20 and the FBI agent said he first thought Rice was “eighteen-ish,” based on his size. Rice was 5 feet 7 and weighed 195 pounds, according to the autopsy. The agent said he heard Rice’s sister screaming that he was only 12 years old. The agent said, “I remember thinking to myself, I’m like, ‘There’s no way.’ And I looked at his face, I’m like, ‘Yeah.’ He’s got a young-looking face. …”*
Sure, body cams would be nice, but what happens when the police don’t turn them on?
I’m not sure about the final disposition in yet another ABQ case, but:
Bullshit. The big scary negro story won’t fly here - we all saw the video.
Tell it to CNN. They’re the ones who reported the story I linked.
Yeah. They reported that the cops thought he looked older. They have reason to lie.
Just like the title of the article you linked to: “NO PROOF POLICE OFFICER SHOUTED WARNING BEFORE SHOOTING.”
Not quite, the claim would need to be disproven, not just found to be unsupported. Which is going to be pretty hard to do with that video showing him reaching for the replica gun. Basically, you’d need to prove that either the police knew it was a replica, or that no reasonable person could think it was a real gun.
Then we have the same situation as at present from a legal point of view, but with the possibility of disciplinary action against cops who don’t turn them on. That or require them to be on at all times at a low resolution and with audio recording, and then increase to high resolution when the officer activates it.
It’s been repeatedly explained that the laws are set up so that no mind reading is necessary. That you don’t like the explanations provided doesn’t mean they don’t exist, or are not correct.
But I’ll try again. Someone holding a gun, minding their own business, is not reasonably seen as an imminent threat to anyone. Someone instructed by the police to show their hands, who instead reaches for what the police have reason to believe is a gun, is such a threat.
The point is, the police can’t read someone’s mind to tell that the object they’re reaching for isn’t in fact a gun. All they can do is act on the information that they have. If that is suspect, reasonably believed to be armed, ignoring instructions and reaching for what may be a weapon, then it’s reasonable to believe there is a threat.
I’ve watched the video of the John Crawford shooting dozens of time. I do not see him point the gun at one single person. It’s obvious to me that he did not have time to drop the gun before he was shot and it didn’t look like he was doing anything except trying to cower in self defense.
He did not move aggressively. He didn’t point the gun at people. And I see no sign that he refused “orders” to drop the gun.
I have no idea what you’re seeing.
He sees what he expects to see. For Smapti, I think it’s what he needs to see.
…How long do you think it takes to drop a gun?
Longer than they took in that video. How long do you think it takes to even begin to process what was happening there. I see no sign that he even heard them at all more than about a second before he was shot.
Maybe CNN has reason to lie, or at least chose a title that will boost their readership? In the body of the article, we find a clarification of the title.
*Here are some of the report’s major takeaways:
It’s unclear whether officer shouted warnings before shooting
The police department has said Officer Timothy Loehmann “shouted verbal commands” from inside his patrol car before firing at Rice, but the report says witness interviews don’t back up that statement.
Loehmann and his partner, Frank Garmback, didn’t talk to the sheriff’s office investigators.
The patrol car didn’t have a dashboard camera and security video cameras at the recreation center don’t have audio. One woman who lives nearby said she heard two popping sounds, then shouting, then a third popping sound. Loehmann only fired two shots, however*.
While CNN chose to title their article - No Proof Police Officer Shouted Warning Before Shooting - the CNN article states that the investigators didn’t talk to the officers who were involved. That sounds like a clear cut case of the blind man saying he didn’t see anything. How does CNN proclaim that there is “no proof” when everyone wasn’t interviewed?
“A second” is more time than it takes to drop a gun.
If that’s the fiction you have to cling to in order to sleep at night, so be it. In the real world, though, “a second” is a very short time to:
They have a legal department. So, basically, for the same reason newspapers use “alleged”, even if the suspect shot the catcher at the ball park from the pitchers mound in front of 3,000 witnesses.
Never go full doorhinge.
And that doesn’t even consider the situations where innocent deaf people have been shot for not immediately following verbal commands.