They didn’t shoot him. He’s still alive.
What’s the complaint?
Besides, “Adunbi was initially charged with assaulting a constable in the execution of their duty and using threatening or abusing behaviour or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harrassment, alarm or distress.”
Who are we to question the officers involved?
I am sure they were exceptionally terrified of this 63 year old man walking his dog.
I meant to get to this earlier. putting aside the details of this particular case, cops cannot back off and and wait for other more prescient “leaders” to show up at every confrontation. If you resist arrest, police have the police power to arrest you by force it is the soul of the police power. If they cannot use force to arrest you then arrests become voluntary. What’s to say that the more prescient leaders would actually be smarter about things?
the only question when using force is whether or not force is justified in a particular case and in Eric garner’s case, force became necessary.
Tamir Rice had a gun. I’d yell at him too.
I agree with this. We see cops using de-escalation with white dudes (like when a cop approaches some crazy gun rights guy with his hand on his holstered gun and tries to talk him down rather than just shoot him in the head). We see cops give white dudes with guns several bites at the apple (like when the Bundy stand off guy got shot and the aerial video shows his hand drifting towards his gun several times before someone just shoots him.
One really ineffective way to reduce these sort of biases is to have violent riots.
That part of American history is mostly over.
How much force? Don’t the police have some responsibility to make attempts to deescalate, rather than escalate potential conflicts?
You’d drive up within feet of a reported armed person acted strangely? There was a local judge that called their behavior negligent, and I agree with him.
Thankfully, the vast majority of the protests have been non-violent. For people who want to find reasons to oppose the protesters, it’s not hard to find a few examples of bad actors, but they will always exist. There’s nothing the vast majority of BLM supporters can do about a few assholes among them.
Are you serious? Did you read the article? What about it leads you to believe that it’s “mostly over”? Maybe it is, but if so, you chose an article that says the reverse, by my reading.
It depends on the situation. If there is danger or an imminent threat, then no, there is no responsibility.
If cops are dealing with mouthy 12 year old girls in bikinis, then yes.
If the cop is dealing with a suspect with a history of violence who isn’t posing an imminent threat but is not obeying lawful police orders, then its dealer’s choice and the cop can exercise their discretion.
I disagree. I think that when police encounter someone waving a gun around a playground, shooting that person is not negligence.
A few bad actors? There were 217 arrests.
Nothing they can do? Why aren’t the march for life protests more violent? Why weren’t the MLK marches more violent?
When a protest of a duly elected president erupts into violent riots, it seriously undermines the entire protest.
The fact that you (who already agrees with the underlying message) are able to overlook the violence does not mean that others are going to be able to look past the violence.
In the interests of being fair and balanced, I chose an article that addressed the sundown town history of the town and said that this is not what the town is today. Sure there is still racism but they aren’t chasing blacks out of town under threat of violence.
So we disagree pretty strongly here.
Rice wasn’t waving the toy when they arrived – they arrived and shot him seconds after, perhaps, shouting something. He may or may not have put his hand towards his waist, in the blurry video.
Why did they drive up so close? That, at the very least, was negligent.
How many convictions? Considering the history of arresting protesters, this tells me pretty much nothing.
Why aren’t BLM marches more violent? They’re almost entirely non-violent. Great job, BLM!
So legitimacy of that specific block in DC’s protest might have been harmed, slightly. Does nothing for the vast majority of protests except for people looking for reasons to criticize them.
Of course. People looking for flaws, and/or looking for reasons to ignore reasonable concerns, and/or who are okay with brutalizing black people, and/or a hundred other (non-legitimate) reasons, can find ways to pretend that this relatively tiny amount of violence delegitimizes a reasonable message.
Those people are wrong.
I’m sure many of the folks of Vidor have always believed that their town is great, and non-violent, and doesn’t chase black people out of town. I don’t think their beliefs had anything to do with the reality of what was happening in Vidor, and I don’t trust their beliefs in recent times either. Towns in one of the blackest parts of the country don’t stay ~99% white just by accident.
Jesus, you are gonna have to let this one go. Did you see the video?
Within two seconds. Drove right up on him, and shot him. 2 seconds.
Did you read where the cop was dismissed from one department because he was unfit? And Cleveland never bothered to check his history?
*unable to follow “basic functions as instructed”
“dangerous loss of composure”
weapons handling was “dismal”
became visibly “distracted and weepy” as a result of relationship problems.
when taken together they show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions, I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies."*
*
Cleveland police officials never reviewed Loehmann’s personnel file from Independence*
I mean JESUS!!! This guy being hired as a police office was, in and of itself, negligent on the part of Cleveland PD.
Here’s a brand new one. Police responding to burglary kill homeowner, not intruder
Would have dropped the gun had the officers identified themselves. I guess by saying ’ Stop! Police!’ Shot the homeowner, not the intruder. “Black guy with gun? FIRE!!! We’ll find out who is who later.”
So what are the odds that the Police face no charges and Juan Brian Jeter-Clark gets charged with Felony Murder? (not that charging Jeter-Clark would be inappropriate)
Well, maybe.
Regards,
Shodan
Not getting your point. You saying he deserved to get shot for an incident that happened 22 years ago? Or maybe the cops KNEW he shot someone 22 years ago? Or that something that happened 22 years ago is somehow relevant to the fact that cops didn’t bother to find out who they were firing at?
I think that what Shodan is saying is that once someone has had any interaction with the criminal justice system, their life is now forfeit.
I’m saying the fact that he shot someone earlier is an indication that his ex-wife’s assessment of how things would have turned out is not necessarily the granite truth.
Regards,
Shodan
So…because he shot someone, she’s possibly a liar, or delusional?
What about the cops? Since they shot the wrong person, is it possible that *they *are liars or delusional?
Do you think it reasonable to assume that the homeowner would have fired on the police while chasing an intruder out of house?
I think it is possible that her expectation that he would never have fired on the police was mistaken. I wouldn’t characterize that as a lie or a delusion - this was her ex-husband with whom she was sleeping. I wouldn’t expect her to say “sure, he was a looney - no wonder the cops shot his ass”.
Sure, it’s possible. Did any of the cops serve ten years for shooting a handyman who intervened in a domestic violence dispute with the homeowner?
I wouldn’t have been surprised if he had. He thought (allegedly) that someone was threatening his mother who lived downstairs. And he didn’t have the best record in the world when it came to guns and people who were trying to defend his relatives. He claimed he shot the handyman who was trying to protect his wife (from him) by accident. Quite possibly but not definitely he might have shot, accidentally, the cops who were trying to protect his mother from someone else.
Sure, it was a tragedy that he got shot, as far as we can tell. Excrement occurs.
Police get a report of a home break in. Crazy person comes running down the stairs waving a gun. The police have a second or two to determine
A. that it’s the homeowner and not the burglar, and
B. he isn’t going to shoot at you even by accident.
Like I say, it’s too bad the guy got shot.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, probably. I don’t think cops are under any obligation to undergo risk to try and de-escalate a situation unless they are dealing with unarmed minors or something like that. I believe a cop can use all necessary force in the lawful exercise their police power. I believe a cop should (perhaps even “must”) use all necessary force to eliminate a grave threat to themselves or others.
So the blurry video shows that the kid might have been reaching for a gun. So either the cop saw the gun (that Tamir Rice had been previously been waving around) or they drove up on some kid that was just standing there and shot him dead. Right? So which seems more likely?
I’m not sure what driving up close versus parking far away has to do with anything? Can you explain the significance of driving up close versus parking far away?
Convictions? It’s a little early for that, don’t you think?
Do you need links to videos of the rioting? Its not a few bad actors any more than the BLM riots were a few bad actors. If it was only a few bad actors, its not a riot because the police can control a “few” bad actors. Riots almost by definition have to at least temporarily overwhelm the police’s ability to maintain order. There were a lot of cops there because there was an important event going on nearby.
Milwaukee, Charlotte, Baltimore…
Yeah, good job for only rioting every few months instead of at every event.
:rolleyes:
I’m sure it does nothing to undermine the legitimacy of the movement in YOUR eyes and if your objective is to convince people that are already deep in your side of the fence, then sure, the riots are virtually meaningless. But I think it undermines the legitimacy of the movement in general to anyone that is within a day’s walk of that fence.
In a functional democracy, it does.
Lets say that I am in favor of transgendered folks use of whatever bathroom they want but South Carolina keeps passing laws that make it illegal to do so. So I march while other bathroom rights folks start blowing up public bathrooms and looting electronics stores and setting cars on fire.
What effect do you think this has on people who have are considering the merits of my argument, even though I personally never blew up a bathroom or looted a store?
If they lived in a dictatorship, then they would be wrong. If you live in a functional democracy , there is no excuse for rioting and if your movement turns violent, then you stop and reconsider the message you are sending out and the people you are attracting to your movement with your rhetoric.
If I were black I don’t know if I would feel like moving there. But if you can point to the use of threats of violence (by the townsfolk) to drive blacks out of town, please share with us. I’m sure the justice department would lose to see this evidence.
There is no doubt in my mind that Vidor is more racist than the residents believe. There is no doubt in my mind that they do not make black families feel welcome or invite them over for dinner.
There is a LOT of doubt in my mind that the townsfolk or the police use threats of violence to drive black people out of town.
The fact of the matter is that our Department of justice had an incredibly competent and very liberal civil rights division (at least they did until Bush got into office and started politicizing the place), if there was an actual sundown town somewhere (rather than town full of racist people), they would know about it and they would do something about it.
I agree, its not a great example of police response.
How long should they have waited?
Hiring him was probably negligent.
That does not establish that the death of Tamir Rice was unjustified.
Do we know enough to determine whether the cops should face charges?
Stand your ground, unless you’re black.
They could have waited…three seconds? Maybe if they waited four seconds, they would have seen it was not a gun but a toy gun. Maybe if they didn’t drive right up next to Rice, but maybe 10 or 15 away, and waited five seconds, they could have verbalized something, like a command to drop the weapon.
Is waiting five seconds and making a determination unreasonable?
But it didn’t look like waiting and determining stuff was important to them.
For many/most of these scenarios being discussed, there was no “grave threat”. Eric Garner certainly wasn’t a grave threat to anyone, except perhaps the egos and pride of the officers dealing with him.
Or they totally and negligently misinterpreted the situation because they were foolish and made a terrible, negligent mistake that killed a kid. That seems more likely to me, based on the totality of the evidence.
What do they gain, except much more significant danger to themselves, from stopping so close? From further away they could have had some cover, and been in no danger (or virtually no danger) from Rice even if the gun were real, in his hand, and aimed at them. They gain nothing but an excuse to kill from the slightest wrong move by driving up so close.
Yes, and far too early for you to claim that they were all (or most, or many) violent.
Perhaps it depends on your definition of “few”. But yes, a few bad actors, even 3 or 4 or fewer, can do damage and be violent for a period of time before they are brought under control. No shortage of media sources will claim any instance, even for 5 seconds, of violence by more than one person is a “riot” if it’s associated with a protest that they don’t like. Imagine if 3 black guys get violent for 3 minutes during a BLM march, and break a car window, and push someone, before being arrested. Do you have any doubt at all that Fox News will hesitate in calling that a riot?
The vast majority of protests and events, in those cities and others, were non-violent. Great job, BLM!
So you’re the only peaceful marcher? Then that would significantly do harm to the message. But if there are hundreds of thousands of peaceful marchers, and a few assholes who do some violent things? Then that would do minimal harm to the message, except in the eyes of those already inclined to be suspicious.
I wish BLM could be perfect, but it’s not. It’s a non-perfect movement. There aren’t MLK Jrs growing on trees, along with the perfect time for that 100% non-violent message to gain traction with 100% of the people. Some small number of assholes will take advantage of it in order to be assholes.
All the violence associated in any way with BLM is minuscule compared to the brutality and violence they’re protesting (which isn’t just for one year, or one city, or one incident – they’re protesting a brutal and violent history against black people that goes back to the country’s founding). There’s no comparison.
Your doubt is less than convincing. There’s no other explanation (the threats might be awfully subtle and implied, for example, rather than direct) for a town in that region to be ~99% white. The vast majority of people (especially people of color) in that region aren’t aware that they have a recourse to go to the justice department. The history of dealing with authority for most of these folks is so bleak, and so bloody, that they won’t report a thing unless there are hordes of hooded men with torches in the streets. Much better to go back to their neighborhood and keep their heads down, when the only times they’ve had contact with law enforcement or the justice system has been vicious, unjust, and brutal. It’s a bit like asking Jews who were freed from the camps in Germany to trust the German justice system 5 or 10 years later. It’s just not realistic.