No, I’m almost certain, the reasonable [DEL][COLOR=“Black”]“man”[/DEL][/COLOR] officer standard applies here . . . like it, almost, always does.
CMC fnord!
That’s it right there.
So your answer is ‘yes’, then?
So you’re too fucking dumb to notice Tamir was 12 years old?
Are you Black? If not, just shut the fuck up about the problems they face at the hands of America’s trigger-happy police.
And another Doper too fucking stupid to notice Tamir’s age. Or is the latest in post-rational American thought that 4th-grade black children should stop studying math and history and just take classes in How to Submit to Police?
I smell a lot of stupidity here, but it isn’t Tamir’s.
Wow. So the cops were justified in shooting because Tamir might have drawn his weapon?
American police are “off the hook” and so are a lot of stupid Dopers.
Yes, whether the officer’s state of mind - that is, the fear of imminent death or serious injury - was reasonable. In this case, it was. He saw someone reaching for a gun, that he had no way of knowing was fake. It’s not just reasonable to be in fear at that point, it’s unreasonable to think that someone wouldn’t be.
The point is, the prior actions of the police (unless they involved unprovoked violence), or Rice’s intentions, are entirely irrelevant.
I do too, stupid and ignorance both. But it seems to be coming from your posts mostly.
Among the many things you missed is that he was reaching for his gun when he was shot. And yes, he was shot because he might have shot them.
More specifically, because it was reasonable for the police to thing he was threatening to shoot them.
It’s only reasonable to a mentally retarded person. It’s pretty clear that police officers are bumbling idiots who will shoot anyone just because they heard some rustling in the bushes.
I am not reflexively against the police. I’m not outraged by the Michael Brown shooting. (Saddened, yes). But I cannot understand how you can watch this video and not find extreme misconduct by the officers.
That’s what I figured. He was reaching for his toy gun for the purposes of throwing it on the ground. Just like they do on TV. (Alternatively, he could have just flinched.)
There’s been a lot of discussion about whether the 12 year old needs to fire first. But before that, one might consider whether he needs to point the weapon. It seems to me that most of the time a kid holding a gun will probably be wielding a toy. And that an officer hiding behind cover could at least wait until the kid has a chance to act like they do on TV (throw the weapon to the ground).
Also, why wasn’t the kid given first aid by the cops?
Also, why is there even a market for realistically looking airsofts and fake looking colorful real guns? The consumer base must be pretty stupid and irresponsible, or possibly overwhelmed by fantasy and delusion. I can understand why the NRA would support such policies -freedom you know as well as a financial interest in mayhem- but why are their supporters so gullible?
It is better to live on your knees than die on your feet.
That depends-Do you live in a comic book, or do you live in the real world?
Yes, or no?
Do you even understand the question you are asking?
edited to add: You have already been told why your question doesn’t have a “Yes or No” answer. Did you understand this response?
Yes, or no?
Red.
“Shades of gray” is just part of a dirty book title to you, isn’t it?