Really, some of you people make me weep for humanity. A twelve year old boy waves a toy gun. Call me crazy, but I don’t think it’s that atypical for a twelve year old. And because he had the audacity to play with a toy, in a way that isn’t inconsistent with why it was made in the first place, his life is taken from him. Did he point it at the cops and make like he’d shoot them? No. He pulled at his waistband. Maybe his pants were coming down. Maybe he was going to show them his toy. Did the cops pull a safe distance away and talk to him using their car as a shield? No. They pulled up right next to him and within two seconds of arrival shot him dead. Did he have time to raise his toy gun? No. Did he have time to point his toy gun? No. He had two seconds to interpret the cops’ instructions and obey. I don’t know about you, but if someone pulled up right next to me and pulled a gun on me and told me to raise my right hand, I might be confused enough to raise my left. Would that make me fair game? But no, we expect a fucking twelve year old to perform flawlessly in under two seconds or pay with his life. And so many of you are just fine with that.
I wish people would stop refering to Airsoft guns as toys. They shoot 6mm plastic projectiles at up to 400 fps. People that run around shooting each other with Airsofts wear goggles, gloves and other protective gear. At close range they probably would put an eye out. They may not be lethal but they can cause injury and should not be considered toys. The same for airguns that shoot BBs or pellets. Definitely not toys.
For the purposes of the Rice case, it was a toy – it presented no serious threat to the cops. If they knew it was an airsoft gun, they almost certainly would not have shot him (hopefully!).
No, for the purposes of the case it was a gun, as there was no way for the police to know the object Rice appeared to be reaching for was not a gun, and every reason for them to believe it was.
What Rice knew, and what his intentions were, are entirely irrelevant. It’s what the police knew or reasonably believed, and what their intentions were, that matter. Based on the video, it’s entirely believable that they reasonably believed he was going for the gun he’d been observed waving about earlier, and that their intentions were to protect themselves.
I’m sure you already know this, but that’s irrelevant.
I mean, the answer is probably because the realised he was a kid and didn’t expect him to go for the gun, but it doesn’t affect whether the shooting was justified.
You keep alleging over and over that there is no risk that a twelve year old will shoot. I have already cited several examples of twelve year olds shooting. So the risk is not nil, no matter how often you assert that it is.
As for your example, do you understand the difference between a co-worker reaching for scissors, and a person reaching for a gun after being warned three times to freeze by the police, who are investigating a case of someone threatening people with a gun in a public park?
If they “knew” or “reasonably believed” that he had a gun, why did they pull up right next to him and shoot him within two seconds? Why not park further away and order him to get his ass on the ground?
Seriously, what’s the proper Police procedure here?
Actually, I don’t know why they did something so stupid. If I was a cop, I’d probably park about 50 feet further back, shield myself with the car, and use a bullhorn to tell the kid to put the gun slowly on the ground.
If they realised he was a kid and didn’t expect him to go for his gun, then why did they shoot him dead within two seconds?
The cop that shot him didn’t do so as a *reaction *to Rice’s actions - he didn’t draw and fire his weapon in the spilt second that he saw Rice allegedly reaching for his waistband. The cop shot from within the car the moment it came to a stop, meaning that in all likelihood he already had his gun drawn and ready to shoot. Why take that approach if they realised he was just a kid and didn’t expect him to go for his gun?
Even if they didn’t expect him to draw, they should have still approached him with caution if they believed he had a real gun.
Either they perceived him as a real threat with a real gun or they didn’t. If he was a real threat, then they should have stopped further away. If they didn’t think he was going to pull a real gun, they should have given him a chance to surrender.
What was the proper police procedure? What does official policy say that they *should *have done in responding to an allegedly armed man? I’m guessing the answer isn’t “charge in to within two feet and shoot his ass dead before he has a chance to respond or surrender, then watch him bleed to death on the curb for four minutes.”
No doubt. Maybe they will be disciplined and sacked for this. I assume that, if that happened, it would satisfy everyone who objects to them coming so close.
I don’t think what they did was the best possible thing they could have done, and it may well have been against their training. I don’t believe that coming so close was legally or morally wrong.
Yes, no, and you are, as usual, full of shit. Saying that the cops might not have been threatened if they hadn’t come so close is, morally speaking, no different from saying that she wouldn’t have been raped if she’d not worn that miniskirt.
The cops probably should have exercised more care, but that’s irrelevant. No-one but the kid made the decision to reach for the gun. He chose to ignore the police’s commands, and take probably the one action that would lead them to fire. It’s a tragedy, but not one caused by the police.
Good God you’re a sad sack. We’re talking about a child who was killed unnecessarily–a fact that you even you admit–but it’s the cops who you liken to unfairly persecuted victims? Really? I just can’t with you.
Because the cops acted recklessly and incompetently, an innocent life was lost. Even you have the intelligence to see this, as evident by your answers. So why in the hell are you defending these cops? This situation is no different than a surgeon taking risky and unnecessary shortcuts that wind up costing a patient their life. That surgeon would expect to not only lose their license and job, but they should also expect to be arrested for criminal negligence and sued into oblivion.
They gunned down a twelve year for the crime of playing with a toy gun. They’re deeply stupid, incompetent bumbling idiots who administered the death penalty to a twelve year old for something that wasn’t a crime. And yet people are still defending them and attacking the seventh grader. As other posters have pointed out, they sat there watching a twelve year old die in agony and doing nothing to assist him. And people are still defending them.