Because a 12-year-old is capable of making that kind of split-second decision the right way. Hell, I’m not sure I’D be able to do more than act confused in that time frame in the same situation, and I’m 43. Of course, I’m white, so my confusion wouldn’t probably be fatal. whew!
As somebody somewhere once said: Would you rather be right or would you rather be happy (alive)?
It simply is not possible to expect ANY reaction to any possible order within the time frame that he was shot.
I bet that you, yourself, wouldn’t have the wherewithal to obey (or disobey) to anything that happened within the course of 1.5-2 seconds. They literally came in like a wrecking-ball.
Expecting anything other than 100% compliance from another (let alone the dead 12 year old child) is mind-boggling.
Yeah, regardless of age, gender, race or planet or origin, pulling something that resembles a gun on a cop is an extremely dumb thing to do.
People keep bringing this up, and I’m not sure how it’s relevant. If the kid didn’t reach for his gun, then the cops are lying and it’s an unjustified killing. If he did reach for a gun, is it your position that the cops should have, perhaps, let him get a shot off first, because a twelve-year-olds’ gunfire isn’t fatal? If the kid’s mental state didn’t permit him the proper reaction, that’s tragic. But that’s not something the cop can assume, not when a gun is involved.
That’s the correct question to ask IF you have a reasonable expectation of the outcome being no worse than an arrest. That’s a very iffy expectation in some cases.
Leaving aside the fact that two seconds isn’t really time enough to even make sense of the commands, let alone respond to them, correctly or not, for most people.
And here we go again. I’m going to have trouble keeping down my dinner with the cop-suckers chiming in.
I believe FIRMLY that yes, when police officers arrive on a scene, a suspect needs to be given the chance to surrender or comply with orders. Tamir never got such a chance. 1.5-2 second means that he was shot on sight (or reasonably close to shot on sight).
Hey moron: do you think this exact, stupid argument wasn’t already made in the 2 dozen other threads that are still active on this topic? What, exactly did yoy hope to accomplish by starting thresd #25?
Wait let me see if I understand you.
There was not time to respond to the officer’s command, but apparently there was plenty of time to reach for an air soft gun in his waistband?
Putting your hands up or not moving takes more time than reaching for your fake gun?
No shit? Who knew?
My god, he was 12. ‘A special kind of stupid’ to describe a pre-teen kid?
Is that what we’ve come to- that the victims (including children) are required to be more calm, show better reaction skills and better judgement that the trained professionals? For all we know he panicked and was trying to get rid of the gun so he wouldn’t get in trouble. You really think in those 2 seconds he analyzed the situation and decided reaching for the toy gun was his best choice?
He was 12.
Simply put, he was shot before he could surrender or comply to any order. I’m fairly confident that you wouldn’t have time, yourself, to comply to any order within those 1.5-2 seconds.
It’s just not possible for anyone to obey in that time frame. Are you saying that you could do it? You are walking down the street and cops blew in like this? You’d be shot before the 2 second mark. I’m confident I’d be dead. Compliance within 2 seconds is crazy.
Suspects need to be given time to comply. Otherwise you are shooting people on sight.
Your point would make sense if he was shot for not putting his hands up when he was ordered to. But that’s not what the cops say occurred. He reached for a gun.
Again, if that’s not accurate, then the cops lied and it’s a different story. But reaching for a gun after the cops ordered you to show your hands is not something that can be ignored because the person is twelve.
Well, as long as a cop’s safety is more important than a citizen’s right to not be shot down in the street over confusion or misunderstanding…
Then a suspect needs the chance to whip out his weapon. A suspect needs to have a gun in a hand. A suspect needs to be given the explicit chance to disobey. No shooting on arrival/fear.
Yes, it can make life more dangerous for cops, but that’s the risk they must take.
It doesn’t bother ANY of you law and order types that we’re talking about “things a citizen MUST DO in order to placate the agents of the police state”? That’s all hunky-dory as long as it’s possible to paper over it with legalities?
That’s a straw man. No one (no one reasonable) is arguing that a cop gets to shoot someone over a “misunderstanding.” The kid allegedly pulled a gun. Turns out it was a toy, and the kid was twelve. That’s easy to gnash our teeth over in retrospect. But if the kid pulled a gun, his age is a tragic irrelevancy with regard to the cop’s reaction.
It doesn’t bother me, if the facts are as represented and the “must do” is “don’t reach for a gun.”
Apparently, conservatism no longer recognizes the “There but for the grace of God” principle.
That’s another straw man. I feel bad for the kid, and I can picture doing something similarly stupid when I was twelve–there but for the grace of God. But if I had, and the same outcome occurred, it would still be justified for the cops to have reacted the same way, ISTM.