Well, his daddy does have a criminal record. So there’s that. :eek:
Just throwing out possible ideas that may have gone through Rice’s mind in his last few moments.
We will never know.
Yes, you nailed it. Judging by the speed in which they rolled up on the kid and shot him, they’d made up their mind about how to “neutralize” him well before they even saw him. A 12 year old is no match for that.
This is Cleveland, right?
No, I don’t believe that anyone looking at all the evidence available so far could reasonably conclude that it’s obviously an unjustified killing. That would require not only deciding that the police are liars, for no good reason - although that in itself isn’t actually wrong - but then making the false deduction that, since the police are liars, another set of events that are unsupported by any evidence must have occurred.
You are assuming that, because a kid was shot and killed, it was unjustified and expecting the police, or their defenders, to prove that it was justified. That’s backwards, the burden of proof is on those who claim they’re guilty, and that burden is not even close to being met.
So yes, intellectual dishonesty. It’s been repeatedly explained why you can’t say the police are guilty without evidence, and yet you continue to say they are without presenting any evidence. Conversely, there’s been evidence presented that they could reasonably have been in fear of their lives. You can dismiss that evidence as weak if you like, but at least it exists - unlike the evidence for your side.
I’m not reading that at all.
The claim being made is that the cops in question were reckless and negligent and made a situation escalate unnecessarily. The evidence being presented is…well, the recording of what they did, which shows them being reckless and negligent. that is pretty much a slam dunk.
I can go out now and provoke a situation that ultimately ends with me dealing out “justified” violence on another person because I think I might now be in danger. In that situation I’m still the one in the wrong. I provoked it, I caused it, I escalated it, I’m to blame. How much more in the wrong can I be than if I’m also a LEO behaving in direct contravention of my training
Possibly. However, I’d be willing to bet money on it.
Unless what you did actually warrants violence on the part of the person who threatens you - as in, they are entitled to defend yourself - then you are fully entitled to defend yourself. There is nothing that counts as a legitimate provocation for violence, the only thing that can be allowed is defence of self or others.
No matter how much I call your mother a whore, or whatever, you are not allowed to use violence, and I am allowed to defend myself if you do. This was discussed ad nauseum in the Zimmerman threads.
Did that child, sitting at that table empty handed, warrant them speeding right up to him with guns drawn and shooting him less then two seconds later, no matter what action you imagine you saw the poor kid take in that very grainy video? Try to focus in on the italicized part of that question, and, for once, not pretend that the escalation began after the officer supposedly said “Put your hands up! Put your hands up! Put your hands up!” when they got there.
Steophan, neither you nor Bone have acknowledged taking a look at this cite from the PORAC Law Enforcement News concerning pre-contact threat assessment that I and others have brought up before. Would you please take a look at it and tell us how well you think the officers followed the five rules laid out in that article?
Video of this particular drug dealer getting his ass beat here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GncaM_lt3-E
Go to about 1:29 to see the actual attack. For fun then read the YouTube comments.
That video is disgusting and only underscores the violent mindset that so very often influences how cops conduct themselves.
And they knew their actions were indefensible. That’s why they tried to destroy the evidence.
How does that apply to the Clevland Police? Even if it did, which aspect of the rules specifically do you think they did not follow?
Rule number 5 - “Distance and cover are your friends”
Also, Rule #4:
Rule #4 - If at all possible, avoid “time compression.”
Police officers have a habit of wanting to take immediate action during the course of an incident when it is neither safe nor prudent to do so. This again speaks to a lack of “situational awareness.” Remember that there is a distinction between “potential” and “imminent” jeopardy. While all contacts with resistant subjects are potentially dangerous, significantly fewer encounters actually place officers in imminent danger. The trick is to follow Rule #1 and not to become so “emotionally captured” in an event with a resistant or threatening subject that you become unreasonably phobic and adrenalized to the point that you rush into a situation when you do not have to. Examples of unnecessary time compression include: (1)* moving too close to the subject**, (2) posturing by screaming and yelling complex or confusing orders, or (3) rapidly engaging an already agitated, angry, delusional or otherwise psychotic person who does not present an imminent danger from a distance.*
Bolding mine. I’d suggest that if the cops followed these rules, they would not have had to shoot Rice in “self defense” with 1.5 seconds of charging up to him.
That’s irrelevant to whether the killing was justified, all that matters is the officer’s state of mind when he fired.
That’s irrelevant to whether the killing was justified, all that matters is the officer’s state of mind when he fired.
I think we are all aware by now that the cops didn’t follow normal procedure. Why do you keep bringing that up as though it’s some kind of “gotcha!”, as though it’s relevant to Rice’s death? Maybe it was sufficient a violation of procedure to get them sacked, I don’t know, but that’s an internal police matter.
Please note that some recommended “rules” to live by produced by some research association in California isn’t a very productive focus. Whether a department decides it wants to abide by any given association-generated rules and engage in smart policies and procedures is up to its own discretion (or lack thereof), I’m afraid.[1] Better to focus on the laws and codified regulations and how those are being ignored.
[1] This is not unlike the layperson’s expectation that an attorney, incl. prosecutor or judge will follow ABA Model Rules applicable to a given area when they aren’t obligated to subscribe to them. The reality is that they are free to ignore the rules of practice and procedure with the force of law as promulgated by the relevant state’s highest court and the FCRP. Whether a higher authority by some chance decides to take them to task for so doing is another matter.
Your previous post doesn’t actually contain any substance so I’ll reply to this one.
Since you bolded #1-3 of Rule #4 let’s look at that:
(1) moving too close to the subject: How close is too close?
(2) posturing by screaming and yelling complex or confusing orders: Are you asserting they did this?
(3) rapidly engaging an already agitated, angry, delusional or otherwise psychotic person who does not present an imminent danger from a distance.: Are you asserting they did this?
I’ve said in this thread and others that I’m not aware of what Clevland PD procedures are for felony stops. I’ve seen many many videos of police rapidly engaging subjects during stops. I’ve also seen where they approach much more cautiously. If their procedures call for rapid threat engagement then I would not fault the approach.
I don’t think that’s conclusive at this time.
That is the question I just asked you. Do you think that those are valid rules, and do you think the officers followed those rules?
I sit corrected. Personally, I’m pretty convinced that they didn’t follow best practice, at minimum, and I doubt that official department practice is to do as they did.
Still irrelevant to whether the killing was justified though.