Urban vs. rural policing may be a factor.
In downtown London he might have been killed.
If he had thrown a grenade he might have been killed, too.
If he had turned into a horse and sprouted a single horn out of his head, he might have farted strawberry rainbows.
So what?
:dubious:
He wasn’t any of those things and none of those things happened. He was a kid with a rifle pointed at police multiple times who didn’t get killed. You know what isn’t just “may” or “might” in my mind (and a lot of other Americans’ minds) right now is that IF this had happened in America, that kid would ALMOST CERTAINLY have been shot.
And GODDAMMIT WE DON’T WANT TO THINK THAT ABOUT OR FEEL THAT WAY TOWARDS OUR FUCKING POLICE.
:mad:
Take the killing of Harry Standley, he was shot dead for the crime of Irishness and carrying a bag with a tableleg in it.
Justice seemed to be served in the beginning, a third of Firearms officers handed their license in disgust and there were big protests with many offduty constables participating, the first fair enquiry called it unlawful killing. but the Metropolitan police actually pulled it to the high court where it was ended and no one got charged.
Things have generally got better after that.
Bad officers are being held to account. Killer cops are being striped of their guns, and health and safety laws are used to punish Chief Constables who allow preventable killing.
Two relevant points to this discussion: when the officer called in the shooting on his radio, he described the down suspect as a black male, approximately twenty years old. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-tamir-rice-12-shot-dead-cleveland-police-article-1.2025132
A recent study shows that when presented photos of black children, their ages are overestimated by an average of four and a half years (i.e., ten year old estimated to be fourteen), and that there is significant police bias and dehumanizations against black children. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-a0035663.pdf
Second, the shooting officer was a rookie at Cleveland P.D., but had previously worked at the Independence P.D. from which he was allowed to resign upon being told he’d be fired. From his personnel file: Deputy Chief Police Jim Polak, “He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal … he often feels that when told to do something, those instructions are optional, and he can manipulate them if he so feels it can better serve him…appears to have the mindset that if he thinks he knows better, then that is the course he follows…I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct the deficiencies.” Cleveland officer who shot Tamir Rice had 'dismal' handgun performance for Independence police - cleveland.com
I think this info is relevant because if the officer sincerely thought the subject was twenty instead of twelve, that will likely change his assessment of the threat. But if he overestimated a child’s age by eight years, that indicates a very serious deficit that is most likely a result of (perhaps unconscious) racial bias. Finally, the Cleveland P.D. Did not review his personnel record from his past police job, which made it clear this officer was a tragedy waiting to happen.
So the basic premise here is, if you have a kid carrying what looks like a gun in an open carry state who has made no threatening intention whatsoever known who doesn’t respond to orders to put his hands up within 3 seconds, open fire. After all, he’s black and he’s got a gun! He must be a danger to society!
Yeah. Because that makes total fucking sense, amirite?
No. They didn’t. The article makes it very clear that they had no idea. There were several situations where they considered opening fire… And didn’t. And this isn’t “three seconds after seeing a black kid with a pistol”, this was a teenager with a rifle that was refusing to communicate or negotiate and had aimed the weapon at them multiple times.
If he were black in America, he would have been dead long before the standoff came to a head like that.
Look. The fact is, being a police officer carries a certain risk with it. You’re supposed to deal with these situations with some caution for something other than your own hide. There was no reason to believe that Tamir Rice was a danger. At all. He’s a little kid carrying what looks like a gun in an open-carry state and not threatening anyone. This is like shooting at a dog not on a leash because it might savage you. Congratulations, you protected yourself from something that almost certainly would not have happened, and caused a hell of a lot of suffering and anger in the process.
You know how the conversation should have gone between the officer who shot Rice and his superior?
“So, run this by me again. Why is this kid dead?”
“Well, sir, he had what looked like a gun.”
“Was he pointing it at you?”
“Well… No…”
“Was he pointing it at anyone else?”
“Well… No, but he didn’t respond to commands to raise his hands.”
“Explain to me how it went?”
“Well, I shouted ‘Hands up’ and he went for his gun. Then we shot him.”
“So a child who you could not determine posed any immediate threat to anyone didn’t respond immediately to your commands, and instead reached for what you couldn’t determine was or was not a weapon, and your immediate response was to shoot and kill this kid. You’re a disgrace to the force. You’re fired, and I’ll see your ass in court for murder.”
Anybody with even a cursory knowledge of guns, which should include police, can identify it as an air rifle just by looking at it. Large numbers of cops observed him for some considerable length of time. That article, though, is written to make the incident as dramatic as possible.
More likely, by far:
“Loehmann, Garmback, don’t talk to the press until we tell you what to say.”
“Sure thing.”
One important fact seems to be ignored. The boy never fired his gun. Crazy killers shoot their guns; this guy, whether playful kid, or silly/crazy man, did not.
I mean, exercise simple common sense. Brandishing at strangers is not the same as shooting at strangers. There’s a saying “Dogs that bark don’t bite.” Silly boys who brandish don’t shoot.
Sure, there was a risk that he’d change from a brandisher to a shooter. But there’s a risk that a motorcycle will veer and run me over when I’m crossing the street, but I don’t shoot the motorcyclist preemptively to avoid risk.
I’d be interested in a more general thread about preemptive gunfire. In another news story, a man (who happened to be police) shot in the dark when he heard an intruder in his garage, and shot his own daughter. It struck me as odd, even cowardly, to fire blind like that.
I think in terms of percentages. Is police policy “Shoot to kill if it reduces the chance of your own death by as much as 0.01%?” Do police supporters think that’s good policy?
This kid wasn’t shooting. And the peculiar attitude that the streets of Cleveland should be treated as equivalent to the jungles of Vietnam is part of the problem.
You’ll need to repost in BBQ Pit if you need a response to that.
Thanks for a voice of sanity.
Abstracting from the video itself, just reading the above conversation, I don’t get it. When I say “he had what looked like a gun” I don’t mean “he had something which at the time, I wasn’t sure whether it was a gun or not.” Rather, I mean “He had something which I reasonably believed at the time to be a gun.”
So the chief’s line “which you couldn’t determine was or was not a weapon” seems wrong. The police officer in the dialogue had determined that it was a weapon. Even if he turned out to be wrong, the question at issue wouldn’t be whether it was a gun or not, rather, the question at issue would be whether the officer was reasonable in thinking it was a gun.
Jesus goddamn almighty. For those kinds of problems a person should be on some kind of blacklist to guarantee they will not be hired into any position that involves carrying a firearm. :mad:
From the documents in the third link above (p59):
I think any comment would be superfluous.
Cleveland Police Union Head: Tamir Rice Shooting Was ‘Justified’
FOLLMER: “You know, there’s a video of this, and everything speaks for itself. The male’s action spoke for itself. The video clearly shows, and by the officers’ statement, that they were justified in the, in the deadly force.”
MELBER: “You’re saying that the video clearly shows that the 12-year-old boy was an imminent lethal threat to the officers?”
FOLLMER: “Oh, absolutely. I don’t know if you didn’t see it, but yeah absolutely.”
Uggh. I think Judge Adrine had it right, and I’m disappointed (but not particularly surprised) that the grand jury went in the other direction.