Cleaveland Officer Shoots A 12 YEAR OLD

[Themiclesia]

But he hasn't drawn. Like I say, there is absolutely no certainty that, even if he draws, he will shoot.

It's reasonable to assume that, if a person draws (or attempts to draw) a gun on a police officer, that they are in danger of being shot at. Thus, they are allowed to defend themselves.

It's also reasonable to assume that the person could pull out the gun and throw it away. In any event, reason doesn't acquit him of the heinous crime of manslaughter.

[Themiclesia]

There appeared to be a threat to the public, but there was no threat to the public.

And the benefit of hindsight is, it's perfect. It was reasonable for the police officers to think that they were in danger, though.

We require the state to be perfect, or else compensate for damages. In fact, the officer, even if not entirely to blame, is still partly to blame; consequently he should be held to pay for damages.

One can hurt someone else entirely without intention, and one still is liable for damages; this is how civil law works.

[Themiclesia]

Does this man need to be indited? Yes. Does he need to be jailed? No.

He needs to be impeached and removed from office, in a thoroughly public process.

What he saw was what appeared to be approximately a 20 year old man, after receiving reports of some-one walking around pointing a gun at things in their local park. After he stepped out of his car, before he had an opportunity to speak, the boy reached for the gun in his waist-band. The orange tip was not showing, and air-soft guns can be manufactured to look realistic now. The officer had two choices to make in a matter of a second. "Do I wait and take the possibility of getting shot, or do I shoot him?". He took the logical choice and shot first.

Pardon me; that is the course of action for laymen, not for police officers; we require something beyond what an ordinary person does of him. That's what we pay him for.

I support the police officers in this nation. Cops go through all kinds of training and background checks. There is not a crusade against blacks, 12-year olds, or anyone else in this nation. There is obviously a reason why this happened, and I look forward to hearing about it.

The cop failed his psychiatric test prior to this event and had breakdowns while shooting at a firing range ^{[citation needed]}.

Anyone who says that this is a racial thing clearly hasn't read the facts and is jumping on the 'hands up don't shoot/I cant breathe' band-wagon.

I won't open the case of racism until there is convincing proof for me to do so. I stand by my case that he must be held to pay for every penny of damage he caused.

[Condunum]

You can't tell if he's reaching for the weapon when he cops arrive. All you can see is that he moves slightly, falls, and then the cops rush in.

I honestly do believe that the police should not respond with guns drawn, because a) the likelihood of an officer being shot immediately entering an engagement are minimal and b) because immediately moving within 20 yards of someone who was reported as armed is absofuckinglutely against police protocol.

There's nothing wrong with responding with guns drawn. Guns don't shoot themselves. All that keeping a gun holstered does is increase response time when it's needed.

Teaching better discipline, yes.

Alright, yeah, it's better to play it safe so having a weapon ready is a good idea when the call specifies an armed suspect as it was here.

Still, shoot first ask questions later is wrong.

[Mammo]

I support the police officers in this nation. Cops go through all kinds of training and background checks. There is not a crusade against blacks, 12-year olds, or anyone else in this nation. There is obviously a reason why this happened, and I look forward to hearing about it.

Holy shit, the majority of cops won't even follow the constitution, you seriously support them? I can't believe you're ignoring the fact that a child lost his life, and he was cheated out of a promising future.
"There is obviously a good reason why this happened, and I look forward to hearing about it"
Honestly go to hell.

Was the kid a threat?
If he was, then you mind as well shoot him. He's gonna kill you first. Then what, he kills more people. Yea, I support the cop.

If he wasn't, why. He may have been just strolling. And a cop finds him a threat because he may look shaggy if he is shaggy. But you don't shoot him. You question him. Yea, I support the kid.


So obviously I am not sure on this.

[Twilight Imperium]

What he saw was what appeared to be approximately a 20 year old man

HE WAS TWELVE.

There has never existed a twelve year old who could pass for twenty. Sweet christ. I get that maybe he looked more like 14 (16 would be a stretch), but seriously? This was a kid who likely still believed in cooties.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Law says otherwise. The police do not have the duty to protect citizens in general let alone that of "known criminals".

Also, you're starting from a wrong premise. The safety of the suspect should always be second to civilian and officer safety.



[...]

For the record, the tip was removed or painted over in this case.

Which law?

The US works on common law. It has been ruled that police do not have a duty to protect citizens.

As far as I am concerned, the constitution of that country laid down that a person is not to have his life or limb deprived unless by due process of law; if he is to enforce any law, this is the first to be enforced.

Not all rights are absolute. For that matter, few if any are.

What I say is exactly what policemen have signed up for; if they don't want to risk their own lives, they have only to resign, for they live in a free country. The fire brigade isn't free to refuse to enter a building because it's dangerous and potentially fatally so; doctors aren't permitted to turn out a patient because of the infectiousness of his disease; civil servants aren't allowed to turn down an application due to a resultant damage to personal profit.

That's a really poor analogy. Personal or state profit (or rather, lack thereof) =/= putting your life at risk. And, you would be mistaken in your assumptions ; this is the difference between being a military and a civilian - all of those civilians are in their full right to refuse to execute an order, although it may result in their termination (and at most, in some limited cases, probably a civil negligence-related lawsuit or some such).

Do they have a moral duty to risk their lives? Yes. A legal, professional one? To a limited degree, and their failure to provide can at most result, as above, in their termination or in limited cases a civil lawsuit.

Now, this duty of a cop to risk their life has to be balanced somehow. Just because they have this duty doesn't mean they should put a suspect's safety above their own. They shouldn't hesitate in protecting themselves "because it's the right thing to do", because it simply isn't. This "absolute" interpretation of the duty to risk your life that you seem to be suggesting is not only unfair to the civil servants, but also off-putting to potential candidates. Not to mention the fact that many represent an important investment and asset for the state in terms of training, experience, etc. I wouldn't want to see a good, experienced policeman (or other public servant for that matter) into whom considerable training and other resources have been invested, and who has already served the state well for many years and proved their worth, be killed after hesitating to protect himself because it was the "PC" thing to do, as this inflexible interpretation of yours would essentially require.

Nor should a policeman be permitted to evade the moral standards of which the public expects of him. There are certain professions that must and indeed are held to higher standards in moral character than others. Employees of private enterprise have no loyalty to the public; public servants, being so named, do.

In full agreeance. This has to be balanced though.

--

As for the point about the removed tip: it doesn't make it a real weapon. If there must be a person first to be injured in the scenario that it was a real weapon, that unfortunate soul must be the policeman; that is his moral duty.

No, just no. This is jut horrible rhetoric. Trust me I've heard a lot of stuff that "cops should do" but never this.

But in any event it was not a real weapon; the policeman isn't entitled to react as though it were a real weapon until there is proof that the weapon is real.

Yes he is. Where are you even getting this from? Once you're facing or are just about the face the business end of a gun it's too late a moment in time to take that gun in your hand and determine whether or not it's real.

The USA is already infamous for not finding any nuclear weapons in Iraq after having said that there were.

Pls don't strawman.

There is clearly an issue regarding the validity of his judgment; his gross incompetence is revolting.

The problem is mainly with the way he decided to approach the kid not as much what he did after. As far as the gun was reasonably real-looking there is no fault there.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The point that I make is, if the officer thought that the child had a real gun for certain, then he is at a technical fault

He is not. Did you even read my explanation of why toy guns esp. high quality ones may be and often are simply indiscernible from real guns in normal situations, let alone extreme circumstances? Regardless of whether or not you're a cop/firearms super-expert? Stop listening to the armchair forensics pro's and internet gun specialists.

, and if he thought the child had a gun that could be real, then he is at a moral fault.

why would he be at a moral fault.

you'd be surprised just how young some kids get into gangs and gun crime. the gangs typically use them for various crimes because they almost always get a (significantly) lesser sentence because of their age.

this isn't even rare or an exception, mind you.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Except you're still forgetting about the police officer's right to self defense. If police are responding to a call of "person brandishing a gun", they HAVE TO assume the gun real. If that person then reaches for the gun after the police confront them, the police have a reasonable fear that they are in danger. Thus, they are allowed to defend themselves.

There is fault to be found, but without new information, I'm not seeing where it falls on the police.

That's the thing, though. Is there fault here?

The kid was just playing around and got scared. The officers responded to a potential threat. The neighbors called it in. Who screwed up?

The way the cops approached was dumb and unsafe even for themselves. Position yourself at a reasonably safe distance behind cover e.g. car door and use the car loudspeaker or shout at the suspect to drop the gun and lay face down on the ground, or some such. One cop covers for the other while they approach to handcuff. This way in the unlikely instance that the suspect has another gun on their person and as the cop approaches they decide to roll on their back and have a go at the cop the other cop can shoot as soon as this starts happening.

Of all the people present, the police officer is trained to be the most qualified to judge for himself whether the gun was real or not; others are but amateurs. As a result, if the judgment happens to be wrong, as in this case, he is to blame.

I've gone over this a thousand times. Can't you get the conclusion through that thick head of yours?

"The police said the officer yelled at Tamir three times to show his hands, but the boy instead reached to his waistband for the object, which turned out to be a fake gun." Sounds like it was the stupid kids fault.

He can be faulted for not adhering to the police officer's instructions, but not for his own demise. He was not informed that the police officer intended to open fire, as far as I am aware.

Cops do not have an obligation to announce that.

This has preciously little to do with smarts; the officer was in charge of the situation. Anything that spirals out of control is his fault, especially when he shot intentionally upon misinformation.

I reiterate: if he shot with the conviction that the gun was real, then he is at a technical fault; otherwise, he is at a moral fault.

in red: lol wtf?

"Shot intentionally upon misinformation" how does that even work? Are you implying he intentionally "misinformed" himself or knew the information given to him was false??

I reiterate: if he shot with the conviction that the gun was real, then he is at a technical fault

He isn't. It's a tragedy but as far as that is concerned, not his fault.

he is at a moral fault.

:logic:

explain yourself.

By any standard of the word, he is in charge of the situation; he has responded to the distress call and arrived at the scene. He has made known to all and sundry his presence. The child has acknowledge of his presence.

Administratively and legally, he was in charge.

I don't know where you're getting this.

They're only responsible for their own actions. E.g. you can't hold a cop responsible for someone killing themselves

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Police officers don't make it a habit to brandish their firearms at random passers-by, like Tamir Rice had been doing when the police were called on him. That was the threat to the public, so when the police pulled up and Tamir appeared to reach for the gun, it appeared to be a continuation of the threat.

There appeared to be a threat to the public, but there was no threat to the public.

you don't get to blame someone for a negative outcome unless they were at the very least negligent about it. the cops weren't, esp. if they got that close only to shield civilians. Then they obviously had the best intentions in mind and acted in a reasonably justifiable manner.

It's reasonable to assume that, if a person draws (or attempts to draw) a gun on a police officer, that they are in danger of being shot at. Thus, they are allowed to defend themselves.

There are other options, but the impression I get is that, when people have guns, they prefer it as the quick and easy option.

Which is one of the reason I'm against American gun laws. Were people's mentalities any different, my position might be, too.

Contrary to popular belief, guns are not the "quick and easy" option.

Using something other than a gun will universally always result in less headache whether civilian or cop. So it's common sense that when they're used it's because the cops using them after assessing the situation determine it is the best course of action, unlike your "had to get to dinner" rhetoric.

Look at Wilson. The even opened him up to not only prosecution but also the huge shitstorm incl. death threats etc. He's had to resign and move out of his home. Claiming that the "shoot and get it done with, it's easier/quicker" mentality is common or that it's based in reality is pretty fucking dishonest.

Not to mention that the only reasonably sensible alternative in that case was a Taser, and even then it was only sensible because of the short range.

I don't know if anyone else here is from the Cleveland area but this is a true tragedy for many of us living here; if you watch the footage shot from the park, the cops drive like crazy within two feet of Tamir across the grass into the park and the officer shoots him as soon as he gets out of the car. This was a flagrant violation of procedure at best; had a white kid been walking around with a "weapon" like that, he'd maybe be warned at best or more likely ignored.

Claiming that would be the case is dishonest.

[Seythennia]

^{can't scam the loehmann}

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

^{can't scam the loehmann}

^{no scarrin the darren}

He needs to be impeached and removed from office, in a thoroughly public process.

What?

Pardon me; that is the course of action for laymen, not for police officers; we require something beyond what an ordinary person does of him. That's what we pay him for.

He was a rookie and failed his psychological test when he tried going into a previous police position when he was described as "distracted and weepy". Rookies make mistakes- it's common. It's not surprising that a mistake was made when he was a rookie and had psychological issues as well.

You don't pay him for anything. You pay the government taxes, which the government pays him.

I won't open the case of racism until there is convincing proof for me to do so. I stand by my case that he must be held to pay for every penny of damage he caused.

He didn't cause any damage, unless you want him to repair bullet holes in the gazebo behind him. (Not sure if he missed or not).

[Themiclesia]

First things first: forgive me of this quoting nightmare.

Which law?

The US works on common law. It has been ruled that police do not have a duty to protect citizens.

As far as I am concerned, the constitution of that country laid down that a person is not to have his life or limb deprived unless by due process of law; if he is to enforce any law, this is the first to be enforced.

The common law was considered complete by the 14th Century, an era in which there was no concept for policemen.

Not all rights are absolute. For that matter, few if any are.

I believe the exceptions to this right have been clearly spelled out in that very document.

What I say is exactly what policemen have signed up for; if they don't want to risk their own lives, they have only to resign, for they live in a free country. The fire brigade isn't free to refuse to enter a building because it's dangerous and potentially fatally so; doctors aren't permitted to turn out a patient because of the infectiousness of his disease; civil servants aren't allowed to turn down an application due to a resultant damage to personal profit.

That's a really poor analogy. Personal or state profit (or rather, lack thereof) =/= putting your life at risk. And, you would be mistaken in your assumptions ; this is the difference between being a military and a civilian - all of those civilians are in their full right to refuse to execute an order, although it may result in their termination (and at most, in some limited cases, probably a civil negligence-related lawsuit or some such).

Such a difference I am fully willing to observe and respect, but civilians aren't called civilians for no reason: they are not armed or trained to use force, or expected to use force with state sanction.

Do they have a moral duty to risk their lives? Yes. A legal, professional one? To a limited degree, and their failure to provide can at most result, as above, in their termination or in limited cases a civil lawsuit.

I believe it is the moral case that I have been arguing all along.

Now, this duty of a cop to risk their life has to be balanced somehow. Just because they have this duty doesn't mean they should put a suspect's safety above their own. They shouldn't hesitate in protecting themselves "because it's the right thing to do", because it simply isn't. This "absolute" interpretation of the duty to risk your life that you seem to be suggesting is not only unfair to the civil servants, but also off-putting to potential candidates. Not to mention the fact that many represent an important investment and asset for the state in terms of training, experience, etc. I wouldn't want to see a good, experienced policeman (or other public servant for that matter) into whom considerable training and other resources have been invested, and who has already served the state well for many years and proved their worth, be killed after hesitating to protect himself because it was the "PC" thing to do, as this inflexible interpretation of yours would essentially require.

Yes I agree, it indeed must. Under some situations, however, a balance cannot be found, such as in this case. I think it more in agreement with his moral duties not to open fire, because he simply was at no real risk of being injured, or at least to the degree to which he could have and indeed have injured the child. Of course, I speak thus in hindsight, and he had no facility at that point to discern a real gun from a replica. Suppose, however, that the gun truly was indiscernible barring personal examination and decomposition, (i.e. there is literally no way for him to tell that it was a real gun), I do not proceed to demand that he assume every gun to be replica and not authentic; that will actually be unrealistic.

Nor should a policeman be permitted to evade the moral standards of which the public expects of him. There are certain professions that must and indeed are held to higher standards in moral character than others. Employees of private enterprise have no loyalty to the public; public servants, being so named, do.

In full agreeance. This has to be balanced though.

Thankfully, we do.

--

As for the point about the removed tip: it doesn't make it a real weapon. If there must be a person first to be injured in the scenario that it was a real weapon, that unfortunate soul must be the policeman; that is his moral duty.

No, just no. This is jut horrible rhetoric. Trust me I've heard a lot of stuff that "cops should do" but never this.

But in any event it was not a real weapon; the policeman isn't entitled to react as though it were a real weapon until there is proof that the weapon is real.

Yes he is. Where are you even getting this from? Once you're facing or are just about the face the business end of a gun it's too late a moment in time to take that gun in your hand and determine whether or not it's real.

And it is not real, such a relief for him!

The USA is already infamous for not finding any nuclear weapons in Iraq after having said that there were.

Pls don't strawman.

You may accept or reject that comparison at your pleasure.

There is clearly an issue regarding the validity of his judgment; his gross incompetence is revolting.

The problem is mainly with the way he decided to approach the kid not as much what he did after. As far as the gun was reasonably real-looking there is no fault there.

[/quote]

Perhaps he could have asked the child whether the gun was real or not?

[Themiclesia]

[...]

Of all the people present, the police officer is trained to be the most qualified to judge for himself whether the gun was real or not; others are but amateurs. As a result, if the judgment happens to be wrong, as in this case, he is to blame.

I've gone over this a thousand times. Can't you get the conclusion through that thick head of yours?

Perhaps you could overlook the fact that I was sleeping when you replied?

He can be faulted for not adhering to the police officer's instructions, but not for his own demise. He was not informed that the police officer intended to open fire, as far as I am aware.

Cops do not have an obligation to announce that.

A moral one, he had. Since he wasn't actually shooting people, I believe something along the lines of "I shall shoot if you do not..." would not be out of place.

in red: lol wtf?

"Shot intentionally upon misinformation" how does that even work? Are you implying he intentionally "misinformed" himself or knew the information given to him was false??

His misinformation was the product of his judgment; so, in a sense, he did misinform himself. That statement in red I withdraw.

I reiterate: if he shot with the conviction that the gun was real, then he is at a technical fault

He isn't. It's a tragedy but as far as that is concerned, not his fault.

I believe we have come to disagree with each other upon that point.

he is at a moral fault.

:logic:

explain yourself.

I highly appreciate your effort in using emoticons not found within the inventory provided. Remove it because absolutely none have seen that one before.

I don't know where you're getting this.

Nor do I; I withdraw them.

They're only responsible for their own actions. E.g. you can't hold a cop responsible for someone killing themselves

It is in precisely this case that the only action on scene is his shooting.

[Themiclesia]

There appeared to be a threat to the public, but there was no threat to the public.

you don't get to blame someone for a negative outcome unless they were at the very least negligent about it. the cops weren't, esp. if they got that close only to shield civilians. Then they obviously had the best intentions in mind and acted in a reasonably justifiable manner.

I shall quote you the example cited as a justifiable homicide from Blackstone's commentary on the common law:

A man is at work with a hatchet and the head thereof flies off and kills a bystander...

And this is justifiable because:

The action was legal

It is not lawful for the policeman to open fire at that point, because, all things considered, there was no actually threat to public safety. The common law takes into account both what actually and perceptibly was the case. In this event, clearly the gun was not real actually, but not perceptibly.

This difference does not make the homicide justifiable, but excusable, because he cannot, given what you argue, tell the difference under the circumstances.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

We'll just have to agree to disagree so let's break this circlejerk here and now.

To sum up my position:

• There is no practical, reliable way of discerning a toy gun from a real one, regardless of how much of a firearms expert/cop one is, period. Even from close up. In normal situations, let alone extreme ones. You can only know by being informed beforehand or taking the gun in your hands and handling it.
• The cops approached in a manner that was both unsafe for them and which limited their ability to use a lesser amount of force (I'm talking in general not only relative to the amount that they did end up using in this specific case) ; the closer you are to a suspect and the less things there are between the two of you, the more serious and imminent the threat is. I'd rather they had taken a different approach, more of a "standoff" type. Then again, they might have been well intentioned if they were trying to shield members of the public and/or eliminate the threat as quickly and decisively as they could ; however, especially since the weapon was not being wielded at the time of their arrival and they did not have information to lead them to believe that shots had been already fired, the seriousness of the threat that this kid posed and whether or not it called for the approach that was taken, is debatable. But the evidence so far does not point in the cops' favor.
• It doesn't matter if the kid was playing or not, he shouldn't have pointed his toy at people if this is what he had been doing. If an adult or relative removed the orange tip from his toy gun if there ever was one on it, they shouldn't have.
• As far as the kid's last moments are concerned, putting aside that the cop putting himself in that situation was probably not the smartest thing to do, from what I've seen there is not enough evidence to show whether or not he was justified in using the force that he did, mainly because the video is inconclusive. In strict legal terms, that he put himself in that situation doesn't hold much weight, just as putting yourself in a situation legally doesn't hold much weight for proving your guilt for your ensuing actions. I tend to side with the cop here, although I'm somewhat playing the devil's advocate.
• It's pretty sad that a law enforcement agency would not or could not check back on their candidates, or that, aware of their problems, they would still hire them, whatever the case was here.

[Patridam]

This difference does not make the homicide justifiable, but excusable, because he cannot, given what you argue, tell the difference under the circumstances.

Fair enough, it's not technically 'justified' in the sense that the perceived danger to himself and civilians did not actually exist, being as it was not a real gun. But the officer did not know that, and really couldn't have unless he was told so or he held the gun in his hands/up close. So, as far as what the cop knew at the time, it was justified; and that makes the whole ordeal, as unfortunate as it is, excusable on the part of the cop.

Anybody know if the cop has resigned or something, or if he's facing punishment?

[The Cobalt Sky]

This difference does not make the homicide justifiable, but excusable, because he cannot, given what you argue, tell the difference under the circumstances.

Fair enough, it's not technically 'justified' in the sense that the perceived danger to himself and civilians did not actually exist, being as it was not a real gun. But the officer did not know that, and really couldn't have unless he was told so or he held the gun in his hands/up close. So, as far as what the cop knew at the time, it was justified; and that makes the whole ordeal, as unfortunate as it is, excusable on the part of the cop.

Anybody know if the cop has resigned or something, or if he's facing punishment?

No, it doesn't. We don't know if the officer said anything, and it's pretty clear he probably didn't with how quickly he shot the kid.
As for the police:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_o ... #Aftermath
Loehmann was also known to be unstable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_o ... y_Loehmann

[Kouralia]

Fair enough, it's not technically 'justified' in the sense that the perceived danger to himself and civilians did not actually exist, being as it was not a real gun.

That makes it justifiable. There is a justification for it - that being the Officer honestly believed X.