Cleaveland Officer Shoots A 12 YEAR OLD

[The Cobalt Sky]

Facial features should be an obvious clue.

Unless your argument is that 12 year olds can look identical in features as a 25 or 30 year old.

OK, I'm going to use myself as a crash test dummy here.

Based purely on my facial features, how old would you estimate I am?

That kid looks twelve, though. You really think the police had enough time to see his face and say, 'He looks younger, but I bet he's really quite old. I bet he could be anywhere from 10 to 35.' No. He looks 12.

[Senkaku]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Face_Nelson maybe!

Facial features cannot be distinguished at long distance. Also, lighting, shadows, clothing, etc.

You'd have to be blind not to distinguish an adult from a child.

Well, Rice also happened to be wearing a hoodie, with the hood up, and since he was also at a distance it would be very difficult to tell.

Also, officer is clearly not blind, since apparently he's a decent shot.

[Galloism]

You would side with the police officer if he was using grenades against an unarmed crowd of peaceful protesters.

not necessarily

but you have to consider the subjective position of the officer at the time.

I think there is too much hindsight bias in a lot of these analyses.

For example, it might be a finding of fact AFTER the incident and after some calm investigation that the person pulled out a fake gun or that the crowd of protesters were ''peaceful'...

but it may still have been reasonable for a police officer, in his capacity as a law enforcement officer feeling threatened and in the pursuit of criminals, to act as he did AT THE TIME from his perspective. The law should give effect to that where it is reasonable.

We can't let hindsight bias affect clear judgement.

I fuckin' knew it.

"Sometimes using grenades against a crowd of peaceful protesters is reasonable."

You know, it's amazing to watch this. No level of insanity is a bridge too far.

[Senkaku]

not necessarily

but you have to consider the subjective position of the officer at the time.

I think there is too much hindsight bias in a lot of these analyses.

For example, it might be a finding of fact AFTER the incident and after some calm investigation that the person pulled out a fake gun or that the crowd of protesters were ''peaceful'...

but it may still have been reasonable for a police officer, in his capacity as a law enforcement officer feeling threatened and in the pursuit of criminals, to act as he did AT THE TIME from his perspective. The law should give effect to that where it is reasonable.

We can't let hindsight bias affect clear judgement.

I fuckin' knew it.

"Sometimes using grenades against a crowd of peaceful protesters is reasonable."

You know, it's amazing to watch this. No level of insanity is a bridge too far.

Just because he supports other things that are insane doesn't mean this is insane. It's really not the officer's fault here.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

OK, I'm going to use myself as a crash test dummy here.

Based purely on my facial features, how old would you estimate I am?

That kid looks twelve, though. You really think the police had enough time to see his face and say, 'He looks younger, but I bet he's really quite old. I bet he could be anywhere from 10 to 35.' No. He looks 12.

And I'm not laughing because you're wrong, actually that nailed it.

No officer is going to visibly look at that kid and think "is he a 19 year old? How should I feel about it?"

He looks like a teen, perhaps a pre-teen like you said. There's no way to mistake the fact it is obviously, painfully 12.

[The Cobalt Sky]

You'd have to be blind not to distinguish an adult from a child.

Well, Rice also happened to be wearing a hoodie, with the hood up, and since he was also at a distance it would be very difficult to tell.

Also, officer is clearly not blind, since apparently he's a decent shot.

It wasn't a distance. They were quite close. Watch the video again. I'm sick of this sort of thing.

[Infected Mushroom]

not necessarily

but you have to consider the subjective position of the officer at the time.

I think there is too much hindsight bias in a lot of these analyses.

For example, it might be a finding of fact AFTER the incident and after some calm investigation that the person pulled out a fake gun or that the crowd of protesters were ''peaceful'...

but it may still have been reasonable for a police officer, in his capacity as a law enforcement officer feeling threatened and in the pursuit of criminals, to act as he did AT THE TIME from his perspective. The law should give effect to that where it is reasonable.

We can't let hindsight bias affect clear judgement.

I fuckin' knew it.

"Sometimes using grenades against a crowd of peaceful protesters is reasonable."

You know, it's amazing to watch this. No level of insanity is a bridge too far.

It depends on contextual factors.

1) Is it legal for the police officer to carry a hand grenade in the relevant jurisdiction

2) Did the police reasonably (using a modified subjective test) feel threatened by the protestors at the time. Maybe your ''peaceful protestors'' were grimacing at the police and pulling out very realistic looking fake guns.

And as I say, you can't just go... ''AHA. We NOW KNOW (even though back THEN the officer might have reasonable basis to believe otherwise) that the crowd was factually and legally peaceful. So bad policeman.''

It doesn't work like that. You shouldn't use hindsight bias.

[Galloism]

Just because he supports other things that are insane doesn't mean this is insane. It's really not the officer's fault here.

I wasn't talking about this incident, but rather my somewhat sarcastic comment regarding Mushrooms supporting police even if they are doing criminally insane things.

To which he said "not necessarily" regarding whether he would support a police officer throwing grenades into a crowd of unarmed people.

[Toronina]

I feel sorry for the poor officer and the kid. Vital info was left out and not relayed to this cop.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You'd have to be blind not to distinguish an adult from a child.

Well, Rice also happened to be wearing a hoodie, with the hood up, and since he was also at a distance it would be very difficult to tell.

Also, officer is clearly not blind, since apparently he's a decent shot.

But blind enough not to distinguish the kid had a hood up and not ask them to take it off.

Which leads me to the next question: are cops even trained at telling people what to do?

[Galloism]

I fuckin' knew it.

"Sometimes using grenades against a crowd of peaceful protesters is reasonable."

You know, it's amazing to watch this. No level of insanity is a bridge too far.

It depends on contextual factors.

1) Is it legal for the police officer to carry a hand grenade in the relevant jurisdiction

2) Did the police reasonably (using a modified subjective test) feel threatened by the protestors at the time. Maybe your ''peaceful protestors'' were grimacing at the police and pulling out very realistic looking fake guns.

And as I say, you can't just go... ''AHA. We NOW KNOW (even though back THEN the officer might have reasonable basis to believe otherwise) that the crowd was factually and legally peaceful. So bad policeman.''

It doesn't work like that. You shouldn't use hindsight bias.

Wow.

There are no words.

[Toronina]

That kid looks twelve, though. You really think the police had enough time to see his face and say, 'He looks younger, but I bet he's really quite old. I bet he could be anywhere from 10 to 35.' No. He looks 12.

And I'm not laughing because you're wrong, actually that nailed it.

No officer is going to visibly look at that kid and think "is he a 19 year old? How should I feel about it?"

He looks like a teen, perhaps a pre-teen like you said. There's no way to mistake the fact it is obviously, painfully 12.

The problem with America is, that in some places, a 12 year old kid can actually get a real gun.

[Senkaku]

Well, Rice also happened to be wearing a hoodie, with the hood up, and since he was also at a distance it would be very difficult to tell.

Also, officer is clearly not blind, since apparently he's a decent shot.

It wasn't a distance. They were quite close. Watch the video again. I'm sick of this thing.

Even if they were standing quite close (idk really, the video I watched it looked like there was plenty of space between them), and the officer realized "oh, it's a kid, I can relax a little once he puts his hands up", Rice then proceeded to try and take out his gun.

Big no-no.

[Infected Mushroom]

Just because he supports other things that are insane doesn't mean this is insane. It's really not the officer's fault here.

I wasn't talking about this incident, but rather my somewhat sarcastic comment regarding Mushrooms supporting police even if they are doing criminally insane things.

To which he said "not necessarily" regarding whether he would support a police officer throwing grenades into a crowd of unarmed people.

There is a legal distinction between a crowd of unarmed people and a crowd of unarmed people behaving in a threatening manner or ''behaving in a manner as to lead the reasonable officer to believe they were carrying weapons and threatening to use them.''

Its complicated I know. But someone can be ''unarmed'' and ''peaceful'' (a per a finding of fact after the incident) while appearing otherwise at the time of the incident.

As far as the law of self-defense is concerned. And the law gives broad discretion to officers especially in recognition of the important and very dangerous public duties they perform.

So like I said, it all depends on the context.

You're letting post-incident findings of fact prejudice your entire analysis of reasonableness of the officer's conduct.

And this is much as you are doing with respect to THIS OP.

''Oh my God HOW COULD HE shoot an unarmed kid.''

You're not seeing the whole picture. You're letting the rhetoric and post-incident findings dictate your entire analysis.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And I'm not laughing because you're wrong, actually that nailed it.

No officer is going to visibly look at that kid and think "is he a 19 year old? How should I feel about it?"

He looks like a teen, perhaps a pre-teen like you said. There's no way to mistake the fact it is obviously, painfully 12.

The problem with America is, that in some places, a 12 year old kid can actually get a real gun.

I mean my dad has 2 guns, a pump action shotgun, and a rifle.

I know where they are, if I wanted to I'd go get them and go into the streets and start shooting at trees around the neighborhood.

Doesn't really mean much the whole "can actually..." because if the kid can't on their own they can plunder their parents' arsenal.

[Galloism]

I wasn't talking about this incident, but rather my somewhat sarcastic comment regarding Mushrooms supporting police even if they are doing criminally insane things.

To which he said "not necessarily" regarding whether he would support a police officer throwing grenades into a crowd of unarmed people.

There is a legal distinction between a crowd of unarmed people and a crowd of unarmed people behaving in a threatening manner or ''behaving in a manner as to lead the reasonable officer to believe they were carrying weapons and threatening to use them.''

Its complicated I know. But someone can be ''unarmed'' and ''peaceful'' (a per a finding of fact after the incident) while appearing otherwise at the time of the incident.

As far as the law of self-defense is concerned. And the law gives broad discretion to officers especially in recognition of the important and very dangerous public duties they perform.

So like I said, it all depends on the context.

You're letting post-incident findings of fact prejudice your entire analysis of reasonableness of the officer's conduct.

And this is much as you are doing with respect to THIS OP.

No level of "threatening behavior" from a crowd justifies police throwing shrapnel grenades into the crowd.

If the situation's that hot, you are supposed to back off and get riot police and national guard - which have suppression weapons that don't result in indiscriminate murder of civilians.

[Toronina]

The problem with America is, that in some places, a 12 year old kid can actually get a real gun.

I mean my dad has 2 guns, a pump action shotgun, and a rifle.

I know where they are, if I wanted to I'd go get them and go into the streets and start shooting at trees around the neighborhood.

Doesn't really mean much the whole "can actually..." because if the kid can't on their own they can plunder their parents' arsenal.

Exactly. And if their parents have given the kid training, well, if he takes a real gun out it can get dangerous.

[Infected Mushroom]

There is a legal distinction between a crowd of unarmed people and a crowd of unarmed people behaving in a threatening manner or ''behaving in a manner as to lead the reasonable officer to believe they were carrying weapons and threatening to use them.''

Its complicated I know. But someone can be ''unarmed'' and ''peaceful'' (a per a finding of fact after the incident) while appearing otherwise at the time of the incident.

As far as the law of self-defense is concerned. And the law gives broad discretion to officers especially in recognition of the important and very dangerous public duties they perform.

So like I said, it all depends on the context.

You're letting post-incident findings of fact prejudice your entire analysis of reasonableness of the officer's conduct.

And this is much as you are doing with respect to THIS OP.

No level of "threatening behavior" from a crowd justifies police throwing shrapnel grenades into the crowd.

If the situation's that hot, you are supposed to back off and get riot police and national guard - which have suppression weapons that don't result in indiscriminate murder of civilians.

Like I said.

It depends on the jurisdiction (the legality of specific weapon use etc), the behavior of the crowd as reasonably inferred by the officer and other factors...

this isn't an unconditionally illegal or unethical situation.

There are jurisdictions where the police have few restrictions on what weapons they are allowed to carry or use.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If the situation's that hot, you are supposed to back off and get riot police and national guard - which have suppression weapons that don't result in indiscriminate murder of civilians.

Rubber pellets are quite good at that, even if it leaves bruises.

[Galloism]

No level of "threatening behavior" from a crowd justifies police throwing shrapnel grenades into the crowd.

If the situation's that hot, you are supposed to back off and get riot police and national guard - which have suppression weapons that don't result in indiscriminate murder of civilians.

Like I said.

It depends on the jurisdiction (the legality of specific weapon use etc), the behavior of the crowd as reasonably inferred by the officer and other factors...

this isn't an unconditionally illegal or unethical situation.

There are jurisdictions where the police have few restrictions on what weapons they are allowed to carry or use.

And they should, because indiscriminate murder of civilians is never acceptable, no matter what society you're in. From a moral standpoint, murdering civilians is bad everywhere.

[Infected Mushroom]

And we have to be balanced.

If you're allowed to come up with a ridiculous scenario where a police officer is going to throw a grenade.

Then I'm allowed to take into account the hypothetical consideration of the crowd behaving in an ''unbelievably threatening'' way while still getting post-incident finding of fact of being ''peaceful.''

[Galloism]

If the situation's that hot, you are supposed to back off and get riot police and national guard - which have suppression weapons that don't result in indiscriminate murder of civilians.

Rubber pellets are quite good at that, even if it leaves bruises.

Bean bag shot is quite effective too.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

No level of "threatening behavior" from a crowd justifies police throwing shrapnel grenades into the crowd.

If the situation's that hot, you are supposed to back off and get riot police and national guard - which have suppression weapons that don't result in indiscriminate murder of civilians.

Like I said.

It depends on the jurisdiction (the legality of specific weapon use etc), the behavior of the crowd as reasonably inferred by the officer and other factors...

this isn't an unconditionally illegal or unethical situation.

There are jurisdictions where the police have few restrictions on what weapons they are allowed to carry or use.

Peaceful protesters don't deserve grenades. Stick to his example.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Like I said.

It depends on the jurisdiction (the legality of specific weapon use etc), the behavior of the crowd as reasonably inferred by the officer and other factors...

this isn't an unconditionally illegal or unethical situation.

There are jurisdictions where the police have few restrictions on what weapons they are allowed to carry or use.

And they should, because indiscriminate murder of civilians is never acceptable, no matter what society you're in. From a moral standpoint, murdering civilians is bad everywhere.

Except if you're in China.

[Infected Mushroom]

Like I said.

It depends on the jurisdiction (the legality of specific weapon use etc), the behavior of the crowd as reasonably inferred by the officer and other factors...

this isn't an unconditionally illegal or unethical situation.

There are jurisdictions where the police have few restrictions on what weapons they are allowed to carry or use.

And they should, because indiscriminate murder of civilians is never acceptable, no matter what society you're in. From a moral standpoint, murdering civilians is bad everywhere.

Except as I've tried to explain to you many times, its not necessarily indiscriminate.

Maybe the whole crowd was threatening him with convincing-looking fake weapons. Maybe the entire crowd without exception, was calling out for his death and holding what looked like knives (but were found to be fake AFTER the incident and hence the crowd was ruled as ''peaceful'' in the technical sense).

You have to take into account ALL factors.

There isn't anything obvious here.