Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,353
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Dec 28, 2015 18:02:29 GMT -5
It is crazy just how calculating they were about announcing this. 2 p.m. on a Monday after a holiday, on 35 degree rainy day, with an hours notice. I'm surprised it did not get Friday news dumped, even if it was Christmas.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,990
|
Post by Sparkybob on Dec 28, 2015 18:02:53 GMT -5
This isn't the same situation, but if this eventually got into a scenario where they had a trial and the jury found the officers not guilty, there will still be outrage but at what really? I remember a case in the northeast where a jury found officers not guilty and there was anger but it's like is there a better system to find a citizen guilty/innocent? Can't really say the jury all over america have race issues and such and it's not like people are demanding an overhaul of using juries so shrugs
Not sure what I'm getting at here so I just decided to get things off my chest. Deepest sympathies to the Rice family for their loss.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,353
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Dec 28, 2015 18:07:19 GMT -5
This isn't the same situation, but if this eventually got into a scenario where they had a trial and the jury found the officers not guilty, there will still be outrage but at what really? I remember a case in the northeast where a jury found officers not guilty and there was anger but it's like is there a better system to find a citizen guilty/innocent? Can't really say the jury all over america have race issues and such and it's not like people are demanding an overhaul of using juries so shrugs Not sure what I'm getting at here so I just decided to get things off my chest. Deepest sympathies to the Rice family for their loss. This is more outrageous mainly because a total incompetent should still be able to get an indictment in many of these cases, especially one that basically amounts to little better than a drive-by shooting of a child by a cop. Trials are a much different hurtle. Getting charges brought by a grand jury is a cake walk.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Dec 28, 2015 18:47:53 GMT -5
There is so much emotion on my heart about this. I've bottled so much anger, so much resentment, so much shock at how we can simply hand-wave event after event, even after video tape is involved. But I will let myself say something, because I don't see as much about it and I...I just want to. It's bothering me.
He was shot in the stomach and left dying on the ground. His sister tackled, shackled, and shoved in a police car for trying to run to him. Forced to sit and watch her brother dying, a process that would take until the next day, while the cops stood there. Cops who either had no first aid training or no first aid items nearby and felt the only thing they really needed to do was call in the incident.
Four minutes. No help. A gutshot bullet wound. An FBI detective working a nearby detail was the first person to try and help. Three minutes before the EMS arrived. Without the FBI detective, it wouldn't have been four minutes, but seven unattended.
He was big. He was scary. The gun looked real (even though they never saw it). How does that excuse the aftermath of letting someone just bleed on the ground? He died the next day. Every moment counts. Every single one. And they wasted 240 seconds.
How can there be absolutely nothing done? How? Even with these garbage excuses for executing a human being, how does it justify then just standing there and watching them dying. The threat was handled. The threat was shot. The threat was dying.
And they did nothing to help beyond the barest of minimums.
I just don't get it. Was he still scary while bleeding on the ground?
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 28, 2015 18:58:10 GMT -5
There have been three cops gunned down dead in three separate incidents in the area I live in this past year, and another one was fired at until the perp could flee into cover. All of them did not fire a shot at the gun-wielders. No news coverage on that. About the same amount of non-sympathy too. This is such a staggering false comparison. Cops being murdered do not need protests, rallies, or any other form of demand for social justice from a racist judicial system to be considered wrong. Cop killing is already considered an evil by society and the perpetrators, when found, are almost always made to face justice for their actions. This is not always the case for when black civilians, regardless of whether they're completely innocent or guilty of some sort of crime, are gunned down by cops whose lives aren't in any immediate danger. And this is in spite of damning evidence like video recordings from police dashcams, bodycams, and/or witness cell phone video along with testimony. I agree with you on this completely. The false equivalency that gets drawn nearly every time this happens never fails to ring completely false. Killing a cop is an atrocious crime, and absolutely no one at any point is going to defend a cop killer. There also aren't dozens of people calling cops "big, scary, unstoppable" when they get killed, either. The Tamir Rice situation is a complete tragedy and there should at the very least have been an indictment. That's pretty much all people ask for at this point, as that would be a huge step for anything at this point. There isn't necessarily going to be a guilty verdict, but it's still something. The fact that the prosecutor relentlessly pushed the idea of Tamir Rice being this super scary and big kid (he was 5'7, he wasn't that big) showed that there was never going to be anything more than this outcome. There needs to be an impartial view for these things when it comes to grand juries, and it sucks that there never really is one.
|
|
Malcolm
Grimlock
Wanted something done about the color of his ring.
Eternally Confused
Posts: 13,478
|
Post by Malcolm on Dec 28, 2015 18:59:41 GMT -5
There is so much emotion on my heart about this. I've bottled so much anger, so much resentment, so much shock at how we can simply hand-wave event after event, even after video tape is involved. But I will let myself say something, because I don't see as much about it and I...I just want to. It's bothering me. He was shot in the stomach and left dying on the ground. His sister tackled, shackled, and shoved in a police car for trying to run to him. Forced to sit and watch her brother dying, a process that would take until the next day, while the cops stood there. Cops who either had no first aid training or no first aid items nearby and felt the only thing they really needed to do was call in the incident. Four minutes. No help. A gutshot bullet wound. An FBI detective working a nearby detail was the first person to try and help. Three minutes before the EMS arrived. Without the FBI detective, it wouldn't have been four minutes, but seven unattended. He was big. He was scary. The gun looked real (even though they never saw it). How does that excuse the aftermath of letting someone just bleed on the ground? He died the next day. Every moment counts. Every single one. And they wasted 240 seconds. How can there be absolutely nothing done? How? Even with these garbage excuses for executing a human being, how does it justify then just standing there and watching them dying. The threat was handled. The threat was shot. The threat was dying. And they did nothing to help beyond the barest of minimums. I just don't get it. Was he still scary while bleeding on the ground? Sorry to quote a meme, but I just can't think of a better statement other than "Jesus Christ, how horrifying".
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 28, 2015 19:03:30 GMT -5
A grand jury reviewed this. Not an internal department board or office. They determined there was not any criminality to the use of force. Got it. But that does zero to makes this right. The kid is just as dead. The officer will live with this the rest of his life. But more unfortunately so will Rice's parents. The county prosecutor is responsible for presenting evidence to the grand jury. When they are on the side of the police, as district attorney's often are due to the power of the police endorsement, it leads to the situation we have where grand juries rarely ever indict police officers but rarely don't indict regular citizens (in 2010, of 162,000 cases brought before a grand jury, indictments were issued in all but 11 of them). This case was no different, and it stems from a problem of there not being an unbiased, outside investigation unit for police officers under investigation. When the DA is in bed with the police, then the DA isn't going to push that relationship at the expense of a poor black kid. When a prosecutor is pleading with a grand jury to not indict, when his job is to do the opposite, there's probably not going to be an indictment. First of all, he was a kid. We all did stupid stuff as kids. Second of all, the cops flew up on him, hopped out, and killed him. No warning at all. The way that went down, there's no way someone doesn't get shot. The cops put themselves in what they thought was a life-threatening situation. What I think is going on is that there's no explicit laws regarding police procedure, so technically they broke no laws when they screwed that up. Then, once they were in that life-threatening situation due to the bad dispatch work and their own bad police work, they were authorized to use force to protect themselves. Maybe having explicit laws on how police officers are to approach an armed suspect is part of the answer, because as it stands, its arguable that the officers didn't break any laws. www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Boom-Boom-Boom-Woman-Points-Fake-Gun-at-Police-in-Torrington-363536941.htmlIt's not really a given that someone is going to get shot, it's a given that a certain type of person is going to get shot. Not a shot was fired in the Cliven Bundy standoff, but a black person is shot dead for carrying an off the rack toy BB gun through Wal-Mart, and no one is indicted. Police officers get an odd sort of immunity where they can make a mistake that ends someone life and get off because they are police officers, when anyone else would face charges on it, because prosecuters are rarely going to seriosuly pursue charges against a cop who shoots someone "in the line of duty," especially when they are so reliant on the police for the endorsement during election season.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,353
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Dec 28, 2015 19:04:46 GMT -5
There is so much emotion on my heart about this. I've bottled so much anger, so much resentment, so much shock at how we can simply hand-wave event after event, even after video tape is involved. But I will let myself say something, because I don't see as much about it and I...I just want to. It's bothering me. He was shot in the stomach and left dying on the ground. His sister tackled, shackled, and shoved in a police car for trying to run to him. Forced to sit and watch her brother dying, a process that would take until the next day, while the cops stood there. Cops who either had no first aid training or no first aid items nearby and felt the only thing they really needed to do was call in the incident. Four minutes. No help. A gutshot bullet wound. An FBI detective working a nearby detail was the first person to try and help. Three minutes before the EMS arrived. Without the FBI detective, it wouldn't have been four minutes, but seven unattended. He was big. He was scary. The gun looked real (even though they never saw it). How does that excuse the aftermath of letting someone just bleed on the ground? He died the next day. Every moment counts. Every single one. And they wasted 240 seconds. How can there be absolutely nothing done? How? Even with these garbage excuses for executing a human being, how does it justify then just standing there and watching them dying. The threat was handled. The threat was shot. The threat was dying. And they did nothing to help beyond the barest of minimums. I just don't get it. Was he still scary while bleeding on the ground? Yeah, I kind of elected to not touch that part. I don't know if they could have helped, but they did not even try. You said they did nothing to help beyond the barest of minimums. Those two cops did not even do that, which is especially jarring since they had several minutes to realize that it was a kid laying on the ground in front of them.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 28, 2015 19:09:10 GMT -5
Time and time again we have seen that black people, especially males, do not get the benefit of even the slightest doubt. In the Zimmerman/Martin case, a black youth is pursued for no reason, then killed, yet it's deemed justifiable self-defence. With the police an "immediately shoot to kill" policy, a combination of bad training, poor recruiting and a culture of extreme aggression among police, followed by grand jury refusal to charge. It's ironic that in a country where gun culture is so endemic, it's a toy gun that causes police to react lethally. During the Cliven Bundy situation you had guys pointing real guns at law enforcement, and none of them got the same treatment. The pattern has been set. It's clear to see that race is a variable, and it's playing out time and again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 19:24:39 GMT -5
A grand jury reviewed this. Not an internal department board or office. They determined there was not any criminality to the use of force. Got it. But that does zero to makes this right. The kid is just as dead. The officer will live with this the rest of his life. But more unfortunately so will Rice's parents. The county prosecutor is responsible for presenting evidence to the grand jury. When they are on the side of the police, as district attorney's often are due to the power of the police endorsement, it leads to the situation we have where grand juries rarely ever indict police officers but rarely don't indict regular citizens (in 2010, of 162,000 cases brought before a grand jury, indictments were issued in all but 11 of them). This case was no different, and it stems from a problem of there not being an unbiased, outside investigation unit for police officers under investigation. When the DA is in bed with the police, then the DA isn't going to push that relationship at the expense of a poor black kid. When a prosecutor is pleading with a grand jury to not indict, when his job is to do the opposite, there's probably not going to be an indictment. The way that went down, there's no way someone doesn't get shot. The cops put themselves in what they thought was a life-threatening situation. What I think is going on is that there's no explicit laws regarding police procedure, so technically they broke no laws when they screwed that up. Then, once they were in that life-threatening situation due to the bad dispatch work and their own bad police work, they were authorized to use force to protect themselves. Maybe having explicit laws on how police officers are to approach an armed suspect is part of the answer, because as it stands, its arguable that the officers didn't break any laws. www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Boom-Boom-Boom-Woman-Points-Fake-Gun-at-Police-in-Torrington-363536941.htmlIt's not really a given that someone is going to get shot, it's a given that a certain type of person is going to get shot. Not a shot was fired in the Cliven Bundy standoff, but a black person is shot dead for carrying an off the rack toy BB gun through Wal-Mart, and no one is indicted. Police officers get an odd sort of immunity where they can make a mistake that ends someone life and get off because they are police officers, when anyone else would face charges on it, because prosecuters are rarely going to seriosuly pursue charges against a cop who shoots someone "in the line of duty," especially when they are so reliant on the police for the endorsement during election season. I think you're missing my point. What I'm saying is that if it was an actual gun, as they allegedly believed it to be, the way they drove right up to him highly increased the chances someone was getting shot. That's a huge screw up on their part, but that screw up isn't breaking a law, because there's no law that outlines police protocol when approaching an armed suspect. So, the cops created that life-threatening situation that supposedly makes their action justified.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 28, 2015 19:29:52 GMT -5
I think you're missing my point. What I'm saying is that if it was an actual gun, as they allegedly believed it to be, the way they drove right up to him highly increased the chances someone was getting shot. That's a huge screw up on their part, but that screw up isn't breaking a law, because there's no law that outlines police protocol when approaching an armed suspect. So, the cops created that life-threatening situation that supposedly makes their action justified. Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of manslaughter? Causing the unjustified death of another person through critical error or mistake? They drove up on a person with a gun in an open-carry state and opened fire in a manner of 2 seconds without any assessment of the situation, had it not been a police officer, I'm pretty sure they would have been charged with at least manslaughter. And you had said that there was no way someone wasn't going to get shot, I was only pointing out that there are plenty of other situations where police are under much greater potential threat and don't kill.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,353
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Dec 28, 2015 19:40:41 GMT -5
I think you're missing my point. What I'm saying is that if it was an actual gun, as they allegedly believed it to be, the way they drove right up to him highly increased the chances someone was getting shot. That's a huge screw up on their part, but that screw up isn't breaking a law, because there's no law that outlines police protocol when approaching an armed suspect. So, the cops created that life-threatening situation that supposedly makes their action justified. Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of manslaughter? Causing the unjustified death of another person through critical error or mistake? They drove up on a person with a gun in an open-carry state and opened fire in a manner of 2 seconds without any assessment of the situation, had it not been a police officer, I'm pretty sure they would have been charged with at least manslaughter. And you had said that there was no way someone wasn't going to get shot, I was only pointing out that there are plenty of other situations where police are under much greater potential threat and don't kill. I think some people, perhaps even understandably, will want you to provide examples where black people are the ones in those situations that the cops don't shoot. Another example in Ohio was John Crawford III, a black guy who was walking around Walmart with an airsoft gun that he was intending to buy from said Walmart. The cops did not announce themselves. The video shows that Crawford was shot dead before he even knew the cops were there. Shot dead for having a toy gun that the store themselves had for sale. Remember, Ohio is an open carry state and there have been plenty of white guys walking around Walmarts with real guns without getting shot.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Dec 28, 2015 19:53:18 GMT -5
I think you're missing my point. What I'm saying is that if it was an actual gun, as they allegedly believed it to be, the way they drove right up to him highly increased the chances someone was getting shot. That's a huge screw up on their part, but that screw up isn't breaking a law, because there's no law that outlines police protocol when approaching an armed suspect. So, the cops created that life-threatening situation that supposedly makes their action justified. Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of manslaughter? Causing the unjustified death of another person through critical error or mistake? They drove up on a person with a gun in an open-carry state and opened fire in a manner of 2 seconds without any assessment of the situation, had it not been a police officer, I'm pretty sure they would have been charged with at least manslaughter. And you had said that there was no way someone wasn't going to get shot, I was only pointing out that there are plenty of other situations where police are under much greater potential threat and don't kill. If I'm not mistaken, the police were told that the kid was waving his gun around pointing it at other people and considering what the gun looked like, it looked pretty real to anyone who saw it. They made a fast decision which turned out to be a big mistake, but up until the actual shooting, it's hard to not jump to a quick decision like that, especially in a place with a ton of gun violence like Chicago.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 28, 2015 19:56:09 GMT -5
The main defence offered by the state seems to be "they didn't know it was a toy", well that's where taking a little longer than 1 second may have been a better option, to determine the facts of the situation, rather than immediate death.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,353
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Dec 28, 2015 19:58:32 GMT -5
Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of manslaughter? Causing the unjustified death of another person through critical error or mistake? They drove up on a person with a gun in an open-carry state and opened fire in a manner of 2 seconds without any assessment of the situation, had it not been a police officer, I'm pretty sure they would have been charged with at least manslaughter. And you had said that there was no way someone wasn't going to get shot, I was only pointing out that there are plenty of other situations where police are under much greater potential threat and don't kill. If I'm not mistaken, the police were told that the kid was waving his gun around pointing it at other people and considering what the gun looked like, it looked pretty real to anyone who saw it. They made a fast decision which turned out to be a big mistake, but up until the actual shooting, it's hard to not jump to a quick decision like that, especially in a place with a ton of gun violence like Chicago. The person who called it in said that it looked like it might be a toy. I'm not saying that it would not look real enough in the glance that they got in the two seconds they had before they pulled the trigger. That's why you take your time to be sure you know what really is going on. DON'T go charging in where gunfire is a damned near requirement. If they took their time, the cops probably could have told it was a toy if the civilian making the 911 call thought it might have been one.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 28, 2015 19:58:34 GMT -5
Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of manslaughter? Causing the unjustified death of another person through critical error or mistake? They drove up on a person with a gun in an open-carry state and opened fire in a manner of 2 seconds without any assessment of the situation, had it not been a police officer, I'm pretty sure they would have been charged with at least manslaughter. And you had said that there was no way someone wasn't going to get shot, I was only pointing out that there are plenty of other situations where police are under much greater potential threat and don't kill. If I'm not mistaken, the police were told that the kid was waving his gun around pointing it at other people and considering what the gun looked like, it looked pretty real to anyone who saw it. They made a fast decision which turned out to be a big mistake, but up until the actual shooting, it's hard to not jump to a quick decision like that, especially in a place with a ton of gun violence like Chicago. Tamir Rice was in Cleveland, but that's really besides the point. They received phone calls which promped a quick response, but did not actually observe any illegal act. They did not issue any orders or give themselves any time to actually assess the situation before opening fire. So really, that explanation just doesn't fly to me, I still don't see why charges of at least manslaughter wouldn't be levied (other than police officer immunity). At the very least, they grossly mishandled a situation and led to someone's unjustified death.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Dec 28, 2015 20:03:36 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, the police were told that the kid was waving his gun around pointing it at other people and considering what the gun looked like, it looked pretty real to anyone who saw it. They made a fast decision which turned out to be a big mistake, but up until the actual shooting, it's hard to not jump to a quick decision like that, especially in a place with a ton of gun violence like Chicago. The person who called it in said that it looked like it might be a toy. I'm not saying that it would not look real enough in the glance that they got in the two seconds they had before they pulled the trigger. That's why you take your time to be sure you know what really is going on. DON'T go charging in where gunfire is a damned near requirement. If they took their time, the cops probably could have told it was a toy if the civilian making the 911 call thought it might have been one. The person who called 911 said it might be a toy but that information was not relayed to the police. Even then, that still would only make them wait an extra second or two. Now granted if the kid WASN'T going for the gun then that would change a lot, but if he was going for it in his pants then it's hard to imagine how they could possibly determine if it was fake without actually picking it up themselves. I'm not justifying the situation or anything, but trying to explain how they got from Point A to Point B.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,353
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Dec 28, 2015 20:09:38 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, the police were told that the kid was waving his gun around pointing it at other people and considering what the gun looked like, it looked pretty real to anyone who saw it. They made a fast decision which turned out to be a big mistake, but up until the actual shooting, it's hard to not jump to a quick decision like that, especially in a place with a ton of gun violence like Chicago. Tamir Rice was in Cleveland, but that's really besides the point. They received phone calls which promped a quick response, but did not actually observe any illegal act. They did not issue any orders or give themselves any time to actually assess the situation before opening fire. So really, that explanation just doesn't fly to me, I still don't see why charges of at least manslaughter wouldn't be levied (other than police officer immunity). At the very least, they grossly mishandled a situation and led to someone's unjustified death. Again, this was in Ohio, an open carry state, where they basically rushed the suspect in a rapidly moving, mostly black car. Let's say he was an adult with a perfectly legal gun, under those circumstances what would you think in that instance? You would probably think you were under attack and needed to defend yourself. Again, their actions seem engineered to get a very specific outcome and it is unacceptable regardless of who gets shot.
|
|
|
Post by TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out on Dec 28, 2015 20:12:51 GMT -5
There have been three cops gunned down dead in three separate incidents in the area I live in this past year, and another one was fired at until the perp could flee into cover. All of them did not fire a shot at the gun-wielders. No news coverage on that. About the same amount of non-sympathy too. When one becomes a police officer, there is a risk that is assumed. Being a 12 year old in a park holding a toy, there isn't nearly the same level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 20:16:42 GMT -5
I think you're missing my point. What I'm saying is that if it was an actual gun, as they allegedly believed it to be, the way they drove right up to him highly increased the chances someone was getting shot. That's a huge screw up on their part, but that screw up isn't breaking a law, because there's no law that outlines police protocol when approaching an armed suspect. So, the cops created that life-threatening situation that supposedly makes their action justified. Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of manslaughter? Causing the unjustified death of another person through critical error or mistake? They drove up on a person with a gun in an open-carry state and opened fire in a manner of 2 seconds without any assessment of the situation, had it not been a police officer, I'm pretty sure they would have been charged with at least manslaughter. And you had said that there was no way someone wasn't going to get shot, I was only pointing out that there are plenty of other situations where police are under much greater potential threat and don't kill. Yes, it is. They should've been indicted, I've made it pretty clear how I feel about it. That's why they got off though, the belief that the officer in the moment felt like his life was in danger. I'm agreeing that the cop probably did feel that way, but it was because of their own doing and the dispatcher screwing up. But there's no law that said he should've approached differently, maybe there should be.
|
|