Reply With Quote
1) It was Texas, right?
2) How many years ago?
3) Was the violent crime rate in your area anywhere close to that of Cleveland, today?
Implying that no black kids have ever been in this situation without dying.
1) It was Texas, right?
2) How many years ago?
3) Was the violent crime rate in your area anywhere close to that of Cleveland, today?
I don't think anyone saying he deserved to die. There is a massive difference in saying "the kid deserved to die" and "what the cop did stands to reason in a situation that could have been deadly". I think it should have been handled differently, but saying this equates to the kid deserving to die is not apples to apples with what happened/is being said.Thanks for the unrelated hypothetical scenario.
This is the BB gun Tamir Rice was holding
He was in a park, not a police station. And hey, look at that headline... He "reached for" a weapon.
So a 12 year old with a toy gun has a cop car pull right up next to him. What do you think is the more likely motive for him reaching for his gun? "Hey, I'm gonna point it at this cop" or "Hey, I have to show them it's just a BB gun?"
I know, I know, dumbass should know he's not supposed to reach for his gun at all, so he deserved to die.
This is the gun he was holding.What are they going to do from a distance? Do you know the effective accuracy at more than 50m with a handgun? Have you ever fired a handgun?
This is an airsoft M4. Let's see you walk into a police station pointing it at people. See how long you live with the "toy" gun.
So, again, why couldn't they park further away?
Thank you for pointing out my error in wording. So even less reason to shoot first and ask questions later.
How do cops ever apprehend armed suspects if they are at that much risk every time they respond to a scene involving a gun?2. 30 feet is no different than 10 feet where a handgun is concerned. How do you suppose a cop negotiates around his vehicle to safety to tell someone to put down a weapon? How did the cops even know who the suspect was until he reached into his waistband? What if that wasn't the suspect?
He didn't draw his handgun. He reached for it. Probably to show them it was a pellet gun. If they were further away, he might have had that chance.3. Hyperbole is rampant already without you employing it at every turn. The cops didn't shoot at "any suspect that may present a danger", they shot at a person who drew a handgun on them when told to put his hands up, the same person who was reported to have been waving a gun around at a rec center. James Holmes didn't point a gun at the officers. He surrendered. You pose a direct threat, you get neutralized. If the kid pulled the same gun on me I would have shot him as well. If you're honest and have a CHL you'd likely have done the same, unless you think you'd wait for the report of the firearm before acting... ignoring that sudden sharp pain in your chest.
Why, it was a toy gun. Why park further away if it's a toy gun?
I don't think there is much difference at all in saying
"Dumb kid should know not to wave a real-looking gun around in a park or reach for it when a cop pulls up, when you do that, you get shot."
and
"Dumb kid deserved to die."
But agree to disagree, I guess.
doing something wrong doesnt mean you deserve to die. but doing something wrong can get you killed
Catch phrases might sound cool to you but they don't gain any traction in decent conversations. Cops draw their guns to shoot. Cops with drawn guns are cops who will shoot if you draw a gun on them. Why will they shoot? What should they wait for before shooting, gunfire from the suspect?
Suppose for an instant it wasn't a toy gun, that it was a real gun. Same situation to the cops, did they act hastily to shoot a person who draws a real gun on them when told to put their hands up? Are you basing your argument on the convenience of knowing the gun was a toy? Cops didn't have that convenience, they didn't read it online and get several minutes or hours to assess the situation. They arrived, saw the kid, told him to put his hands up and he drew what looked like a real gun, not a wallet or a cell phone but a gun. If the cop thinks "maybe toy" maybe cop doesn't make it home that night.
Cops rarely apprehend an armed suspect. By the time the suspect is apprehended, he's voluntarily disarmed himself.How do cops ever apprehend armed suspects if they are at that much risk every time they respond to a scene involving a gun?
Those who haven't often haven't reported they are armed in the first place and if they drew on the cop, well just figure that out. Ever see the video of the young kid who shoots the cop through the window of a stolen car? Kid was younger than that one I think. Cop didn't see the gun, but if he had, should he have reacted to it like it was a toy and stuck his finger in the barrel?
You don't draw a gun on people to show it's a fake. That's why kids and guns don't belong together without adult supervision, especially in public. Carry that M4 I showed you into a police station to show it's a fake. I dare you.He didn't draw his handgun. He reached for it. Probably to show them it was fake. If they were further away, he might have had that chance.
In this case it shouldn't have, and hopefully the responsible party will be held appropriately responsible. If not, people will be justifiably angry.
Not dumb, just ignorant. He was kid, kids are ignorant.
You're looking for a bifurcation scenario where there is clear fault and clear innocence and not all situations are like that.
The responsible party is the kid's parent/s. Cops should always respond to a gun in that manner if they want to live. Some might not respond that way but that's because many cops are afraid to pull the trigger and that's why they die.
Well he didn't draw his gun. He reached for it. Two seconds after they arrived. At their position, they did not leave themselves enough time to appropriately
, if this was standard procedure, what's stopping me from calling in any random person as having a gun and them having a good chance of being shot without any questions asked?
Usually because they're given time to do so.Cops rarely apprehend an armed suspect. By the time the suspect is apprehended, he's voluntarily disarmed himself.
Easy for you to say with the benefit of hindisght and not being 12.You don't draw a gun on people to show it's a fake.
You keep bringing this hypothetical scenario up even though it is completely unrelated. But I'll still play the game and say that in most cases, he wouldn't be fatally shot on sight for doing that.That's why kids and guns don't belong together without adult supervision, especially in public. Carry that M4 I showed you into a police station to show it's a fake. I dare you.
We're not going to agree on this. I believe this cop will be put on trial and we can discuss actual police procedure then, instead of all these hypotheticals.
Happy Thanksgiving.
He won't be put on trial. He will be no billed by a grand jury. People will find reasons to break into stores and steal weaves and swisher sweets and malt liquor. The world will continue to turn.
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well, and your family.
well then maybe you shouldn't give an unsupervised 12 year old a toy gun
Self-defense = "unchecked authoritarianism"?
No, a failure to hold authorities responsible for unnecessarily reckless and deadly behavior is unchecked authoritarianism.
You're so loyal to this authority that you can't bring yourself to admit that there are any number of ways this situation could have been handled differently and spared the kid.
I agree, but what does that have to do with the boy's reaction, which is what we were talking about? If you want to talk about parental responsibility, you won't get much argument from me.
Everyone cannot be at fault. The 12 year old is exonerated by default, and the cop was acting in self defense to a perceived threat. You can say situational awareness was compromised by faulty dispatch, but then you have to also indict the boy's guardians who allowed him to roam around with a mock up of a handgun at a rec center, pulling and pointing it at people. Easy to mistake that for a thug.
I'll just leave this here. I'm sure it's completely unrelated because we're in a post-racial society.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...#disqus_thread
Study: Cops Tend to See Black Kids as Less Innocent Than White Kids
"Our research found that black boys can be seen as responsible for their actions at an age when white boys still benefit from the assumption that children are essentially innocent."
Asked to identify the age of a young boy that committed a felony, participants in a study routinely overestimated the age of black children far more than they did white kids. Worse: Cops did it, too.
The study, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, aimed at figuring out the extent to which black children were likely to be treated differently than their white peers solely based on race. More specifically, the authors wanted to figure out the extent to which black kids were dehumanized. "Children in most societies are considered to be in a distinct group with characteristics such as innocence and the need for protection," author Phillip Atiba Goff of UCLA told the American Psychological Association. "Our research found that black boys can be seen as responsible for their actions at an age when white boys still benefit from the assumption that children are essentially innocent."
The researchers ran four different experiments aimed at gauging how people perceived criminal acts (both misdemeanors and felonies) depending on if the boy that committed it was black or white. Participants took a series of tests gauging racial at udes and subtle associations. One test "primed" participants by flashing the names of either great cats, like lions, or apes. Two groups of people were interviewed, college-aged students and police officers. The group of police officers were evaluated on another metric: their on-the-job record of use of force against criminal suspects.
We'll start with that last bit of data. The graph at right shows the number of use of force incidents by officers in the study (though a small majority of officers had never used force). "[T]he implicit dehumanization of Blacks," the study's authors write, "was a significant predictor of racial disparities in the use of force against children" — though they're clear to note that it is "plausible that negative interactions with Black children disproportionately produce implicit anti-Black dehumanization."
The correlation between dehumanization and use of force becomes more significant when you consider that black boys are routinely estimated to be older than they are. The two graphs show the age estimates for the college students, left, and police participants in the study.
The general population respondents overestimated the boys' ages in felony situations by 4.53 years, meaning that "boys would be misperceived as legal adults at roughly the age of 13 and a half." The police had a slightly wider spread: 4.59 years. The college students were also less likely to judge black boys innocent in the presented scenarios once they were 10 years of age of older. At every age level after 10, black boys were considered less innocent than either white or unspecified children.
Priming the officers with different associations produced different results in their age guesses. The researchers used the apes / great cats priming before running one set of experiments. When police officers were primed with either cats or apes, the graph at right resulted. When the officers were primed with names of apes, the officers were even more likely to overestimate the age of the black boys involved in the situation. But when the situation involved a white boy, the ape priming lowered the age estimate in the case of felonies.
The less the black kids were seen as human, the less they were granted "the assumption that children are essentially innocent." And those officers who were more likely to dehumanize black suspects overlapped with those who used more force against them.
In 2012, data from the Department of Education revealed that black students were far more likely than white students to face harsh discipline following infractions at school than student of other races. That sort of uneven system of discipline prompted the Obama administration to call for zero-tolerance policies to be dropped. If this study is any guide — and it's only one study, of course — the tendency to give white kids the presumption of innocence and youth that isn't afforded to black students might be one of the reasons for that discrepancy.
i thought we were talking about ways in which this tragedy could have been avoided.
1) kid shouldn't be parading around a public park with what appears to be a gun
2) kid shouldn't draw the weapon when the police arrive
3) police should have been advised that the weapon was probably fake before they arrived (although even if they thought it might be fake, it looked real, and if the kid quickly drew it, he could still be in danger)
The kid could have had a rocket launcher pointed at officers, and people would try to play the race card that he was "unfairly targeted because hes black".
Moral of the story: don't go around pointing your intentionally-altered-to-look-more-realistic gun at people or you will probably end up getting shot. Why do people have so many problems with common sense?
He could charge at them with a rocket launcher and we'd get the same racist tears. Why couldn't the cops shoot his leg in the split second before the attacker could get to him? Aren't all cops professional marksmen? If not, they're not qualified to be a cop.The kid could have had a rocket launcher pointed at officers, and people would try to play the race card that he was "unfairly targeted because hes black
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
