See, this I absolutely agree with. I also agree with stienman that "the dispatcher was told it might be a fake gun" does not magically equate to "the officer on site knew it was a fake gun". Whether the gun was fake or not, or believed to be so, is largely irrelevant. Even assuming it's a real gun in the hands of a 20-year-old, they still made mistakes. Different matter altogether.
[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
I agree.
Trust the police, they would never lie to get convictions and death sentences.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
My point is that you're calling for a 12 year old to be in the Darwin awards for playing with a toy. Remember, he had 0 indication that anything was wrong. A cop just went up to him and shot him.
You are right, the Darwin Awards is a step too far. They specifically exclude children because they are not capable of sound judgement.
http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules4.html
Again, I don't think he deserved to or should have died. It is unfair, and he should never have been able to put himself in such a risky situation.
I think the problem, stienman is that you are trying to put some blame on the victim for the situation. The way you are attempting to push the narrative is very similar to what people use in rape cases, "Well what did she expect walking alone on that side of town with her dress that short?" It adds undue blame to someone that was the victim of a horrible tragedy. This kid lost his life because a cop got trigger happy, and you are basically saying "Well what did he expect having a toy gun with the orange tip removed?"
Imagine yourself as the father in this situation. Maybe you are a fan of replica medieval swords. One day maybe your son walks out with one of the replicas to act like a tree is an evil black knight. A neighbor, fearful that some kid is hacking up a tree with what looks like a weapon, calls the cops, and without a word they roll up in a car and gun your son down fearing for their lives. No "freeze", no "Hey kid, knock it off", he was not even raising the sword up at the time. Would you walk away with any feeling that the cops were justied?
Kids, by nature, do stupid shit while they learn, and this kid will never get to learn from that situation, because he is dead. That is why people acting like any part of getting gunned down without a word being his fault is so sickening to some people.
Yes, and some of them die as a result.
I agree that it's a tragedy, but hopefully other people will learn as a result. Other kids, other cops, etc.
--Patrick
The lesson to be learned here is that if you are black, you are much more likely to be shot by the police in situations where a white suspect would get attempts at reason and restraint first.
I can agree with this, but learning from the situation does not mean the victim needs to be blamed for the situation. If I hear a story of a kid that gets murdered by a serial killer after being lured into a van with candy, my first instinct isn't to go "Well what did he expect taking candy for a stranger?" or the ever popular "What were his parents thinking not teaching him not to take candy from strangers?" It's called empathy.
That's EXACTLY what it means. What do you think the takeaway is with this story? If you're Dave or Charlie, the lesson is, "Cops are murderers."
But what, then, do you do with that knowledge? You push for reform, right? How effective do you think it's going to be? I can tell you - not very effective.
If you're me, what do you think my takeaway is? "Don't wave weapons around in a threatening manner in a public area" as well as "The officers are a blunt tool and their goals don't always align with mine."
What do I do with that knowledge? I teach my children. I prevent them for participating in activities or using tools that they can't be trusted with. I don't involve the officers in situations where their goals are in conflict with mine. I try to push for better police training, pay, and improved procedures and policies.
Now which lesson do you think is going to have more impact on my life and the lives of those around me?
If I say "Tamir had absolutely no fault, and what he was doing was fine, and he should not/cannot be blamed for the result" then I end up learning less, and taking less effective action.
Go ahead and absolve Tamir of personal responsibility, and act according to your beliefs. It's not a bad or wrong way of thinking - I'm not saying you should change your mind. I'm saying that I believe I have a more effective way of extending and improving my own life and the lives of those I teach if I teach them personal responsibility: that actions have consequences.
And to answer your implied question, I die a little every time I read these horrific stories. Regarding empathy, well, I'm not going to pretend that we can possibly have an empathy measuring contest, but I appreciate your desire to pretend that my views represent a lack of empathy. It's a reasonable attempt at discrediting my humanity and attacking me rather than my argument.
i have no fucking clue why anyone (including myself) engages on this topic
unfortunately, we already have another one to discuss
unfortunately, we already have another one to discuss
Dave
Staff member
If you're Dave, IN THIS CASE the cop was a murderer.
The fundamental position you are putting forth here is "It's up to the public to not do things that might aggravate the police because changing institutional police behavior is hard but changing public behavior is not." Which is bullshit... it's the same argument as "Teach women not to be raped because it's easier than teaching men not to rape."You are effectively telling the black community that since the police have shown they can and will murder them with the slightest of provocation that it is up to them to not be in a position to be murdered. It might be good advice, but it's sidestepping that actual issue, which is that the police have learned they can and will get away with using as much violence as they want because the system will not punish them for it. This is wrong and needs to be stopped, whether it is easy or hard. It's not a personal responsibility issue, it's a police authority issue.
Telling people that they need to be on the defensive because others can and will violate their right to life/safety is wrong because they aren't doing anything wrong, the people who violated their rights are wrong. Saying it's a personal responsibility issue is wrong because innocent black men and women can be and are harassed simply for the color of their skin. You can be a Harvard professor and be arrested in your own home. You can be slain just for picking up an air rifle off a store shelf and then your girlfriend can be accused of being on drugs while being questioned. These are not things that happen to white Americans. This is a uniquely black American issue. They should not have to show absolute submission to authority just to live. That's inhuman and it's not something white Americans have to do.
Dave
Staff member
See, this one is different to me. The cops identified themselves and did not shoot until the kid ran with the gun still in his hand. And they STILL didn't shoot to kill. So until something new comes out about this one, I'm on the side of the cops. 13 year old inner cities kids can absolutely have real weapons. The cops had no way to know this was a toy. Had the kid just said, "It's a toy!" and laid it down, this wouldn't have been an issue.
I would like to relate a story, of sorts.
I grew up in a city where the majority (70%) of my student body (and presumably the surrounding countryside) was black (they probably still are, but whatever).
At some point, my buddy and I got the brilliant idea to take my Crosman 760 (an older model, back when they still had rifled barrels) out to one of the fields in the park for some fun with a 1 gal milk jug. We were high school students, so the two of us pedaled off to the park on our bicycles while carrying a .177 pellet rifle wrapped in a black garbage bag (the stock had been detached in order to disguise what it was) which probably didn't look suspicious at all.
It probably wasn't even an entire minute after we arrived that a patrol car rolled up (actually out onto the field) and the officer behind the wheel opened the conversation by rolling down his window and incredulously asking us what we thought we were doing. And then he took the Crosman away and delivered it back to my mother at home, and we had to do something less exciting for the rest of the day (and oh boy I heard about it when I got home).
But we did not get shot.
We weren't even arrested.
Some people here might say that this was because of our "magical white-person powers," or possibly because I flashed him the Caucasian sign or because I had a Fraternal Order of Police sticker on the back of my bike, but it should be obvious that each of those explanations is utterly farcical.
No, it was most likely because nobody escalated anything. When the car rolled up, the rifle was already on the ground. When the officer spoke to us, it wasn't a barked command. When we were spoken to, we stayed right where we were. Everyone treated everyone else like people and nothing bad happened to anyone (except me, once I got home). And all of this happened less than half a mile from the border of the city of Detroit, so don't give me some Mayberry crap about how the officer must've been inexperienced/old-fashioned/simple. He was a guy with a gun, the training to use that gun, and probably a selection of other guns in his vehicle to choose from, and he was alone (he did not have a partner in the car, nor did a backup unit arrive). But somehow, common sense prevailed above all, and nothing bad happened to anyone (again, except me).
But I guess that kind of story doesn't sell papers/get clicks.
--Patrick
I grew up in a city where the majority (70%) of my student body (and presumably the surrounding countryside) was black (they probably still are, but whatever).
At some point, my buddy and I got the brilliant idea to take my Crosman 760 (an older model, back when they still had rifled barrels) out to one of the fields in the park for some fun with a 1 gal milk jug. We were high school students, so the two of us pedaled off to the park on our bicycles while carrying a .177 pellet rifle wrapped in a black garbage bag (the stock had been detached in order to disguise what it was) which probably didn't look suspicious at all.
It probably wasn't even an entire minute after we arrived that a patrol car rolled up (actually out onto the field) and the officer behind the wheel opened the conversation by rolling down his window and incredulously asking us what we thought we were doing. And then he took the Crosman away and delivered it back to my mother at home, and we had to do something less exciting for the rest of the day (and oh boy I heard about it when I got home).
But we did not get shot.
We weren't even arrested.
Some people here might say that this was because of our "magical white-person powers," or possibly because I flashed him the Caucasian sign or because I had a Fraternal Order of Police sticker on the back of my bike, but it should be obvious that each of those explanations is utterly farcical.
No, it was most likely because nobody escalated anything. When the car rolled up, the rifle was already on the ground. When the officer spoke to us, it wasn't a barked command. When we were spoken to, we stayed right where we were. Everyone treated everyone else like people and nothing bad happened to anyone (except me, once I got home). And all of this happened less than half a mile from the border of the city of Detroit, so don't give me some Mayberry crap about how the officer must've been inexperienced/old-fashioned/simple. He was a guy with a gun, the training to use that gun, and probably a selection of other guns in his vehicle to choose from, and he was alone (he did not have a partner in the car, nor did a backup unit arrive). But somehow, common sense prevailed above all, and nothing bad happened to anyone (again, except me).
But I guess that kind of story doesn't sell papers/get clicks.
--Patrick
Dave
Staff member
It absolutely could have been because you were white. Additionally, I am fully cognizant of the fact that the 13 year old in Charlie's story ran because of an intense and ingrained distrust of the police - earned distrust, I might add. So while the kid didn't do the right thing, it's still because of the institutionalized racism that exists in some police forces, of which Baltimore is certainly one.
We need to hit this on two fronts. First, we need to somehow make the police accountable for actions. Second, we need to build back up public trust - especially among minorities - of our public servants. And these things have to be done hand-in-hand or it isn't going to work.
But all of this is common sense and really, really, really difficult to do.
We need to hit this on two fronts. First, we need to somehow make the police accountable for actions. Second, we need to build back up public trust - especially among minorities - of our public servants. And these things have to be done hand-in-hand or it isn't going to work.
But all of this is common sense and really, really, really difficult to do.
There is literally no such thing ever trained to police. If you're shooting, you're shooting to kill.
Dave
Staff member
I get center mass and all that. I was taught the same way. But from the looks of it they hit him once (unless new information comes out) instead of unloading whole clips into the guy.
I suspect this is the fundamental difference between our positions, and the reason why we will not be able to agree regarding the Tamir case.
If you want to discuss other cases, bring them up, but don't apply what I've said about Tamir's case to another case and assume I'd claim the same position.
As such I don't think there's any reason to rebut any of your other points, since they all depend on this rather fundamental difference of opinion.
This one seems pretty cut and dried:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anthony-hill-grand-jury-indictment_us_56a19314e4b0d8cc109992e7
But then, he wasn't carrying a gun, pointing it at other people, and reaching for it when a police car came blazing towards him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anthony-hill-grand-jury-indictment_us_56a19314e4b0d8cc109992e7
But then, he wasn't carrying a gun, pointing it at other people, and reaching for it when a police car came blazing towards him.
I don't deny it. I'm only saying it's not an automatic gimme.
Keep in mind, too, that this happened during the 80's, a time before The Terrorism Threat and DHS and the economic collapse, etc., etc. The population just wasn't mainlining cortisol back then like they are these days.
--Patrick
Remember the guy that got shot in the back and told to "Fuck his breath"?
Robert Bates, Oklahoma volunteer cop, found guilty of manslaughter; jury recommends harshest punishment
Sentencing still has to happen, though.
Robert Bates, Oklahoma volunteer cop, found guilty of manslaughter; jury recommends harshest punishment
Sentencing still has to happen, though.
That last sentence makes it sound like you still think the cops' actions in the Tamir Rice case were justified because of what he had done, but you said earlier that you agree they handled the situation wrong. Am I missing something? If I'm not, how does Tamir's relatively minor transgression justify the cops' significantly larger errors?
It's not that you are missing something, it's that you are reading into my post something that doesn't exist.
It doesn't.
No, I'm just trying to understand your point. Saying "This case is clearly murder, but then, the victim wasn't doing <list of specific actions>" implies that those actions are a mitigating factor that could mean the cops' actions weren't murder. Otherwise, it seems like a non-sequitur to specify them. I'm open to the idea that I'm just missing another reason to bring them up, I just don't know what it is.
So here's what I said:
Example A was murder. Example A did not do X.
Here's what you first said:
Because you assert that example A was murder, and that they didn't do X, then does it follow that example T, who did X, means the officers were justified?
No, logically it does not follow. I'm not about to get into a discussion of discrete mathematics here. I've cleared up that misconception with the statement:
I'm not asserting either way, for me this is a gray area and the officers weren't justified, but they may not be murderers either. This is further complicated by the definition of "justified" and "murder". Are we talking about manslaughter, homocide, intentional homocide, are we using justified as in "justice" or justified as in "reasonable action given the knowledge and situation."
In other words, Tamir's case isn't cut and dried for me. For others it is clearly murder. For many (including the grand jury and the civil court, and, it could be argued, the parents who accepted a settlement that didn't include a judgement of murder) it's a gray area, and for some it's not murder.
Does this clear it up for you? I feel like I'm saying more words and it's only confusing the situation further, particularly since you've changed your question in a slight but meaningful way.
Example A was murder. Example A did not do X.
Here's what you first said:
Because you assert that example A was murder, and that they didn't do X, then does it follow that example T, who did X, means the officers were justified?
No, logically it does not follow. I'm not about to get into a discussion of discrete mathematics here. I've cleared up that misconception with the statement:
You've changed the question ever so slightly though, so let me re-approach it to see if it helps:
The answer to this question is yes - the actions of Tamir could mean that the officers didn't commit murder. Justify? No. Mitigate? Yes. Put in a gray area where we could argue for hours about whether it was murder or not? Yes.
I'm not asserting either way, for me this is a gray area and the officers weren't justified, but they may not be murderers either. This is further complicated by the definition of "justified" and "murder". Are we talking about manslaughter, homocide, intentional homocide, are we using justified as in "justice" or justified as in "reasonable action given the knowledge and situation."
In other words, Tamir's case isn't cut and dried for me. For others it is clearly murder. For many (including the grand jury and the civil court, and, it could be argued, the parents who accepted a settlement that didn't include a judgement of murder) it's a gray area, and for some it's not murder.
Does this clear it up for you? I feel like I'm saying more words and it's only confusing the situation further, particularly since you've changed your question in a slight but meaningful way.
In this case at least, more words was helpful, rather than more confusing. I was being broader in my reading and use of the word "murder" than is accurate, which is my bad. I do understand where you're coming from now.
I feel like I'm giving too many likes/agrees to stienman, given that I technically don't agree with him on many related issues.
A 12 or 13 year old guy, waving around something that looks like a real gun, is, and should be perceived as, a credible threat; this could just as well be a 25 year old guy waving around a Certified Definitely Real Gun, there can't be - and shouldn't be - a difference in how they handle it. A 12 year old waving around what appears to be a real gun should very much be arrested, brought to the police station, perhaps even interrogated if there's a chance he was really meaning harm (which wasn't the case in the TR case), perhaps even sentenced to something (community service, some sort of penalty to make him fully comprehend waving guns about in public places and/or pointing them at police officers is not okay).
Even a 25 year old, previously-convicted-of-murder, drug dealing scumbag, waving around a 100% Definitely Assuredly Real Gun, shouldn't have been shot without a chance to put down his weapon and surrender.
The police in the TR case didn't just randomly shoot down a 12 year old playing with some toy, who did nothing wrong, who was a saint. They didn't respond to a call about a 12 year old playing with a toy. They responded to "might be a juvenile" "brandishing" a "firearm". Given that, they still reacted wrong.
TR gave the impression of being a "possibly minor or perhaps not" guy with a "possibly real gun", waving it about and possibly endangering innocent people and the officers. If they'd drawn weapons, pointed them at him, called for him to put the weapon down, and arrested him, that would still have seemed a ridiculous over-reaction to "a kid with a toy" to some people, but they'd have been, IMO, in the right. If, after ample time and possibility to put the gun down, he'd instead have pointed it at the police and gone "bang bang, haha silly cops I gonna kill you", they might even have been in the right to shoot him - no matter how tragic and how much of a misinterpretation of the situation that might have been.
As it is, given they didn't give him time to surrender, they're clearly in the wrong. Their fault isn't, necessarily, "murder 'cause it's a black kid lol", but perhaps more in the realm of "overreaction to a possible hazard/danger", though.
A 12 or 13 year old guy, waving around something that looks like a real gun, is, and should be perceived as, a credible threat; this could just as well be a 25 year old guy waving around a Certified Definitely Real Gun, there can't be - and shouldn't be - a difference in how they handle it. A 12 year old waving around what appears to be a real gun should very much be arrested, brought to the police station, perhaps even interrogated if there's a chance he was really meaning harm (which wasn't the case in the TR case), perhaps even sentenced to something (community service, some sort of penalty to make him fully comprehend waving guns about in public places and/or pointing them at police officers is not okay).
Even a 25 year old, previously-convicted-of-murder, drug dealing scumbag, waving around a 100% Definitely Assuredly Real Gun, shouldn't have been shot without a chance to put down his weapon and surrender.
The police in the TR case didn't just randomly shoot down a 12 year old playing with some toy, who did nothing wrong, who was a saint. They didn't respond to a call about a 12 year old playing with a toy. They responded to "might be a juvenile" "brandishing" a "firearm". Given that, they still reacted wrong.
TR gave the impression of being a "possibly minor or perhaps not" guy with a "possibly real gun", waving it about and possibly endangering innocent people and the officers. If they'd drawn weapons, pointed them at him, called for him to put the weapon down, and arrested him, that would still have seemed a ridiculous over-reaction to "a kid with a toy" to some people, but they'd have been, IMO, in the right. If, after ample time and possibility to put the gun down, he'd instead have pointed it at the police and gone "bang bang, haha silly cops I gonna kill you", they might even have been in the right to shoot him - no matter how tragic and how much of a misinterpretation of the situation that might have been.
As it is, given they didn't give him time to surrender, they're clearly in the wrong. Their fault isn't, necessarily, "murder 'cause it's a black kid lol", but perhaps more in the realm of "overreaction to a possible hazard/danger", though.
Some people are of the opinion that the 12-year-old is more dangerous, because they aren't mentally equipped to understand the consequences of their acts. No idea how pervasive this idea is, but it's worth noting.
E.g. excerpt from an essay I'm very fond of, When He Was 16, This Man Threw One Punch—and Went to Jail for Life, about the effects of super-predator laws (and the culture that fostered them into place).
So not murder, but another level of homocide. There are varying degrees of the charge for a reason.