[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Correct. Please understand, people...two transgressions were committed here. Tamir did not magically become innocent of his crime due to being shot, it is just that the response to his crime was out of proportion to his transgression. Tamir should have been subjected to due process, as was his right, but due to a (presumably faulty) judgement call on the part of the responding officer, Tamir was instead killed.
Ergo, it is just as correct to say "He should not have been brandishing an apparent weapon" as it is to say "He should not have been killed." Both statements are true.
--Patrick
it's not a fucking crime to play with a toy gun
unless you're referring to the crime of being black in public, then bravo
Yes, and kids do stupid things like remove the tip to make them "cooler." That's why this is a tragedy. People remove safety interlocks to make machinery easier to operate, too. Some of them also die as a result.
(I actually had to look this up, because all this time I had just been assuming the safety tip had been removed due to context. But my research confirmed it)
Also, it's no crime to be black in public. Literally billions of people do this every day.
--Patrick
Removing the tip of a toy gun isn't a crime. Neither is having a toy gun (emphasis, TOY) in a public place like a park (private property is a different story). So you will have to excuse me, but what "crime" did Tamir commit in this scenario that would make him be prosecuted should the cop not have shot him dead?
For those wondering what the law says about brandishing toy or bb guns, note that in 1994 a similar situation occurred and subsequently the city made it illegal to brandish even toy guns under many conditions:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_law_banning_display.html
The latest cleveland firearm ordinance (2006) expands on this law making it illegal to do to anyone, not just law enforcement and other emergency service agents:
If the police were able to disarm and take Tamir into custody then there is enough evidence to suggest he would have been convicted of a first degree misdemeanor, though probably only as a juvenile, and chances are he wouldn't receive jail time. Depending on the prosecutor and Tamir's lawyers they may have even been able to plea bargain it down to a lessor charge, though as a juvenile the record would have been sealed as long as he didn't commit any further crimes as a youth.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_law_banning_display.html
The latest cleveland firearm ordinance (2006) expands on this law making it illegal to do to anyone, not just law enforcement and other emergency service agents:
As I've said multiple times, if you want to support children's rights to point toy weapons at adults where the toys are visually indistinguishable from deadly firearms, then you should work with your legislators and representatives because many cities and states have similar ordinances that make this illegal.
If the police were able to disarm and take Tamir into custody then there is enough evidence to suggest he would have been convicted of a first degree misdemeanor, though probably only as a juvenile, and chances are he wouldn't receive jail time. Depending on the prosecutor and Tamir's lawyers they may have even been able to plea bargain it down to a lessor charge, though as a juvenile the record would have been sealed as long as he didn't commit any further crimes as a youth.
So in other words, if you are a black kid, don't even make your hand into a fake gun going "pew pew!" to annoy your cousin anywhere near a police officer, because you will go to jail.
That sounds like a wonderful law.
That sounds like a wonderful law.
Or if you're a white guy and do the same to your boss.
Or if you're some dude in a store arguing with the sales clerk.
Why is this this a bad law in those cases?
Considering the 9-1-1 caller claimed that Tamir was pointing the gun at random people, Menacing or Aggravated menacing seem to fit the bill. Ohio's definition of firearm for the purposes of brandishing also seems very vague (but I'm not law-savyy enough to research its usage in similar cases), so maybe it could have been used as an enhancer.
2903.22 Menacing
2903.21 Aggravated menacing
2941.145 Firearm displayed, brandished, indicated that offender possessed the firearm, or used it to facilitate offense specification.
2923.11 Weapons control definitions.
Context is key. When you make a law that covers such things as "simulated firearms" with "intent to annoy" you are painting a rather large brush. Actual threatening postures or situations are one thing, but just simulating a gun shot in any way, towards any person, leading up to 6 months in jail is a bit much for me. There is a difference between "idol threats" and "assault with intent", which is what you are doing by making the gun motion towards the boss you hate right in his face.
Airsoft guns are not toys. Says so on the label.
Well now the question is, how old is that label? The gun that Tamir Rice used didn't have any engraved warning on the hilt. When you find out your gun was used in a nation wide scandal, adding labels like this is par for the course. Even still, other guns that do the same process (Like general BB or Paint Pellet guns) are still considered, for the most part, toys, and can be used by kids of nearly any age.Airsoft guns are not toys. Says so on the label.
That is why the orange tip was even created, to designate them as "fake" or "toy" firearms.
I think the question, as posed, is needlessly dramatic and extreme, but the root is important, and really too complex to get into without writing essentially a thesis - and many, many people have attempted to do so.
For my part, I believe the Clark doll studies, and more recent studies performed on 3 month old infants as to preference for race are very instructive as to how our brains are instinctually wired to categorize everything, but in particular race:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/nicholas-kristof-our-biased-brains.html?referrer&_r=1
This doesn't mean that racism is simply part of being human - what it means is that this categorization was so very important in our genetically formative evolutionary development that it's essentially a first class feature, and as such unless carefully trained it will always affect our snap judgement.
The fact that young black children in the US prefer white faces simply shows that this bias is a formative part of our culture, and affects all, which speaks towards why it's so hard to get rid of.
Honestly I'm not sure we could ever get rid of it unless the races were fairly equally represented throughout the US. Right now we're at 3/4 white/caucasian, under 15% black, and less of other races.
That will never happen, though, so long as black and hispanic people continue to abort their babies five times more and two times more than white people, even after controlling for income.
It really is a game of monopoly - whoever gets the lead first, wins, and a large part of that is wired subconsciously into our brains. We can train them, but simply being around and associating with people is the only solution, and you'll find that the existing disparity is too large for this to happen naturally at any level, nevermind during a child's formative years.
That's just one small aspect of the whole thing, but I believe it's an important one because we must first recognize that racial bias is something we are built to do without thought or consideration. That doesn't make it right - we're also built to seek out and consume fat, salt, and sugar, but in our current time of abundance this is actually hurting us, even though centuries ago it was probably not only useful, but a necessary survival trait.
the fuck?
Then why are you asking a question about why racism is pervasive and systemic?
I agree, it won't end racism, and he should probably get in trouble.
While I just wrote a lot more, I see now that my longer trains of thought aren't useful to the discussion people want to have in this thread, so I'll just leave my response at that.
I'm fairly certain that if, during the commission of a crime, you even claim that you have a gun, you are charged as if you did have one, regardless of whether your gun was real, fake, fingers in your pocket, or didn't even have anything even remotely resembling a gun on your person at all at the time.
I almost expect that the fallout from this case (and others) is going to be that the orange tip is not enough ("It's too easy to defeat"), and so legislation will be introduced which mandates that the entire gun be made of/painted in orange or otherwise obviously-not-the-real-color. Of course, this, too will be easy to defeat with Sharpies, shoe polish, crayon, spray paint, or any of a bunch of other means.
Plus of course there's that other reason that I believe @GasBandit mentioned:
Exterior appearance is no guarantee of what's inside.
...JUST LIKE RACE.
He should most definitely get in trouble. He jumped to conclusions, and as a result, a 12yr-old is dead. Nobody who is rational is arguing this point.
People keep saying, "What would've happened if he was white?" As a mental exercise, imagine what might have happened if everything else had proceeded exactly the same, but he was holding a gun-shaped stick instead of the Airsoft. The caller probably would not have panicked and called the police. The policeman would not have panicked and shot the kid. Yet Tamir would have still been black BUT not dead. Therefore, it would appear that "being black" was not the determining factor that caused him to get shot.
--Patrick
this is nonsense
I found the NYtimes article you linked up to be really interesting actually.
what you're describing literally happened in Salt Lake City earlier this year
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/authorities-say-broomstick-wielding-man-shot-by-salt-lake-city-police/
I stand corrected.
To be fair, in this case, the man did physically attack one of the officers with the broomstick, so I have trouble thinking of him as a "victim."
--Patrick
Probably not the best example, which is why I didn't post it.
[DOUBLEPOST=1461877366,1461877263][/DOUBLEPOST]
All of this still true. I remember one kid got shot for holding a foil wrapped sub.
A rare case in which the officer was actually charged with murder: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/laquan-mcdonald-video_us_5654e329e4b079b281897fc2
According to the police report, Laquan had a knife and lunged at the officer, who responded by shooting him 16 times.
Can anyone point out the lunge?
According to the police report, Laquan had a knife and lunged at the officer, who responded by shooting him 16 times.
Can anyone point out the lunge?
That was the officers testimony. If you read a little farther...
Now the question is, who do you believe? Part of the reason this whole thread exists is over the fact that not every police officer is honest, but on the flip, not every bystander is either.
Last edited:
Thanks, this whole issue fascinates me, but the more I learn the more I realize how little I know.
That's also a fair point. This situation actually HAS ambiguity.
Zimmerman Says He’s Auctioning Gun Used To Kill Trayvon Martin
Good thing I've already lost all faith in humanity.
Good thing I've already lost all faith in humanity.
That's pretty disgusting and depressing. You know people sell artifacts of murder and atrocity, but they do it furtively, knowing it's wrong.
We've reached a whole new level as a society when people are doing this sort of thing openly, brazenly declaring the items are worth something because they were tools of murder.
Profiting off the death of another - as though you could possibly put a price on the value of life.
We've reached a whole new level as a society when people are doing this sort of thing openly, brazenly declaring the items are worth something because they were tools of murder.
Profiting off the death of another - as though you could possibly put a price on the value of life.
You're not actually naive enough to think that we don't already right? It's (most of the time) a consequence of scarcity and values, but we totally do. Otherwise each and every death by something even moderately preventable would be a literal national tragedy. But it isn't, and thus most "good enough efforts" are accepted, because it's too expensive to act as if it's the be-all-end-all.
So we totally put prices on human lives. I'm not sure what the number is these days, but I've seen everything from $25,000 to $250,000 before. And probably higher in some cases.
I think what is particularly galling is the killer himself profiting off his crime. Verdict notwithstanding, he *is* attempting to profit off his crime. And it's not the first time the dude has been too stupid to know when to keep a low profile.