The Tamir Rice Shooting.......no indictment

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/28/us/tamir-rice-shooting/

I guess the question is, "what did the cops do wrong"?

First, the cops arriving on the scene did not have all of the information. They had...."man waving a gun".

The man turned out to be just 12, but 5'7" and 170 lbs. To the cops, he appeared to be pulling a gun. Were they supposed to wait for him to shoot first? Were they supposed to wait and see if the gun was real? These are split second decisions that can mean life, or death.

This is a tragic case. I can see why the Grand Jury no billed it. The Justice Department will investigate, and probably come to the same conclusion.

Somebody failed this kid. You probably do not have to look much further than his own Familly.

Any opinions?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/28/us/tamir-rice-shooting/

I guess the question is, "what did the cops do wrong"?

First, the cops arriving on the scene did not have all of the information. They had...."man waving a gun".

The man turned out to be just 12, but 5'7" and 170 lbs. To the cops, he appeared to be pulling a gun. Were they supposed to wait for him to shoot first? Were they supposed to wait and see if the gun was real? These are split second decisions that can mean life, or death.

This is a tragic case. I can see why the Grand Jury no billed it. The Justice Department will investigate, and probably come to the same conclusion.

Somebody failed this kid. You probably do not have to look much further than his own Familly.

Any opinions? Originally Posted by Jackie S

If you've seen the video, you'll see that the cops responding to the call put their lives at risk by charging onto the scene. This was not a hostage situation; nevertheless, the cops charged onto the scene and put themselves in such close proximity that there was little recourse but for subsequent actions to play out as they did. The cops should have stood-off and evaluated the situation before making any moves. With proper scene analysis, they may have noticed more than the "gun" and that they were dealing with a very young boy.

I understand the "no bill", but I do not understand why the cops unreasonably jeopardized their own lives by parking right next to the boy when there was no compelling reason to do so.

It came as no surprise to learn that the cop was an inexperienced rookie.

With proper scene analysis, they may have noticed more than the "gun" and that they were dealing with a very young boy.

I understand the "no bill", but I do not understand why the cops unreasonably jeopardized their own lives by parking right next to the boy when there was no compelling reason to do so.

It came as no surprise to learn that the cop was an inexperienced rookie. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Full of assumptions ....

.. back up a bit .... who bought this "very young boy" (12, but 5'7" and 170 lbs.) a look-a-like play gun?

.. who allowed the "very young boy" out of the house with the "look-a-like" gun?

.. what the fuck was the "very young boy" doing at a public park with it?

.. did the COPS tell the "very young boy" to put down the fucking gun...

... did it look like a real gun?

... "why"? ... that's what cops do ... they put themselves in a position to "unreasonably jeopardize their own lives" ..... that's why our counties, cities, and states pay them those extraordinary salaries with unequaled benefits ... and then prosecute them when they fail to meet the standards of WEEKS and MONTHS of Monday-Morning Quarterbacking with that 20-20 hindsight shit!

Here's an explanation ... dispatch call with "man with a gun" ... arrive and see a "you person with a gun" in a public park ... and there were people around so they parked their vehicle between the potential shooter and the crowd (or people) in the park .... to protect them and put themselves in jeopardy to hopefully keep innocent bystanders from getting hurt ... the same fucking bystanders who were videoing and now complaining like you!

What does being a "rookie" have to do with anything? You answer is ... the only one you can have ... don't send a rookie on a "man with a gun" call .... UNLESS ... that's all you got, baby! And weren't there two cops?

And what was his "inexperience" ... never confronted a "man with a gun" ... ? ... never had a gun pointed at him? .... never been shot at? ...... never shot at anyone? .......

Forgive me if I don't "address" .... "proper scene analysis"!!!!

You mean like the post-game video replays back in the team locker room ... play-by-play?

BTW: a hooker who is "5'7" and 170" ... is a "whale" not a "minnow"!


Happy New Year!

Full of assumptions ....

.. back up a bit .... who bought this "very young boy" (12, but 5'7" and 170 lbs.) a look-a-like play gun?

.. who allowed the "very young boy" out of the house with the "look-a-like" gun?

.. what the fuck was the "very young boy" doing at a public park with it?

.. did the COPS tell the "very young boy" to put down the fucking gun...

... did it look like a real gun?

... "why"? ... that's what cops do ... they put themselves in a position to "unreasonably jeopardize their own lives" ..... that's why our counties, cities, and states pay them those extraordinary salaries with unequaled benefits ... and then prosecute them when they fail to meet the standards of WEEKS and MONTHS of Monday-Morning Quarterbacking with that 20-20 hindsight shit!

Here's an explanation ... dispatch call with "man with a gun" ... arrive and see a "you person with a gun" in a public park ... and there were people around so they parked their vehicle between the potential shooter and the crowd (or people) in the park .... to protect them and put themselves in jeopardy to hopefully keep innocent bystanders from getting hurt ... the same fucking bystanders who were videoing and now complaining like you!

What does being a "rookie" have to do with anything? You answer is ... the only one you can have ... don't send a rookie on a "man with a gun" call .... UNLESS ... that's all you got, baby! And weren't there two cops?

And what was his "inexperience" ... never confronted a "man with a gun" ... ? ... never had a gun pointed at him? .... never been shot at? ...... never shot at anyone? .......

Forgive me if I don't "address" .... "proper scene analysis"!!!!

You mean like the post-game video replays back in the team locker room ... play-by-play?

BTW: a hooker who is "5'7" and 170" ... is a "whale" not a "minnow"!


Happy New Year! Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's not 20/20 hindsight to know that if one parks less than 10 ft away from a suspect with a gun one escalates the probability of someone being shot.

It's not 20/20 hindsight to know that if one parks less than 10 ft away from a suspect with a gun one escalates the probability of someone being shot.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And your "ASSUMPTION" is that they had a lot of options for a parking space!

The vehicle offers me more cover and protection than I would have parking 100 feet away and walking up to the 5'7" 170 pound person waving the pistol!

And if I recall the video the officers were BEHIND their vehicle part of the time anyway.

Since you are a well-trained, close-combat shooter with a CHL ... you were probably informed that 90% of your shooting situations will be within 10 to 20 feet if not closer ... and I would say closer... as in within 10 feet.

And yes it is 20-20 hindsight!!!! Because you weren't there!!!!

And your "ASSUMPTION" is that they had a lot of options for a parking space!

The vehicle offers me more cover and protection than I would have parking 100 feet away and walking up to the 5'7" 170 pound person waving the pistol!

And if I recall the video the officers were BEHIND their vehicle part of the time anyway.

Since you are a well-trained, close-combat shooter with a CHL ... you were probably informed that 90% of your shooting situations will be within 10 to 20 feet if not closer ... and I would say closer... as in within 10 feet.

And yes it is 20-20 hindsight!!!! Because you weren't there!!!! Originally Posted by LexusLover

One need not to have been there to garner from the video that the officers raced onto the scene with no sober reflection for the consequences of their behavior.

One need not to have been there to garner from the video that the officers raced onto the scene with no sober reflection for the consequences of their behavior. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Nor did one have to be in one of the towers on 911 either to ...


"....garner from the video that the officers raced onto the scene with no sober reflection for the consequences of their behavior."

Like I said .... LE officers are tasked with the responsibility of responding to dangerous, violent situations in an attempt to thwart or neutralize the threat without much "reflection for the consequences of their behavior" .....

.. the pundits and all those folks who weren't there can do that!

That's the main reason I try to avoid "pre-judging" them or "post-judging" them in circumstances in which they have just a second or two, if that long, to ... conduct as you said "a proper scene analysis" ... and respond to either save their own lives or someone else's life. Unless you've had to do that then I would suggest it's best not to pass judgment .... as the saying goes about walking in someone else's moccasins. And if you have in fact done so, then you ought to know the realities of such a situation yourself.

Weren't you the one who proclaimed it wasn't necessary to sign a warning ticket based upon your own "experiences"?

Nor did one have to be in one of the towers on 911 either to ...


"....garner from the video that the officers raced onto the scene with no sober reflection for the consequences of their behavior."

Like I said .... LE officers are tasked with the responsibility of responding to dangerous, violent situations in an attempt to thwart or neutralize the threat without much "reflection for the consequences of their behavior" .....

.. the pundits and all those folks who weren't there can do that!

That's the main reason I try to avoid "pre-judging" them or "post-judging" them in circumstances in which they have just a second or two, if that long, to ... conduct as you said "a proper scene analysis" ... and respond to either save their own lives or someone else's life. Unless you've had to do that then I would suggest it's best not to pass judgment .... as the saying goes about walking in someone else's moccasins. And if you have in fact done so, then you ought to know the realities of such a situation yourself.

Weren't you the one who proclaimed it wasn't necessary to sign a warning ticket based upon your own "experiences"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's the whole point. They put themselves in harm's way wherein fractions of a second determined their -- and Tamir's -- fate.

FYI, every Army trained squad leader is taught to avoid ambushes -- especially "near ambushes" -- where "attacking through" is the only option left. And that's what these cops did. They unconscionably put themselves in a "near ambush" situation.

Their armed "gunman", Tamir Rice, was sitting -- sitting -- at a picnic table under a gazebo, and these two cops drove up to within ten feet of him with no thought or attempt to deescalate the situation.

That's the whole point. They put themselves in harm's way wherein fractions of a second determined their -- and Tamir's -- fate.

FYI, every Army trained squad leader is taught to avoid ambushes -- especially "near ambushes" -- where "attacking through" is the only option left. And that's what these cops did. They unconscionably put themselves in a "near ambush" situation.

Their armed "gunman", Tamir Rice, was sitting -- sitting -- at a picnic table under a gazebo, and these two cops drove up to within ten feet of him with no thought or attempt to deescalate the situation. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The cops where told he was in another spot, and when they came up on him the car slid to be right in front of him. Also he is on video that night pointing the gun at the head of other kids, that is not being shown on national news. The prosecutor office showed all the evidence in a hour long press conference and said it was basically a case of everything that could go wrong did.

Oh, not to mention that Ohio is an open carry state and so if he were an adult (which he wasn't) AND he had a CHL (which he didn't) AND he had a real gun (which it wasn't) THEN he wouldn't have been committing any crime except perhaps OCWB (Open Carry While Black).

Since ALL of those were possibilities the cops had an obligation to Tamir's, their own and any bystanders safety to assess the situation before driving in fast to within 10 ft. and opening fire.

I just can't wait for all our future "fun" open carry stories.

LB

Oh, not to mention that Ohio is an open carry state and so if he were an adult (which he wasn't) AND he had a CHL (which he didn't) AND he had a real gun (which it wasn't) THEN he wouldn't have been committing any crime except perhaps OCWB (Open Carry While Black).

Since ALL of those were possibilities the cops had an obligation to Tamir's, their own and any bystanders safety to assess the situation before driving in fast to within 10 ft. and opening fire.

I just can't wait for all our future "fun" open carry stories.

LB Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Open carry sounds like a bad idea - but I haven't seen anyone carrying yet...

The cops where told he was in another spot, and when they came up on him the car slid to be right in front of him. Also he is on video that night pointing the gun at the head of other kids, that is not being shown on national news. The prosecutor office showed all the evidence in a hour long press conference and said it was basically a case of everything that could go wrong did. Originally Posted by cowboyinjungle

Per the investigation, the police drove by the swing set to where Rice was sitting under the gazebo. So despite the original reports, they seemed to have consciously -- not accidentally -- adjusted.

FYI, every Army trained squad leader is taught to avoid ambushes -- especially "near ambushes" -- where "attacking through" is the only option left. And that's what these cops did. They unconscionably put themselves in a "near ambush" situation. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

#1 I'll start with the obvious: Was this an "Army squad"?
#2 To make YOUR CRITICISM WORK you have to "assume" facts you don't know!
#3 Most (if not all) servicemembers find out that the "rules of engagement" from military training don't fit in policing.
#4 Your "theory" IS "They put themselves ...."

Your alleged military experience is irrelevant and your "FYI" assumes another fact that you believe exists (you "assume" you have to FYI me!), just like your lameass conclusion that one does not need to sign a warning ticket on a traffic stop. Right? Another one of your "FYI" assumptions!

These officers were not "ambushed" ... they were responding to a call of a person committing multiple aggravated assaults with the firearm! They were tasked with the responsibility of neutralizing the threat to the community by a person assaulting people with a firearm ... and when they arrived to make contact with that person the officers were assaulted with a deadly weapon ..... FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE OFFICERS AT THE TIME.

And FYI .... POINTING A FIREARM AT A PERSON IS AN "ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON"!

You've done this before when you are struggling to be correct .... while sitting at the keyboard you modify facts and assume facts to fit your scenario. All of your "elements" to prove your point must be supported by the FACT that it was their intention to create an inevitable result...shooting.

You cannot "assume" their intention to shoot the armed suspect when they were arriving at the scene. And it appears from the video that was not their intent or they would have shot him as soon as the stepped from their unit.

The cops where told he was in another spot, and when they came up on him the car slid to be right in front of him. Also he is on video that night pointing the gun at the head of other kids, that is not being shown on national news. The prosecutor office showed all the evidence in a hour long press conference and said it was basically a case of everything that could go wrong did. Originally Posted by cowboyinjungle

Oh, not to mention that Ohio is an open carry state and so if he were an adult (which he wasn't) AND he had a CHL (which he didn't) AND he had a real gun (which it wasn't) THEN he wouldn't have been committing any crime except perhaps OCWB (Open Carry While Black).

Since ALL of those were possibilities the cops had an obligation to Tamir's, their own and any bystanders safety to assess the situation before driving in fast to within 10 ft. and opening fire.
Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Per the investigation, the police drove by the swing set to where Rice was sitting under the gazebo. So despite the original reports, they seemed to have consciously -- not accidentally -- adjusted. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Even in Ohio I suspect someone with a CHL can't go around pointing their weapon at folks with impunity ..... and I suspect that even in Ohio that is not what is meant by "open carry" ... i.e. pointing your weapon at people! So whether he has a CHL or could have had one is irrelevant ... and having it out waving it around in the direction of the police is not PROTECTED BEHAVIOR ..... Does Ohio "open carry" mean you can walk around with your weapon in your hands pointing it at people.

IB ... the sketch you posted, your explanation of the gun man's position with the police arrived, and the skid marks drawn demonstrate that your scenario upon which you originally premised your post is WRONG!

Now you are changing your facts again to fit your claim.

Open carry sounds like a bad idea - but I haven't seen anyone carrying yet... Originally Posted by DSK

It is a bad idea .....

.... unless one is attending a 2nd Amendment Rally in an allowed area.

But if it makes someone feel more like a cowboy than just wearing boots ...

.... they can pay the price of playing cowboy I guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...EMLM1XRI#t=102

Apparently, according to BeaverHead, this is acceptable CHL-Open Carry behavior!! A pedestrian had just walked by and he is pointing the weapon in the direction of the passerby, who just walked by him!