BREAKING: Grand jury declines to indict Cleveland policemen in fatal shooting of 12-year-old Tamir R

a reply to: Phibes

Dude you keep saying treat it as a felony arrest as if there's some hard and fast rule that says set up three blocks away, use binos, hail them on the loudspeaker, and hope they don't run away and/or shoot somebody while your (the officers) dumb ass is hiding three blocks away.

There isn't.

A felony traffic stop, which is what you're describing and trying to cram into fitting here, is completely different than a "man in the park pointing a gun at people" call.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Clear and simple, these people have never been in this situation, they're just armchair police. I haven't either but I can't promise I wouldn't have done the same thing if there was a chance I'd be shot at first. I have a family to come home to at the end of the day and their life, along with mine, is more important to me than some geek on the streets wanting to kill me for being a cop.

nevermind

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Shamrock6

Clear and simple, these people have never been in this situation, they're just armchair police. I haven't either but I can't promise I wouldn't have done the same thing if there was a chance I'd be shot at first. I have a family to come home to at the end of the day and their life, along with mine, is more important to me than some geek on the streets wanting to kill me for being a cop.

So you would purposely put yourself in harms way just to kill a kid?
That's just being STUPID!

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Phibes



A felony traffic stop, which is what you're describing and trying to cram into fitting here, is completely different than a "man in the park pointing a gun at people" call.

How so? They could plainly see he was alone on a picnick table and no reports of shots fired? You're just being coy and imho dumb.

a reply to: Phibes

Ah I see. You can't handle actual debate, you just want to be able to say your piece and not be challenged in any way.

That's not how debate works.

You'll notice my response to you before mentioned "the unit I currently drive." I don't need to "find the nearest cop" and hug him. I can simply hug myself and call it a win. In your efforts to get personal and take your ball and go home, you've glossed over a number of comments I've made, both the one I listed above and the one when I said that I felt the officer himself isn't culpable for the killing but the agency is. And that everybody involved in the situation committed errors that put the officer in a situation where deadly force was an all but foregone conclusion.

I suppose it's easier to ignore comments like that in one's quest to label somebody an apologist though.

a reply to: Phibes

And you're resorting to petty personal commentary because you have no real point to make at this point.

Are you suggesting they should have waited till he pulled the gun out and pointed it at somebody? Waited till he shot somebody? Waited for another unit, which was who knows how far away, to get there and hope that in the meantime nothing happened?

Dumb indeed.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Phibes

Ah I see. You can't handle actual debate, you just want to be able to say your piece and not be challenged in any way.

That's not how debate works.

You'll notice my response to you before mentioned "the unit I currently drive." I don't need to "find the nearest cop" and hug him. I can simply hug myself and call it a win. In your efforts to get personal and take your ball and go home, you've glossed over a number of comments I've made, both the one I listed above and the one when I said that I felt the officer himself isn't culpable for the killing but the agency is. And that everybody involved in the situation committed errors that put the officer in a situation where deadly force was an all but foregone conclusion.

I suppose it's easier to ignore comments like that in one's quest to label somebody an apologist though.

I took that post down. And look at yourself when it comes to "glossing". You cannot even entertain my opinion can you?

a reply to: Phibes

Since your opinion on how they should've handled it is both a) way, way after the fact and knowing facts that the officers didn't have at the time and b) not feasible for actual law enforcement work, no I can't.

The bottom line is that there are some circumstances when one can wait for backup and set up a nice, neat perimeter and wait for help. There are many more circumstances when one can't.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Phibes

Since your opinion on how they should've handled it is both a) way, way after the fact and knowing facts that the officers didn't have at the time and b) not feasible for actual law enforcement work, no I can't.

The bottom line is that there are some circumstances when one can wait for backup and set up a nice, neat perimeter and wait for help. There are many more circumstances when one can't.

I guess you can say that. But still by that you are saying cops are anarchy and have no protocols at all right? Seriously give me a break on that kinda BS thought process! If that was the case there would be no S.W.A.T quit the apologies already.

Hell by your aspirations S.W.A.T should have been there as 1st responders and killed the kid immediately.

God i hope you have some shame or some kind of heart? I looked up your past post's and see what you and your cold agenda is. Shame on YOU!

And you even get away having "Shill Supreme" in your avatar. LOL

I blame this on the way police are trained in America. Any threat they pull out a gun and fire. If this happened in the UK, that kid would still be alive. The officer was a moron for driving up to the kid and shooting within 2 seconds. They should of stayed back, used the car PA system to tell the kid to put the gun down.

I am going just bow out of this thread now. i voiced my opinions. Take them or leave them. I do not care.

originally posted by: Echo007
I blame this on the way police are trained in America. Any threat they pull out a gun and fire. If this happened in the UK, that kid would still be alive. The officer was a moron for driving up to the kid and shooting within 2 seconds. They should of stayed back, used the car PA system to tell the kid to put the gun down.

This!


Is my point!

Echo, these posters here don't see it this way? And as a American I apologize for their moronic ideology.

originally posted by: Echo007
I blame this on the way police are trained in America. Any threat they pull out a gun and fire. If this happened in the UK, that kid would still be alive. The officer was a moron for driving up to the kid and shooting within 2 seconds. They should of stayed back, used the car PA system to tell the kid to put the gun down.

I blame this on the dispatcher who did not relay to police that the eyewitness caller had said it was probably a kid with a toy gun. That's the kind of information that would have caused the officer to pause and that information was dropped.

I agree with the decision not to indict, but I believe the family has a pretty good civil case against the dispatcher.

a reply to: Phibes

If someone swung at me with a fake knife and I plunged my fingers straight into his eyes, I would not be the one at fault for the injury. Now, that being said, would my response be the same if it was a twelve year old? I do not know. It wasn't when I was twelve myself, and when kids went for you with knives back then, they were not toys.

Clear and simple, these people have never been in this situation, they're just armchair police. I haven't either...

So your opinion carries more weight then theirs? Sounds like your in an armchair also. Just looking around at the crowd and chairs here.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Phibes

If someone swung at me with a fake knife and I plunged my fingers straight into his eyes, I would not be the one at fault for the injury. Now, that being said, would my response be the same if it was a twelve year old? I do not know. It wasn't when I was twelve myself, and when kids went for you with knives back then, they were not toys.

Honestly, it sounds like both the officer and child were victims to poorly communicated dispatched info. It sounds like the kid may have just been reaching for the gun to show it was a toy (reasonable), and police saw him pulling out a gun and shot him (also reasonable).

What isn't reasonable is that the dispatcher was told by the eyewitness caller that they thought the 'gunman' was probably a child with a toy gun, and the dispatcher did not relay that information -- his/her entire job requirement.

That dispatcher was negligent. Had the officer known the eyewitness suspected a child and a toy gun, there is a much greater chance the officer would have paused to consider that possibility.

But the officer acted appropriately given the information he was provided.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Phibes

If someone swung at me with a fake knife and I plunged my fingers straight into his eyes, I would not be the one at fault for the injury. Now, that being said, would my response be the same if it was a twelve year old? I do not know. It wasn't when I was twelve myself, and when kids went for you with knives back then, they were not toys.

You should back your fellow Brit a few post's above? I know by your past post's of reason say so.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

How were they to know? I'd say their first indication was that they engaged him in a park, doing his own thing. They didn't engage him acting in a threatening manner in a group of people, or in any area that isn't predominantly used by kids.

But they wouldn't have known anything with the speed at which they executed the final actions of the engagement. There wasn't time to know anything other than that they were in a park with what is obviously not a geriatric. I would suppose the same common sense that allows one to piece together that they are approaching a youth in a park would be the same common sense that says shooting someone less than 2 seconds after engaging them doesn't really let you understand what is going on.

Are the officers actions criminal? I don't know....but believe that based on the video, they may be. I DO believe that its not the place of a grand jury to determine in finality, and that it should have went to trial. Either way, I don't believe the officer is fit for duty, as he seems to have an evidenced issue with matching his method of engagement with the amount of fear he has of the situation he gets himself into.

This isn't the 12 year old in a hoodie at night that gets shot reaching for his cell phone. This kid was in broad daylight, by himself, in a quiet park where one presumes kids gather to play.

a reply to: ReadLeader

Evidence has nothing to do with it. CNN has been working overtime to spin it up as a grotesque miscarriage of justice.

Time to fire up the BLM busses; CNN probably has its crews in route as I type to film the protests and riots and such.