If Ohio is an open carry state, why do police respond to calls about people carrying guns? If it's legal to carry guns around, why would they respond to that? It's totally a coincidence that the morons who show up to Home Depot armed to the hilt as "activism" are white and are never shot, but that two people have been shot and killed for holding BB guns in Ohio while being blah people, isn't it? Total coincidence.
It's not just carrying guns. You can carry a gun but only in certain places and you can't go around pointing it at people or threatening them.
I know this isn't really relevant to the boy's case, but the John Crawford case was in WalMart, and I distinctly remember reading that Walmart stated it was not going to forbid carried firearms the way its competitor Target did.
If Ohio is an open carry state, why do police respond to calls about people carrying guns? If it's legal to carry guns around, why would they respond to that? It's totally a coincidence that the morons who show up to Home Depot armed to the hilt as "activism" are white and are never shot, but that two people have been shot and killed for holding BB guns in Ohio while being blah people, isn't it? Total coincidence.
If Ohio is an open carry state, why do police respond to calls about people carrying guns? If it's legal to carry guns around, why would they respond to that? It's totally a coincidence that the morons who show up to Home Depot armed to the hilt as "activism" are white and are never shot, but that two people have been shot and killed for holding BB guns in Ohio while being blah people, isn't it? Total coincidence.
It's not just carrying guns. You can carry a gun but only in certain places and you can't go around pointing it at people or threatening them.
I know this isn't really relevant to the boy's case, but the John Crawford case was in WalMart, and I distinctly remember reading that Walmart stated it was not going to forbid carried firearms the way its competitor Target did.
Well they sell them so I'm not surprised they took that stance. Also....walMart.
The Crawford case is different to me because it's unclear whether he was actually pointing this gun at people like the initial reports said. If he was just walking around with it, that's very different than if he was pointing it at people. If he was just walking around, the police could have handled that differently. This case, I just don't see how they could have done things differently.
I know this isn't really relevant to the boy's case, but the John Crawford case was in WalMart, and I distinctly remember reading that Walmart stated it was not going to forbid carried firearms the way its competitor Target did.
Well they sell them so I'm not surprised they took that stance. Also....walMart.
The Crawford case is different to me because it's unclear whether he was actually pointing this gun at people like the initial reports said. If he was just walking around with it, that's very different than if he was pointing it at people. If he was just walking around, the police could have handled that differently. This case, I just don't see how they could have done things differently.
agreed on the Crawford case (ooooh, I was so angry about that, and then the video had me seething-- he wasn't EVEN walking around. He was stationary in what seems like a back corner of the store, perhaps next to the extra garden section entrance, standing there talking on the phone, just fiddling a little with the gun at waste level, which was pointed at the floor/shelves.)
I don't know if this one could have been. I really want to think so because I want to believe that we as an entire society can do better.
If Ohio is an open carry state, why do police respond to calls about people carrying guns? If it's legal to carry guns around, why would they respond to that? It's totally a coincidence that the morons who show up to Home Depot armed to the hilt as "activism" are white and are never shot, but that two people have been shot and killed for holding BB guns in Ohio while being blah people, isn't it? Total coincidence.
There isn't an age limit to open-carry? Sorry, open-carry law or no, a 12 year old shouldn't able to carry a gun.
Donnie Pastard a local activist with the local anticrime group, Black on Black, told WOIO he doesn't think there was racial malice involved, but that doesn't excuse what happened.
"I do not think these police officers left home to kill a black child. But I do think there's training involved there. There's the race factor involved. This is something we gonna have to talk about, whether we like it or not," said Pastard.
For Deputy Chief Tomba, there could have been a simpler solution to the problem.
"When an officer gives a command, we expect it to be followed," said Tomba.
For the first, this must be a misprint because we have been informed repeatedly both in society and on this very board that blacks don't care about black-on-black crime, so this organization clearly doesn't exist.
For the second, I mean-- yes, of course that's the simplest and most hoped-for solution. But the punishment for not listening to people isn't the death penalty. And I just fear that someone can be scared out of their minds and distracted by fear from responding with the correct form of compliance-- resulting in his/her death. Because that could be ANY of us. Shit, I can see myself being scared and WTF and trying do the right thing but doing the exact wrong thing instead.
There has to be SOME middle ground between officers shooting to kill a suspect (particularly one who hasn't actually been involved in a violent crime) and officers themselves dying. Please note that I don't believe officers are or can be trained as sharp shooters, so that's not a solution I'm proposing. I just would like to think that there can be some LE best practices in confrontation that don't involve anyone dying.
What does research show about non-lethal weapons?
What about approach tactics-- how are officers trained to approach a potentially armed suspect? The article above makes it sound like he was 10 feet away, really close range. Is this protocol? It sounds like officers are just expected to put themselves out there and go right up to him. Since this puts the officer in direct danger and the NEED to shoot to save him/herself, could this be improved in any way?
I'm genuinely not trying to be a know-it-all. I am as much interested in police safety as I am in public safety, and I think it would protect officers from scrutiny and from having to live with situations like this on their shoulders. I bet these two cops feel terrible, man.
PS: I don't see this situation as too comparable to the Crawford shooting, especially having seen the Crawford video. I was a lot less sympathetic to the cops in that situation from the beginning because I have seen those open carriers in the stores (like for their pro-gun protests) and since Crawford was an adult in an open-carry state, then he should have been allowed to open-carry like those other fools.
I have a lot of thoughts about this. No the punishment for not listening isn't the death penalty but the punishment for speeding or unsafe lane change isn't the death penalty either, yet sometimes those actions do result in you getting killed.
That said, I have had many many conversations with my H about this and he also feels like cops today can be too quick to skip to deadly force in the escalation of force. He told me a few stories of when he was faced with dangerous situations and people and he likely would have been justified using his firearm but instead he and other cops tried to be resourceful and come up with other solutions (particularly dealing with mentally ill individuals). So it's a matter of training and mindset and frankly, the quality of the candidates you are hiring to become cops. At the same time, hesitating or making the wrong choice can very well cost a cop his or her life, so it's a difficult judgment. The whole 'better to be tried by twelve than carried by six' thing.
For the first, this must be a misprint because we have been informed repeatedly both in society and on this very board that blacks don't care about black-on-black crime, so this organization clearly doesn't exist.
For the second, I mean-- yes, of course that's the simplest and most hoped-for solution. But the punishment for not listening to people isn't the death penalty. And I just fear that someone can be scared out of their minds and distracted by fear from responding with the correct form of compliance-- resulting in his/her death. Because that could be ANY of us. Shit, I can see myself being scared and WTF and trying do the right thing but doing the exact wrong thing instead.
There has to be SOME middle ground between officers shooting to kill a suspect (particularly one who hasn't actually been involved in a violent crime) and officers themselves dying. Please note that I don't believe officers are or can be trained as sharp shooters, so that's not a solution I'm proposing. I just would like to think that there can be some LE best practices in confrontation that don't involve anyone dying.
What does research show about non-lethal weapons?
What about approach tactics-- how are officers trained to approach a potentially armed suspect? The article above makes it sound like he was 10 feet away, really close range. Is this protocol? It sounds like officers are just expected to put themselves out there and go right up to him. Since this puts the officer in direct danger and the NEED to shoot to save him/herself, could this be improved in any way?
I'm genuinely not trying to be a know-it-all. I am as much interested in police safety as I am in public safety, and I think it would protect officers from scrutiny and from having to live with situations like this on their shoulders. I bet these two cops feel terrible, man.
PS: I don't see this situation as too comparable to the Crawford shooting, especially having seen the Crawford video. I was a lot less sympathetic to the cops in that situation from the beginning because I have seen those open carriers in the stores (like for their pro-gun protests) and since Crawford was an adult in an open-carry state, then he should have been allowed to open-carry like those other fools.
I am not trying to be snarky at all and I know you are not law enforcement, but in your ideal world, what would that look like? Because all I can see is more officers AND bystanders being shot/killed.
The thing is you can't train for every scenario because there are so many fluid factors. Is there any cover? How many bystanders? What type of weapon? All of these things and a million more are running through the officers head in a matter of seconds. All non-lethal weapons require you to get much closer to the person, which puts the officer at greater risk. And they may not stop the person immediately, which means they can still fire their weapon.
To your last point that's the thing about the Taser that lots of people don't get. It's not like a gun- you get one shot. That's it. If you miss or if it doesn't work, you are SOL and now you probably can't get to your gun in time.
I am not trying to be snarky at all and I know you are not law enforcement, but in your ideal world, what would that look like? Because all I can see is more officers AND bystanders being shot/killed.
The thing is you can't train for every scenario because there are so many fluid factors. Is there any cover? How many bystanders? What type of weapon? All of these things and a million more are running through the officers head in a matter of seconds. All non-lethal weapons require you to get much closer to the person, which puts the officer at greater risk. And they may not stop the person immediately, which means they can still fire their weapon.
Not sure without having really researched the issue before now. I'm not taking it as snark, btw-- I'm taking it as dialogue.
I did mention some things earlier in this post related to handling children in terms of communication.
The bolded is one of the things I wondered about in the post you quoted. Are officers trained to use cover to approach someone, like in this situation? Do we know if there was any here? Do we know if the cop was using it?
It's just so freaking sad for the boy, and racist, and sad for these cops. And I don't know that they need to be disciplined, but I also don't think our collective response should be "Well, that kid should have just listened because there is no other way than shooting."
eta: if the non-lethals (like rubber bullets) are a bad solution, why did they send those riot squads out into Ferguson with them in August? Are they only a bad solution sometimes? If you know a source I should just read, direct me to that.
14 year olds also carry real guns and shoot the real bullets at cops. I want so badly to say something to the cop haters but instead I'm going to recognize my bias and move along.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I'm going to post this story here about an ex-Soldier who was suffering from a traumatic brain injury and PTSD. He took his dad's gun and tried to commit suicide by cop. The cops handled his situation very differently than the OP's.
I don't know if it is b/c this man is white, or if it is b/c of police training or exactly what--but to me--this story plays out in some ways similarly to the OP in that you have the cops giving commands and you have a person who is scared and not following commands WITH a weapon--and not a bb gun, but a GUN. And yet, the cops reasoned with him; and not just any cop--a relatively new cop. This is possible: it is possible for cop to keep levity, and situational awareness and make judgements through stress. I just think it's an interesting juxtaposition to this case.
I'm going to post this story here about an ex-Soldier who was suffering from a traumatic brain injury and PTSD. He took his dad's gun and tried to commit suicide by cop. The cops handled his situation very differently than the OP's.
I don't know if it is b/c this man is white, or if it is b/c of police training or exactly what--but to me--this story plays out in some ways similarly to the OP in that you have the cops giving commands and you have a person who is scared and not following commands WITH a weapon--and not a bb gun, but a GUN. And yet, the cops reasoned with him; and not just any cop--a relatively new cop. This is possible: it is possible for cop to keep levity, and situational awareness and make judgements through stress. I just think it's an interesting juxtaposition to this case.
Haven't read the article yet, but I do think that verbal commands are important. I don't think all departments are trained the same when it comes to that. And as ttt stated the requirements to be an officer are different for different departments. And continued education/training is almost non-existent on many departments (well except for firearms). NewOrleans that is one area where I think training could be improved.
See? Reasonable minds can agree even if seems like they don't agree at first. Group hug up in here.
The race thing is a whole separate issue, of course, and I don't know if I can even handle that discussion right now.
The following are comments from city officials during a press conference held in connection with the Officer Involved Shooting on 11/22/2014 Mayor Frank G. Jackson: “There is nothing I can say that will provide any type of relief or healing to the family of twelve year old Tamir Rice who tragically lost his life. Regardless of the facts of this case, we must remember that it was a child who was killed and our investigation will respect the wishes of that child’s family as it unfolds. The Division of Police will provide updates as they are available.”
Chief of Police, Calvin D. Williams: “First and most importantly, I would like to offer my sincerest condolences to the family of Tamir Rice. I have personally reached out to the family and offered them an opportunity to view the video evidence in connection with the incident from this past Saturday. The family has declined that opportunity; however, their representatives did agree to participate and pass-on any necessary information. We will continue to work with the family and their representatives as the investigation progresses. From this tragedy, we can gain knowledge. We can be proactive and diligent in teaching our children about guns and the dangers of playing with firearms, whether they are real or fake. Guns are not toys and the replica in this instance was indistinguishable from that of a real firearm.”
Officer Involved Shooting – Update On Saturday, November 23, 2014, our officers were involved in a deadly force incident with a young man at Cudell Recreation Center. Yesterday, in spite of all of our prayers, at approximately 2:30 am, it was learned that he passed away at MetroHealth Medical Center.
A tragedy like this affects our entire community. Our officers, at times, are required to make critical decisions in a split second, and this was one of those times. From this tragedy, we can gain knowledge. We can be proactive and diligent in teaching our children about guns and the dangers of playing with firearms, whether they are real or fake. Guns are not toys and the replica in this instance was indistinguishable from a real firearm. We must also make sure that our children know that the police are here to help, part of the community.
Moving Forward: The officers involved in this incident have been placed on paid administrative leave, as is per our police protocol. During that time, the investigation will continue. We will work to process evidence and provide regular and transparent updates. Upon completion of the investigation by the Use of Deadly Force Investigation Team, the matter will be turned over to the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation.
Protest happening now, closing down sections of roads. Very peaceful so far; police are helping close down roads and escorting protestors through traffic.