Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

And I maintain the problem exists because of the death, not because of the race. I think there is a racism problem but cops are still making the same idiotic mistakes no matter the race. I dont care if the kid was a full on WASP he should not be shot dead. Deadly force should be a last resort...the right to life trumps everything including police safety which is at best a subjective standard. (anything can make a person feel unsafe or threatened)

Cops are trained and given authority over us, they need to be held to a higher standard than the average citizen.

SJ,

I agree, the problem begins with training.

There is the problem right there, they appear to be held to a lower standard in many of these cases. They are given authority, therefore if they misuse it, even by mistake, they need to be punished.

I am not someone who has cried racism on any of these cases, I've been pretty level headed about it other than this video of the kid in the park and the one of the guy who died because he couldn't breathe in New York...just senseless acts and overuse of force is getting out of hand. The police were given the power by us and they have a huge responsibility to use it properly and they are failing on so many levels.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

Here's the question I had about that one. Why did the cop pull up within a matter of feet of the kid? My understanding, and I might be misremembering, is that he had to jump a curb and basically drive off road to get the car to that point. If he's worried about his safety, why not stop at a distance and see what happens instead of going full bore Rambo from the start?

As has been mentioned in another couple of posts, some think training may be a key issue here, but I do not agree. I think the problem starts with the very selection of the candidates for law enforcement. So many of them ARE Rambo types. We need to look at a completely different method of recruiting and selecting our law enforcement personnel.

Look at the latest outrage in Chicago: You had a cop unload 16 shots in a matter of a couple of seconds. 16. Most at a person lying face down on the pavement after obviously being hit by the officer firing his weapon. This cop, if he was trained like I know he was, was likely trained to fire two or three shots at a time, so as not to waste ammunition that may be needed to neutralize either another person, or to further use against his first target if the first shots failed to bring the person down and eliminate them as a threat. BANG, BANG. Assess. React further as the situation dictates. Yet this Rambo clearly went against standard training. Why? Was it because his personality trumped his training and/or experiences? I'm not saying its easy. Its incredibly difficult and unbelievably stressful. All the more reason we need to not only train officers properly, we need to ensure the proper people are becoming officers in the first place.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

And I maintain the problem exists because of the death, not because of the race. I think there is a racism problem but cops are still making the same idiotic mistakes no matter the race. I dont care if the kid was a full on WASP he should not be shot dead. Deadly force should be a last resort...the right to life trumps everything including police safety which is at best a subjective standard. (anything can make a person feel unsafe or threatened)

I've never been in law enforcement. I've never been in the military. I haven't been in any sort of "active shooter" situations where I thought someone was trying to kill me. I have no personal experience similar to a cop on duty to fall back upon when analyzing their actions once instructed that "someone has a gun" or "shots fired", etc...

But I do remember something that happened to me about 30 years ago. I was hunting bear with a group of friends in Canada. A hunter who was at our hunting camp had shot and wounded a large black bear, which then proceeded to disappear into the woods of this island in the middle of a Canadian lake.

The island was about 100 yards long, and maybe close to that distance wide. Like a lot of similar islands, it was densely overgrown with huge trees, lots of brush, deadfalls, etc... The canopy of the trees made it quite dark once you entered the brush.

Our guide asked our party to assist this hunter in locating the wounded black bear. We were instructed to spread out, walk in a line, and walk the length of that island.

I will tell you that was one of the most terrifying experiences of my life. If a squirrel had so much as jumped from one branch to another, I would have lit him up with my high powered rifle faster than you can blink. The adrenaline and sensory overload was surreal.

I've often wondered to what extent cops experience something similar when confronting someone they have been told is armed, or they enter a darkened building, etc...

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

I've never been in law enforcement. I've never been in the military. I haven't been in any sort of "active shooter" situations where I thought someone was trying to kill me. I have no personal experience similar to a cop on duty to fall back upon when analyzing their actions once instructed that "someone has a gun" or "shots fired", etc...

But I do remember something that happened to me about 30 years ago. I was hunting bear with a group of friends in Canada. A hunter who was at our hunting camp had shot and wounded a large black bear, which then proceeded to disappear into the woods of this island in the middle of a Canadian lake.

The island was about 100 yards long, and maybe close to that distance wide. Like a lot of similar islands, it was densely overgrown with huge trees, lots of brush, deadfalls, etc... The canopy of the trees made it quite dark once you entered the brush.

Our guide asked our party to assist this hunter in locating the wounded black bear. We were instructed to spread out, walk in a line, and walk the length of that island.

I will tell you that was one of the most terrifying experiences of my life. If a squirrel had so much as jumped from one branch to another, I would have lit him up with my high powered rifle faster than you can blink. The adrenaline and sensory overload was surreal.

I've often wondered to what extent cops experience something similar when confronting someone they have been told is armed, or they enter a darkened building, etc...

And the point is that they are trained, you weren't, so they should know what the hell they're doing and react appropriately. First, in the case of Tamir Rice, why take the report as 100% valid? You respond, but don't assess the situation yourself? Eye witnesses are known to be wrong. If we ignore race, then we need to just fall back on the fact that police need to control themselves and act appropriately and not act like some crazy person with a gun.

 

[geezer]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

I've never been in law enforcement. I've never been in the military. I haven't been in any sort of "active shooter" situations where I thought someone was trying to kill me. I have no personal experience similar to a cop on duty to fall back upon when analyzing their actions once instructed that "someone has a gun" or "shots fired", etc...

But I do remember something that happened to me about 30 years ago. I was hunting bear with a group of friends in Canada. A hunter who was at our hunting camp had shot and wounded a large black bear, which then proceeded to disappear into the woods of this island in the middle of a Canadian lake.

The island was about 100 yards long, and maybe close to that distance wide. Like a lot of similar islands, it was densely overgrown with huge trees, lots of brush, deadfalls, etc... The canopy of the trees made it quite dark once you entered the brush.

Our guide asked our party to assist this hunter in locating the wounded black bear. We were instructed to spread out, walk in a line, and walk the length of that island.

I will tell you that was one of the most terrifying experiences of my life. If a squirrel had so much as jumped from one branch to another, I would have lit him up with my high powered rifle faster than you can blink. The adrenaline and sensory overload was surreal.

I've often wondered to what extent cops experience something similar when confronting someone they have been told is armed, or they enter a darkened building, etc...

Great story. So... was the bear dead? Or did it rise up in a frenzy of bloodlust, killing all your companions and hunting you down to a cold cave where you barely survived the following winter by eating your frozen horse in bite-size chunks and then crawling back unshaven to civilization in the spring pulling a poorly splinted leg which broke from a fall in an icy stream?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

And the point is that they are trained, you weren't, so they should know what the hell they're doing and react appropriately. First, in the case of Tamir Rice, why take the report as 100% valid? You respond, but don't assess the situation yourself? Eye witnesses are known to be wrong. If we ignore race, then we need to just fall back on the fact that police need to control themselves and act appropriately and not act like some crazy person with a gun.

The problem with the training is that it doesn't take place under circumstances that come anywhere close to real life.

The dynamics of the human response of cops when placed in these situations has been the subject of numerous studies and articles. I'm not sure we are getting closer to eliminating these types of events, but we might at least understand them somewhat better.

Here is a link to an organization that has done some research, and I think actually does some training for law enforcement agencies. Some of it is quite interesting, and I think anyone who reads some of these will reach the same conclusion I have, which is that these are very complex interactions, and not something you can simply reduce to "cops just need to control themselves."

So there is no misunderstanding, that company pretty clearly has a financial interest in training cops, testifying, etc... Nevertheless, there numerous citations to other articles you can read that may give you a different perspective. It's merely a starting point.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

Great story. So... was the bear dead? Or did it rise up in a frenzy of bloodlust, killing all your companions and hunting you down to a cold cave where you barely survived the following winter by eating your frozen horse in bite-size chunks and then crawling back unshaven to civilization in the spring pulling a poorly splinted leg which broke from a fall in an icy stream?

We never saw it. We walked that island from one end to the other, then back again. My friends and I looked at each other, and were like f *** this, he can find his own bear. We got in our boat and left.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

The problem with the training is that it doesn't take place under circumstances that come anywhere close to real life.

The dynamics of the human response of cops when placed in these situations has been the subject of numerous studies and articles. I'm not sure we are getting closer to eliminating these types of events, but we might at least understand them somewhat better.

Here is a link to an organization that has done some research, and I think actually does some training for law enforcement agencies. Some of it is quite interesting, and I think anyone who reads some of these will reach the same conclusion I have, which is that these are very complex interactions, and not something you can simply reduce to "cops just need to control themselves."

Sorry but if they can't control themselves, they don't deserve the power we give them. They don't get to kill people and just call it an honest mistake. They don't get to be held to a lower standard than you and I. They don't get out of indictments simply because they were amped up and made a mistake.

 

[geezer]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

We never saw it. We walked that island from one end to the other, then back again. My friends and I looked at each other, and were like f *** this, he can find his own bear. We got in our boat and left.

I suppose that bears might go in the water to die, like a mortally wounded deer. I've lost deer that way.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

Sorry but if they can't control themselves, they don't deserve the power we give them. They don't get to kill people and just call it an honest mistake. They don't get to be held to a lower standard than you and I. They don't get out of indictments simply because they were amped up and made a mistake.

So, I guess my question is this. What should the cops have done? They were told someone was waving something that looked like a gun. They pull up. This person begins to remove what looks like a gun from his pants. Now what? Should we have a rule, no shooting until the suspect shoots first? Would have worked great in this case, maybe not so much in the next.

I find it amusing when people are quick to criticize the actions of others, yet don't set out precisely what that person should have done.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

So, I guess my question is this. What should the cops have done? They were told someone was waving something that looked like a gun. They pull up. This person begins to remove what looks like a gun from his pants. Now what? Should we have a rule, no shooting until the suspect shoots first? Would have worked great in this case, maybe not so much in the next.

I find it amusing when people are quick to criticize the actions of others, yet don't set out precisely what that person should have done.

Maybe they shouldn't have rolled up on the kid within feet of him, maybe they should have assess the situation from a block or 2 away...maybe the 911 person should have done a better job apparently of informing dispatch that the 911 caller wasn't sure the gun was real or that it looked like it might be a kid. There were plenty of mistakes made in this case, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the police rolled up like the kid had an AR on his shoulder and he had already shot at the cop car. I see no evidence in the video that the kid had the gun in his hand, was pulling it out of his pants, etc from watching the video. All we have is the word of a cop and his partner whom both have an interest in covering their own asses.

You're telling me the only thing those cops could do in that situation is jump the curb, drive within feet of the kid and shoot first? If thats the standard we hold our police to, we might as well all buy a casket now because we're all going to die early if someone thinks we look the wrong way...

EDIT: In the same sense of what do you think the cops should have done...what do you really think a 12 year old kid is going to do with a pellet gun when cops roll up as they did? Do you really think he's going to pull out his pellet gun and point it at a cop? At 12, I'd have been lucky to not pee my pants the way they rolled up.

 

[unofan]

So, I guess my question is this. What should the cops have done? They were told someone was waving something that looked like a gun. They pull up. This person begins to remove what looks like a gun from his pants. Now what? Should we have a rule, no shooting until the suspect shoots first? Would have worked great in this case, maybe not so much in the next.

I find it amusing when people are quick to criticize the actions of others, yet don't set out precisely what that person should have done.

How about stopping on the road rather than going off road like a hyped up Rambo? Frankly, it looks like they tried to run the kid over with the car and missed, so they shot him instead.

No one has given a good answer for why the cop felt the need to put himself in that situation by driving up to the kid in the manner shown on the video.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

How about stopping on the road rather than going off road like a hyped up Rambo? Frankly, it looks like they tried to run the kid over with the car and missed, so they shot him instead.

No one has given a good answer for why the cop felt the need to put himself in that situation by driving up to the kid in the manner shown on the video.

The kid was in a gazebo. The cop car pulls up next to it.

Again, I've never gone through law enforcement training. However, my guess is that their training in situations where someone has reported an armed man in a park is not to pull up two blocks away, have a donut and "assess" the situation. I think they are actually trained to immediately confront the situation. You pull up close, presumably so you can see better, so you can communicate with the suspect, and if necessary apprehend.

If the guy does have a gun, it's an extremely dangerous situation for members of the public.

It's interesting. If you watch the video, the cop who exits the passenger side of the vehicle, closest to the kid, clearly saw something that caused him to be startled or concerned for his safety. As he's shooting he is actually backing up to the rear of the car, away from the kid, and trips over something. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police

 

[Handyman]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

The problem with the training is that it doesn't take place under circumstances that come anywhere close to real life.

The dynamics of the human response of cops when placed in these situations has been the subject of numerous studies and articles. I'm not sure we are getting closer to eliminating these types of events, but we might at least understand them somewhat better.

Here is a link to an organization that has done some research, and I think actually does some training for law enforcement agencies. Some of it is quite interesting, and I think anyone who reads some of these will reach the same conclusion I have, which is that these are very complex interactions, and not something you can simply reduce to "cops just need to control themselves."

So there is no misunderstanding, that company pretty clearly has a financial interest in training cops, testifying, etc... Nevertheless, there numerous citations to other articles you can read that may give you a different perspective. It's merely a starting point.

So then we should just let them shoot first and ask questions later?

No one is saying that if a cop is threatened they shouldnt have the right, but the standard for killing someone (even after the fact) has to be more than just "I got a bad feeling about this".

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

So then we should just let them shoot first and ask questions later?

No one is saying that if a cop is threatened they shouldnt have the right, but the standard for killing someone (even after the fact) has to be more than just "I got a bad feeling about this".

So what is the point at which these cops could legitimately feel "threatened?" As the kid makes a move to grab the gun? As the kid's hand is placed on the handle of the gun? As the kid starts to pull the gun out of his pants? When the gun is fully removed from his pants? When the gun is actually pointed at the cop? When the gun is actually fired at the cop?

Just curious.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

I havent watched the video, nor am I just talking about this case. In general though, I would say an actual threat has to be made so probably between being removed and pointing. Just having a gun cant be enough to kill someone. (as proven by all the white gun nuts who show guns and never get shot)

There has to be a threat...now if the kid yelled "back up or I will shoot you" the standard changes. Situations bring different outcomes.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

I havent watched the video, nor am I just talking about this case. In general though, I would say an actual threat has to be made so probably between being removed and pointing. Just having a gun cant be enough to kill someone. (as proven by all the white gun nuts who show guns and never get shot)

There has to be a threat...now if the kid yelled "back up or I will shoot you" the standard changes. Situations bring different outcomes.

Exactly, especially in a state where open carry is legal.

 

[unofan]

So what is the point at which these cops could legitimately feel "threatened?" As the kid makes a move to grab the gun? As the kid's hand is placed on the handle of the gun? As the kid starts to pull the gun out of his pants? When the gun is fully removed from his pants? When the gun is actually pointed at the cop? When the gun is actually fired at the cop?

Just curious.

At what point do the cop's own actions cause himself to unnecessarily be put in a situation where he feel threatened?

If they'd stopped at the curb instead of right by the gazebo, do they feel threatened? If they go in trying to de-escalate the situation instead of guns blazing, do they feel threatened?

Why can't we look at what the cop did 15 seconds before the shooting instead of only what happened at the time he pulled the trigger?

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

At what point do the cop's own actions cause himself to unnecessarily be put in a situation where he feel threatened?

If they'd stopped at the curb instead of right by the gazebo, do they feel threatened? If they go in trying to de-escalate the situation instead of guns blazing, do they feel threatened?

Why can't we look at what the cop did 15 seconds before the shooting instead of only what happened at the time he pulled the trigger?

A good example of this is how they dealt with this open carry gentleman in the town I grew up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPB4wAU9Clo

From what I've read about the situation, what the cops were told is very similar, yet the situations were handled very differently.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Cops 2: Pay No Attention to the Rioters Behind the Curtain

At what point do the cop's own actions cause himself to unnecessarily be put in a situation where he feel threatened?

If they'd stopped at the curb instead of right by the gazebo, do they feel threatened? If they go in trying to de-escalate the situation instead of guns blazing, do they feel threatened?

Why can't we look at what the cop did 15 seconds before the shooting instead of only what happened at the time he pulled the trigger?

Fifteen seconds before he was on his way to the scene.

But let's say they stop at the curb. Judging by the video, the cop car would have been 50 feet, maybe, from the kid when they got out? Just a guess.

But all other things remain the same, which is the kid reaches for the gun (the cops already knew about) in the waist of his pants? I think the kid still gets shot.

I don't think you can draw a gun on a cop and not get shot. I don't care what race you are.

The totality of these circumstances are: a) cops are told male suspect waving a gun in a public park (I think they may have even been told something like he was "pointing it at people"); b) cops pull up and see a 195 lb. male suspect standing in the gazebo; c) as they pull up and start getting out, presumably with guns drawn given the dispatch report, the kid reaches for the admittedly toy gun in the waist of his pants; d) cops shoot the kid.

Here is what I think has people riled up about this story. First, the kid was 12. Second, the gun was a toy.

But here is the problem with that. The cops have no idea if it's a toy or not, and candidly they really weren't in a position to determine that without putting their lives in serious jeopardy. Second, the kid was 195 lbs. There are a lot of adults who are nowhere close to that size. It's not like they drove up on a 40 lb. three year old.