needtosay wrote:

Tamir was pointing his gun at people as they walked by and that is what got the police involved.  They got a report of a guy pointing a gun at people.

No, they got a report of someone who might be a juvenile pointing what might be a toy gun  at people..THAT report should have been what was passed along.... But my question still is ....the report on Dylan Roof was that he had gone into a Bible Study at a church in Charleston, SC & cold bloodedly massacred 9 people...Was there not a "reasonable perception of danger" there? Why are  white men pointing guns at people less of a threat than a 12 year old who NEVER pointed the toy at the policeman who killed him? Why are UNARMED black men seen as more of a threat than white mass murderers or white men walking around with semi automatic weapons in public or white anti government advocates pointing REAL guns at federal agents?

And why does the danger of a policeman's job give them the right to violate their own departments policies & procedures, kill citizens and be excused because they were in uniform?..If a fireman went around setting fires while in uniform should they not be charged with arson because "they have dangerous jobs" ..should doctors be able to take out the wrong organs or cut off the wrong limbs while operating because "their jobs are extremely stressful"...Is there anything a policeman can do while on duty, that you believe is criminal or do they get a pass on everything because they have a stressful job that requires split second decisions? 
 

Last edited by SEC4ever (1/02/2016 10:57 am)

Once you point a gun at someone it is irrelevant if you are allowed to open carry or not.  Tamir was pointing the gun at people. It really is as simple as that.  Are children allowed to open carry in Ohio? The report that was relayed to the police was that someone was pointing a gun at people so they were operating on that information.  According the video I saw Tamir was tucking the gun in his waste band when the police were approaching and then when they pulled up and yelled at him to keep his hands where they could see them he reached for the gun.  Under those circumstances the police have a right to react to what they percieve as a direct threat. 

Last edited by needtosay (1/02/2016 12:55 pm)

How can anyone assess another's intentions in 2 seconds? Tamir did not wave the gun or point at police. He did not point the gun at anyone while police were present, so why did the police behave in such an overzealous manner. It was in his waistband & in 2 seconds there is no possible way to determine a threat.

needtosay wrote:

Once someone is reaching for a gun that is enough to react to the perceived threat.  Police lives depend on quick reaction.  If they wait to see if the gun actually fires bullets they could be shot already.

What of the conflicting reports or the different statements by police regarding the command? Many officers all over the country are sounding off on this & many including a veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who released his own review of Rice's death, calling the Cleveland's officer's actions "reckless" and "unreasonable."The police deal with calls daily not knowing what they will find. They are trained for this & the way these 2 Cleveland officers responded was not in their training.
 

needtosay wrote:

SEC4ever wrote:

needtosay wrote:

Tamir was pointing his gun at people as they walked by and that is what got the police involved.  They got a report of a guy pointing a gun at people.

No, they got a report of someone who might be a juvenile pointing what might be a toy gun  at people..THAT report should have been what was passed along.... But my question still is ....the report on Dylan Roof was that he had gone into a Bible Study at a church in Charleston, SC & cold bloodedly massacred 9 people...Was there not a "reasonable perception of danger" there? Why are  white men pointing guns at people less of a threat than a 12 year old who NEVER pointed the toy at the policeman who killed him? Why are UNARMED black men seen as more of a threat than white mass murderers or white men walking around with semi automatic weapons in public or white anti government advocates pointing REAL guns at federal agents?

And why does the danger of a policeman's job give them the right to violate their own departments policies & procedures, kill citizens and be excused because they were in uniform?..If a fireman went around setting fires while in uniform should they not be charged with arson because "they have dangerous jobs" ..should doctors be able to take out the wrong organs or cut off the wrong limbs while operating because "their jobs are extremely stressful"...Is there anything a policeman can do while on duty, that you believe is criminal or do they get a pass on everything because they have a stressful job that requires split second decisions? 
 

 ​The responding officers were only told that there was a guy pointing a gun at people. They were not told the rest by dispatch.  They can only act on the information they had.  A guy pointing gun at people is a very real threat. The officers did make some tactical errors but that doesn't mean that they are guilty of murder.       The SC case you mention is completely different.  The police were not put in a position of having to use force because when they caught up to him he surrendered without incident.  I do think that how a person behaves when confronted by police makes a huge difference. 
 

So, every report is completely true? ALL information is correct? Do police have any responsibility to assess a situation or acting first & asking questions later is fine with you? 

It's interesting how you seem to just ignore questions that contradict your narrative..On the Bundy ranch, guns WERE pointed directly at government agents & NONE of them were shot. (BTW, as I type this response, Bundy's son  & his militia friends are in Oregon right now holding an ARMED takeover of a building...Let's see if law enforcement is threatened by them & any of them end up dead!!!!!).Tamir Rice didn't point his gun at the police..Even that sorry DA said Tamir was probably trying to show the officers the toy gun in his waistband & a horrible mistake happened, Why the need to act like Tamir was pointing the gun at police? So, once again, why were grown men pointing guns at law enforcement allowed to go home alive & Tamir Rice who didn't point at law enforcement shot within 2 seconds of police showing up?:

"  A guy pointing gun at people is a very real threat."

A guy pointing a REAL gun at people is a very real threat.

A 12 year old pointing a TOY gun at people is NO threat...

Well, in America, today, A black 12 year old pointing a gun at people is a deadly threat to TRAINED policemen. SMH!!
 

=17pxAgain, the police did not know that the kid was only twelve and the gun was fake.

=17px​I believe that part of their training is such that they should be able to discern this.

Well, I think they need to change their training then. Shooting to kill is not always the right move. How many times does this have to happen before a change is made in training?

DeadlyForce

An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.
Police officers may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in Self-Defense. The rules governing the use of deadly force for police officers are different from those for citizens.
During the twelfth century, the Common Law allowed the police to use deadly force if they needed it to capture a felony suspect, regardless of the circumstances. At that time, felonies were not as common as they are now and were usually punishable by death. Also, law officers had a more difficult time capturing suspects because they did not have the technology and weaponry that are present in today's world. In modern times, the courts have restricted the use of deadly force to certain, dangerous situations.
In police jargon, deadly force is also referred to as shoot to kill. The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.
The Supreme Court has defined the "objective reasonableness" standard as a balance between the rights of the person being arrested and the government interests that allow the use of force. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a Search and Seizure is reasonable if it is based on Probable Cause and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual. This standard does not question a police officer's intent or motivation for using deadly force during an arrest; it only looks at the situation as it has happened.
For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.
Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a Wrongful Death lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.
When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest. However, if it is proved that an officer used more force than was necessary, the officer can be held criminally and civilly liable. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. The decision, with an opinion written by Justice byron r. white, said, in part, "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadly force is NOT to be used in all situations....Tamir Rice was not a fleeing felon, did not point any weapon at the police, had not harmed ANY human being & IMO, a reasonable officer would not have thought deadly force was warranted...There is NO proof that Tamir was   "reaching for his gun"..& unless the policeman that shot him & his defenders could read Tamir's mind, they don't know if he was lifting his shirt to show the police it was a toy gun, or removing the gun to drop it to the ground..what we do know is that he wasn't taking the gun out to shoot the police because....IT WAS A TOY....We all make spit decisions and many people make dangerous, split decisions as a part of their jobs...The police are TRAINED to make those split decisions & the fact that this one made the wrong one means that imo, he should be held responsible & this DA made sure that there would be no criminal responsibility..My prayer is that either the city of Cleveland or the Federal government will do what the county refused to do,

Last edited by SEC4ever (1/03/2016 2:56 pm)

needtosay wrote:

According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.
Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer.​The officfers had to make a decision based on their perception of how much of a threat existed. The responding officers made a reasonable assumption that the gun was real and when Tamir reached for it that he was going to draw on them and shoot.  Generally speaking a suspect with a gun poses great risk so the officers made a reasonable assumption. 

====================
The problem that many see is that a black man with or without a gun, one running away, or complying with an officer's demands are seen as a great threat & much more  of a threat than white men pointing semi automatic weapons at them or militia members overtaking government buildings with an arsenal of weapons.
Tamir Rice was NOT a suspect..He was a 12 year old playing with a toy gun & the man that reported his activity stated BOTH & then got on a bus & left the area....You have no idea what Tamir did. People who have seen the enhanced video disagree with the DA's description.....we only KNOW what the officer did & time will tell whether or not his actions were reasonable,

At the time the police were responding he was a suspect.  Pointing a gun at people is a criminal action.  The police in that moment did not know he was a twelve year old playing with a toy gun.  What they knew is they were responding to a report of a guy who was pointing a gun at people. When Tamir reached for the gun the belief that there was a very real threat was a reasonable one.  I am quite sure that if a white man pointed a gun at them they would shoot too as there is a very real threat present.  This is not a black white issue.  Tamir did not get shot because he is black. He got shot because he was pointing a gun at people and reached for it when the officers arrived.  I know the guy who called it in said that it could be a kid with a toy gun but keep in mind the guy himself wasn't even sure.  The dispatch did not relay that to officers and even if he or she did they would still have had to approach the situation as if the gun was real because no one was sure.  The officers had no idea that the gun wasn't real and that Tamir was only twelve.