He was clearly a violent, dangerous felon, a drug user and a bad person. And with a name like Tamir, probably a Muslim terrorist. I'm glad he's dead.
So am I. Just like with Mark Duggan, the police were right to rid the world of him.
He was clearly a violent, dangerous felon, a drug user and a bad person. And with a name like Tamir, probably a Muslim terrorist. I'm glad he's dead.
Yep, twelve-year-olds with toys are a clear and present danger to the public safety.So am I. Just like with Mark Duggan, the police were right to rid the world of him.
Yep, twelve-year-olds with toys are a clear and present danger to the public safety.
Officer Loehmann can cut a notch in the grip of his weapon. He done good.
Ohio grand jury clears police in fatal shooting of 12 year-old
Yep, twelve-year-olds with toys
OK, that's pretty hysterical.Chicago cop who shot Tamir Rice, 12, pleads not guilty to murder
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/29/chicago-cop-who-shot-tamir-rice-12-pleads-not-guilty-to-murder
Of course, Tamir Rice didn't point his toy at a cop.I don't think you can compare kids having "play" guns with kids playing with guns 20 or even 30 years or more ago. Times have changed. Why parents would even provide "toy" guns for boys is beyond me, especially for this very reason. Because these toys are so realistic and because of the many shooting incidents at schools etc., it'd be hard-pressed for any policeman, no matter how much training they've had, to determine in a split second whether the weapon is real or not. Personally, if I was a cop and someone pointed a realistic gun at me, I'm not so sure I wouldn't pull the trigger as well.
Interestingly, three police departments turned Loehmann down and a fourth fired him a couple of months into his employment stating that he was "emotionally and mentally unsuited for police work" before the Cleveland PD picked him up. Apparently they never checked.We're talking split seconds! Have you ever either been in an accident or avoided one in that "split second" where a different decision may have made for a different outcome? While there's no comparison, ('cuz you've survived) the "split second" scenario still applies. "If only" I did this, then this would or wouldn't have happened. After all, there's always 20/20 hindsight right? I'm sure that cop wishes he could get every second back! (If he doesn't he shouldn't be a cop).
Very few. This year in the U.S., 39. Fewer than died of traffic accidents. 2015 was the second-safest year for cops in the U.S. since 1875. 2013 was the safest.While I agree shooting should be the last thing any cop should be doing, many cops have died because they hesitated.
Maybe they carve that on Tamir Rice's and Aiyanna Jones's headstones.I wouldn't want to be a cop for anything in the world today - you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's a hard job and I'm thankful that they're there. Are there some guys who shouldn't be cops? Absolutely. There's always someone who shouldn't be something, somewhere. But over all, at least in Canada, the police I've had the occasion to interact with have been wonderful. But maybe we're just fortunate in Canada. The US not so much!
That, of course, is not true, which raises the question. . . Are you deliberately lying, or just stupid?Yankeeland is a country where 6 year olds routinely get given guns to "play" with by their parents at home, and where you can buy a submachine gun as long as you are 14 or over and can prove that you have an IQ above 50.
Ah, the great Briddish standard of justice. Kill anybody who may eventually commit a crime.So if you're going to be going outdoors in Yankeeland brandishing a toy gun and waving it about and pointing it at people then you can't blame the police for shooting you dead - being America there's more chance that it's a real gun that you'd be brandishing - and for ridding society of what may well, very likely, have been a gun-wielding thug.
That, of course, is not true, which raises the question. . . Are you deliberately lying, or just stupid?
I wouldn't want you "protecting" my community as a police officer. If you were called out to reports of a gun-wielding maniac who's brandishing a pistol and waving it about manically in the street and pointing it at people you'd wait until he shoots a passer-by in the head before you take him out rather than taking him out BEFORE he shoots somebody.Kill anybody who may eventually commit a crime.
Well, then, let me smarten you up a bit. A submachine gun is an automatic weapon, which is controlled by Federal (i.e., national) law since 1986. Since then, importation or manufacture of automatic weapons are forbidden to all but police agencies, and the automatic weapons existing as of 1986 can only be possessed by citizens with a special license from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.It's not far off being the truth. I'm assuming laws vary from state to state but, on average, I'd say I'm pretty much bang on there.
That's understandable. I wouldn't protect a community of Briddish if I could do so with no effort and no danger. I'd just order up some popcorn and watch 'em die.I wouldn't want you "protecting" my community as a police officer.
Except the report said it might be a child and the gun might be a toy.If you were called out to reports of a gun-wielding maniac who's brandishing a pistol and waving it about manically in the street and pointing it at people you'd wait until he shoots a passer-by in the head before you take him out rather than taking him out BEFORE he shoots somebody.
Yeah, like they did the right thing with the Brazilian electrician in the Tube.I can imagine it now:
Member of the public: "Oi, officer! Shoot him before he kills somebody! He's waving a gun about!"
PC Tecumsehbones: "No. I won't shoot him. It could be a water pistol he's holding! I'll have to wait until he pulls the trigger first to ascertain whether or not it's a real gun! If he shoots a person dead with it, then I'll open fire!"
The police officers did the right thing. They prevented what could well have been a shooting by a gun-wielding maniac by taking out the gun-wielder before he could do any damage. It's a job well done. Stop whingeing about it.
Why is it that, yet again, I'm the voice of common sense?
Well, then, let me smarten you up a bit.
Well, then, let me smarten you up a bit. A submachine gun is an automatic weapon, which is controlled by Federal (i.e., national) law since 1986. Since then, importation or manufacture of automatic weapons are forbidden to all but police agencies, and the automatic weapons existing as of 1986 can only be possessed by citizens with a special license from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
To be honest with you, I don't think anybody would want a liberal do-gooder like you "protecting" their communities as a police officer. Having a do-gooder who is more concerned with the rights of the criminal than the law-abiding public as a police officer would be so dangerous it just doesn't bare thinking about. Such a thin would be a social calamity and result in a huge rise in crime.That's understandable. I wouldn't protect a community of Briddish if I could do so with no effort and no danger. I'd just order up some popcorn and watch 'em die.
It MIGHT be a child (but that doesn't make any difference) and it MIGHT be a toy. But the police officers didn't know for sure. Pray tell me, my good man, do you really think that police officers should wait until somebody shoots an innocent person in the head before they take out the gunman (or gunwoman), so that it's now been ascertained that the gun is real? Or should they take immediate action to take out the gunman (or gunwoman) or potential gunman (or gunwoman) before he/she shoots anybody, if indeed that is his/her intention? I reckon that police officers should err on the side of caution and take out the gunman before he causes any injuries or fatalities, before it's then ascertained whether the gun is real or not. It's better to be safe than sorry.Except the report said it might be a child and the gun might be a toy.
Bloody too right. This was just a fortnight after 7/7 and it's better, just after an Islamist attack, to take out a dark-looking fellow acting suspiciously but who then turns out to be innocent than just ignoring him and allowing him to go ahead and commit mass murder if that was to be his intention. That was another job well-done by police officers, who were protecting the public.Yeah, like they did the right thing with the Brazilian electrician in the Tube.
You're the ignoramus who was talking about state laws.I think you're being too pedantic here.
What we do now is how crazily easy it is to buy guns in Yankeeland.
You couldn't be honest if your life literally depended on it. Nonetheless, I note your Briddish orientation that a person is a "criminal" if the police, or the person who reported, thinks he might be. Certainly simplifies the investigatory and judicial process.To be honest with you, I don't think anybody would want a liberal do-gooder like you "protecting" their communities as a police officer. Having a do-gooder who is more concerned with the rights of the criminal than the law-abiding public as a police officer would be so dangerous it just doesn't bare thinking about. Such a thin would be a social calamity and result in a huge rise in crime.
It was a child, and it was a toy. And he didn't shoot anybody anywhere, so your hypothetical is as stupid as I've come to expect from you.It MIGHT be a child (but that doesn't make any difference) and it MIGHT be a toy. But the police officers didn't know for sure. Pray tell me, my good man, do you really think that police officers should wait until somebody shoots an innocent person in the head before they take out the gunman (or gunwoman), so that it's now been ascertained that the gun is real? Or should they take immediate action to take out the gunman (or gunwoman) or potential gunman (or gunwoman) before he/she shoots anybody, if indeed that is his/her intention? I reckon that police officers should err on the side of caution and take out the gunman before he causes any injuries or fatalities, before it's then ascertained whether the gun is real or not. It's better to be safe than sorry.
So you're happy that an innocent man was shot dead? Not at all surprising, really.Bloody too right. This was just a fortnight after 7/7 and it's better, just after an Islamist attack, to take out a dark-looking fellow acting suspiciously but who then turns out to be innocent than just ignoring him and allowing him to go ahead and commit mass murder if that was to be his intention. That was another job well-done by police officers, who were protecting the public.
It says I'm troubled about innocent, unarmed people, especially children, being killed by the police. The fact that you and Blackleaf appear to be completely unconcerned about that says a lot about you as well.Well actually, while Blackleaf may be facetious, there's a lot of truth to what he's says. The fact that you don't agree, Tecum, says a lot.
JMHO
I think they both areWell actually, while Blackleaf may be facetious, there's a lot of truth to what he's says. The fact that you don't agree, Tecum, says a lot.
JMHO
"We" certainly are. You no less than me."It was a child, and it was a toy. And he didn't shoot anybody anywhere, so your hypothetical is as stupid as I've come to expect from you."
A bit self-righteous aren't we?
Since you're so good at telling me what I think, let me return the favor.I suppose you're right - had you been that cop, you wouldn't have done anything at all and just asked the child to hand over the gun. And good on yuh. I'm just saying that its not all that cut and dried.
JMHO
I don't think you can compare kids having "play" guns with kids playing with guns 20 or even 30 years or more ago.
I suppose you're right - had you been that cop, you wouldn't have done anything at all and just asked the child to hand over the gun. And good on yuh. I'm just saying that its not all that cut and dried.