Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[BornaSkinsFan83]

Cop Who Killed 12-Year-Old Described As Emotionally Unstable, “Dismal” With A Firearm

................

Cleveland Police confirmed to BuzzFeed News that they did not review his personnel file from Independence, adding “there is no written policy mandating a review of an applicant’s previous employer personnel file.”

That's just sick. Disgusting. Infuriating.

[DogofWar1]

As I was explaining on air:

Typically prosecutor argues to G. Jury for why to charge

This prosecutor says he argued for why not to charge.

2:38 PM

 

Prosecutors and Officers usually work hand-in-hand to get all the people the officers arrest put in jail, so it's not surprising they'd switch their usual side to defend their co-workers.

 

It's why it's important, frankly, to take it out of the hands of local prosecutors for grand juries of officers.  I'll bet that officer and prosecutor are on a first name basis just from their everyday interactions.  I know a number of them are in Fairfax.

[Gamebreaker]

How the **** is it a known standard that your job history is reviewed in any other job in America except police officer? Are you ****ing kidding me with this ****?! I don't want to hear you don't have a written policy for it, do we need to write down your dumbass should have a ****ing brain to use in order to hire your staff? 

 

I'm just sick of this ****. The hypocrisy of our justice system makes my blood boil. 

Edited December 29, 2015 by Gamebreaker

[Mr. Sinister]

"To Protect and Serve"

[visionary]

Prosecutor's comments afterwards.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c1a8433e04e34b0abbd536609f892bd5/prosecutors-comments-tamir-rice-police-shooting-case

[Gamebreaker]

"On close examination, especially of what is perhaps the most critical piece of evidence — a very recent enhancement of the surveillance video by an expert laboratory often relied upon by the FBI — it is now indisputable that Tamir was drawing his gun from his waist as the police slid toward him and Officer Loehmann exited the car."

 

Prosecutors have no problems lying publicly when it's to save their buddies. 

[Destino]

I've heard "grand jury refuses to indict on Tamir Rice" a hundred times today on the news. That implies someone asked them to indict. No one did. They were presented the defenses case and asked not to indict. They never heard an argument for these officers being guilty or even that they should go to trial.

[tshile]

 

 

Prosecutors have no problems lying publicly when it's to save their buddies. 

 

I have no interest in defending how they handled this case, I see issues with it. But what exactly isn't indisputable in your mind? They have video of it...

[Gamebreaker]

I have no interest in defending how they handled this case, I see issues with it. But what exactly isn't indisputable in your mind? They have video of it...

I agree his hand went towards his waist, but the video doesn't actually show him grabbing anything. If they have this greatly enhanced version of the video that shows him grabbing the toy gun then they should show it. I will admit I haven't looked for it and I've only seen the grainy one.

Regardless, what those two bumbling idiots did certainly wasn't standard procedure. If they really thought this 12 yr old who they thought looked like a 20 yr old really had a gun, who pulls up directly in front of him like that? If he had a gun and malicious intent they'd both be dead. Furthermore, the officer who should've never been allowed to have a badge, shot him before he even got out of the vehicle. Then lied about it. That prosecutor was going to spin it anyway he could to make the shooting look excusable.

[tshile]

Right, you're talking about all the other issues.

 

I'm talking about him (they kid, that the officers were never told was a kid by dispatch) pulling up his hoodie and reaching for the (fake) gun (they didn't know was fake, again never told by dispatch).

 

Like I said, plenty to get mad about. But what went on in that video, in regards to the kid with a gun, seems indisputable to me...

 

It's also indisputable, to me, that the police lied about what happened.

[Destino]

Driving your car at someone and then shooting them before they have time to surrender or drop their gun isn't safe policing. Saying he reached for it is meaningless. How would you react at 12 years old to a police cruiser jumping the curb and roaring at you? Would 12 year old you freeze up, try to drop the toy, run away, or what? Are you sure?

Should we expect appropriate and safe actions from highly trained adults or frightened children? The answer is obvious.

Nothing about the situation was dangerous other than the actions of the police officers. They made a bad assumption, created a situation where their was no time to surrender, and murdered a 12 year old child playing with a toy in a public park.

And the prosecutor subverted the system by presenting a defense of officers actions to the grand jury, meaning they never had a chance to hear an argument for indictment.

[bcl05]

The cop quite literally shot first and asked questions later.  This is nearly never the right thing for law enforcement to do.  

Edited December 29, 2015 by bcl05

[tshile]

Nothing about the situation was dangerous other than the actions of the police officers.

 

Says the guy not with the job of responding to a person with a gun.

[Gamebreaker]

Says the guy not with the job of responding to a person with a gun.

So are you saying no one who isn't a police officer can judge the actions of a police officer?

[PokerPacker]

Says the guy not with the job of responding to a person with a gun.

If you can't handle the pressure, then you shouldn't be a police officer.

[The 12th Commandment]

If you can't handle the pressure, then you shouldn't be a police officer.

That's a hard thing to determine before the fact.  We don't provide enough money to have all potential LEOs undergo the sort of testing battery that would indicate whether they're suitable or not.  

 

A fact of life is that we are going to have cops that can't handle the stress.  Seems to me the answer is not requiring the impossible but dealing with the reality by way of regulation, training and oversight.

[tshile]

So are you saying no one who isn't a police officer can judge the actions of a police officer?

 

Nope.

 

But nice try I suppose.

 

If you can't handle the pressure, then you shouldn't be a police officer.

 

Right.

 

I was more commenting on the fact that he, from his computer with information in hindsight the officers didn't have, has declared the situation NOT DANGEROUS when responding to reports of a man with a gun.

[Destino]

The situation was made dangerous by police. Thats a fact, not an opinion. Had the cops driven into a sink hole on the way there Tamir Rice would not have been a danger to anyone. He'd probably just play until he was bored and went to do something else.

The situation became dangerous the moment cops went into action movie badass mode and drove their car at him. They responded to a possible gun by assuming there was definately a gun (in an open carry state) and that he was certainly a threat. Those assumptions put everything on Tamir Rice, not a highly trained and armed adult, to respond correctly. Shockingly the terrified child given no time or guidance didn't freeze with his arms up, and they killed him.

[Slateman]

They responded to a possible gun by assuming there was definately a gun (in an open carry state) and that he was certainly a threat. Those assumptions put everything on Tamir Rice, not a highly trained and armed adult, to respond correctly. Shockingly the terrified child given no time or guidance didn't freeze with his arms up, and they killed him.

That's what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to assume that everyone could be carrying a gun and could be willing to use it on you.

 

In a country with the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world, as well as one of the highest death by firearm rates in the world, it is reasonable to assume that a 911 call reporting a person with a gun should be treated from the onset as a threat, until shown otherwise.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Slateman

[tshile]

Right, like I said.

 

Captain hindsight, not actually responsible for responding to a call of a person with a gun for a living.

 

I can play the same game. If he wasn't playing with a fake gun in public, pointing it at random people pretending to shoot them, the cops would have never been called. But he didn't have such guidance in life, apparently.

 

What other situations aren't dangerous for police? Road side stops? lol.

[Destino]

That's what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to assume that everyone could be carrying a gun and could be willing to use it on you.

In a country with the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world, as well as one of the highest death by firearm rates in the world, it is reasonable to assume that a 911 call reporting a person with a gun should be treated from the onset as a threat, until shown otherwise.

and when do they get to show you otherwise? After they lay dying on the ground or is every civilian simply supposed to react to sirens by laying down face first? They drove a car at him and shot him for not reacting correctly under extreme stress in less than two seconds after arriving.

It's like sneaking up on people and shouting in their ears, then shooting all the ones that jump. Only in this case they did it to a child. A 12 year old child in a park.

[Slateman]

and when do they get to show you otherwise? After they lay dying on the ground or is every civilian simply supposed to react to sirens by laying down face first? They drove a car at him and shot him for not reacting correctly under extreme stress in less than two seconds after arriving.

It's like sneaking up on people and shouting in their ears, then shooting all the ones that jump. Only in this case they did it to a child. A 12 year old child in a park.

I didn't say they were right in this instance. I'm only pointing out that it is correct to train police that when going to call where there was a report of a gun, to assume that there is a gun.

 

BTW, if you think police are "highly trained," you should probably research what goes in to their training.

[mcsluggo]

and when do they get to show you otherwise? After they lay dying on the ground or is every civilian simply supposed to react to sirens by laying down face first? They drove a car at him and shot him for not reacting correctly under extreme stress in less than two seconds after arriving.

It's like sneaking up on people and shouting in their ears, then shooting all the ones that jump. Only in this case they did it to a child. A 12 year old child in a park.

 

you are looking for two different things here... correct versus culpable.

 

there is no doubt that what happened was incorrect.  but the question was whether the officer was legally culpable (criminally) for his actions.   being criminally culpable is different than being incompetent, afraid and jittery.   

[mistertim]

I didn't say they were right in this instance. I'm only pointing out that it is correct to train police that when going to call where there was a report of a gun, to assume that there is a gun.

 

BTW, if you think police are "highly trained," you should probably research what goes in to their training.

Are they trained to drive right up next to a person who supposedly has a gun and could be dangerous? If he had a gun and wanted to shoot them they just gave him the perfect opportunity; sitting in a car right next to him. I'd think they would stay farther away, exit the car and maybe draw their weapons if they think he's a threat and tell him to get down on the ground from a distance. It was the same thing with that guy who got kicked and had his jaw broken by the cops. The police said they thought he was armed and dangerous and yet they went right up to him without guns drawn. That's not very smart.

[Destino]

you are looking for two different things here... correct versus culpable.

there is no doubt that what happened was incorrect. but the question was whether the officer was legally culpable (criminally) for his actions. being criminally culpable is different than being incompetent, afraid and jittery.

Im looking at more than legal culpability certainly, because more is wrong. As I've said before the issue isn't only bad cops, it's a system that when working as intended yields overly violent results that places all the pressure on untrained civilians, even children, to respond precisely under stress. The only cases that even make the press most of the time are those where someone is killed on camera or when an angry mob threatens to riot. All the times people are beaten without without cause are mostly just shrugged off. Meanwhile millions of dollars of public money gets paid out to victims that should be spent elsewhere and those cops remain cops.

The legal issue would be more credibility settled if police the system didn't respond in the exact opposite manner than when anyone else is accused of wrong doing. They immediately seek to prove innocence where usually they move to establish guilt. Prosecutors even introduce defense arguments and evidence to a grand jury. Inaccurate accounts of what happened are simply ignored, even when video evidence shows them to be untrue. Why should we trust the results of those investigations?