Con_Alma;1681849 wrote:I have no idea? Has the officer been shown to do so improperly?

Googles your friend. He got gunned down in Ohio for a BB gun too. He was on the phone when he got shot, clearly not a threat, and the cops did what they did in this scenario...shot him down basically at the same exact time as announcing themselves(and unlike this scenario he didnt even make any type of threatening movements). Spoiler alert, theyre cleared of all charges too.

KB0938;1681852 wrote:Googles your friend. He got gunned down in Ohio for a BB gun too. He was on the phone when he got shot, clearly not a threat, and the cops did what they did in this scenario...shot him down basically at the same exact time as announcing themselves(and unlike this scenario he didnt even make any type of threatening movements). Spoiler alert, theyre cleared of all charges too.

...so they haven't been proved to have done something wrong/illegal?

KB0938;1681847 wrote:Theyd of realized what they were dealing with (a child)if they didnt roll up onto the grass 2 feet in front of the person and shoot before even assessing the situation now wouldnt they? Thats the part I have a major issue with. If you get a call with an armed suspect supposedly why would you pull up 5 feet from him then exit your damn car? Im not a police officer obviously, but that CANNOT be SOP. Its basically inviting a dangerous situation. Sure any armed suspect call is dangerous, but the way the approached it clearly did nothing to defuse the situation

And I have yet to disagree the approach is questionable. What I don't understand is why people think that excused the suspects actions.

Con_Alma;1681853 wrote:...so they haven't been proved to have done something wrong/illegal?

They're literally on video doing something wrong.

I Wear Pants;1681855 wrote:They're literally on video doing something wrong.

If that's the case they are worthy of due process just like everyone else. That's whereby it's legality of their actions are proved.

Con_Alma;1681856 wrote:If that's the case they are worthy of due process just like everyone else. That's whereby it's legality of their actions are proved.

Except the people who are in charge of making the case that they should be indicted are generally friendly to police since they work with them pretty much daily. Conflict of interest.

I Wear Pants;1681857 wrote:Except the people who are in charge of making the case that they should be indicted are generally friendly to police since they work with them pretty much daily. Conflict of interest.

So if I am understadning you correctly you want our system changed then. Is that correct?

If so, I submit that we can't assume guilt without due process. until the system is changed as you desire.

Con_Alma;1681858 wrote:So if I am understadning you correctly you want our system changed then. Is that correct?

If so, I submit that we can't assume guilt without due process. until the system is changed as you desire.

Doesn't mean we can't be upset about the results of the current system until (never going to happen) changes happen.

Once again you seem to boil everything down to laws/rules = per se correct/moral outcomes.

I Wear Pants;1681859 wrote:Doesn't mean we can't be upset about the results of the current system until (never going to happen) changes happen.

Once again you seem to boil everything down to laws/rules = per se correct/moral outcomes.

I didn't suggest people shouldn't be upset. I have no opinion at all on other people feelings. That's very unique and personal.

I haven't boiled anything down to morals. Morality is subjective.

I have mentioned some legal preference. We do happen to be a nation of laws.

Con_Alma;1681862 wrote:I didn't suggest people shouldn't be upset. I have no opinion at all on other people feelings. That's very unique and personal.

I haven't boiled anything down to morals. Morality is subjective.

I have mentioned some legal preference. We do happen to be a nation of laws.

We're a nation of laws for plebs like us, not for government members, police, or the wealthy. They have entirely different outcomes when it comes to legal issues.

I Wear Pants;1681857 wrote:Except the people who are in charge of making the case that they should be indicted are generally friendly to police since they work with them pretty much daily. Conflict of interest.

So a grand jury with everything at their disposal is incapable of determining if the facts and evidence merit a trial? That the prosecutor didn't sufficiently manipulate them into delivering an indictment....is unfair and a perversion of justice?

I Wear Pants;1681863 wrote:We're a nation of laws for plebs like us, not for government members, police, or the wealthy. They have entirely different outcomes when it comes to legal issues.

...and yet we can't assume their guilt without due process. If you're willing to do that, then you are also at risk for being accused and assumed guilty without due process. We all are. I wish you well on your efforts in trying to change the system if that's truly want you seek.

Con_Alma;1681865 wrote:...and yet we can't assume their guilt without due process. If you're willing to do that, then you are also at risk for being accused and assumed guilty without due process. We all are. I wish you well on your efforts in trying to change the system if that's truly want you seek.

I never said I want guilt assumed without due process. I merely voiced my displeasure at the inefficacy of the current system in regards to it's inequality of outcomes for people in positions of power or authority vs the general public.

KB0938;1681764 wrote:It was a 12 year old child...

Did he look like an innocent 12-yr old, or did he look like a 14-15 yr old banger?

gut;1681869 wrote:Did he look like an innocent 12-yr old, or did he look like a 14-15 yr old banger?

Excellent point. Black and wearing sweatpants? We should probably just shoot him to be safe.

I Wear Pants;1681868 wrote:I never said I want guilt assumed without due process. I merely voiced my displeasure at the inefficacy of the current system in regards to it's inequality of outcomes for people in positions of power or authority vs the general public.

???

I never stated you did say such a thing.

I have acknowledged your displeasure. I respect and understand that it's upsetting to you.

I Wear Pants;1681871 wrote:Excellent point. Black and wearing sweatpants? We should probably just shoot him to be safe.

He's waiving a gun around a park. His safety is a distant 3rd behind the police themselves and bystanders in the park. Are cops supposed to assume that a 12-14 yr old isn't just as capable of shooting them dead? The gun everyone thought he had doesn't know the hand belongs to a 12-yr old.

I Wear Pants;1681884 wrote:People wouldn't be so upset if people got killed by police less often.

In 2011 we had 404 cases of "justifiable homicide" by police which is based on voluntary reporting so there could be more and doesn't include ones that weren't justified. Germany in the same year had police kill 6 people. They are about 4 times smaller than us population wise but even adjusting for that 24 is a hell of a lot smaller than 404. The difference is similar when you compare other first world countries. Our police kill people far more often.

You're only kidding yourself if you actually believe this. The sight of anyone being shot alone will upset people. Has ferguson not taught you that people don't care about the facts? The video could clearly demonstrate the cop was in the right (just like that one video of the guy charging the cops with knives), and people will still get butt hurt with the media jumping all over it.

It's a systemic reaction from those who lend to an anti-establishment culture.

like_that;1681887 wrote:You're only kidding yourself if you actually believe this. The sight of anyone being shot alone will upset people. Has ferguson not taught you that people don't care about the facts? The video could clearly demonstrate the cop was in the right (just like that one video of the guy charging the cops with knives), and people will still get butt hurt with the media jumping all over it.

You don't think it's odd that these two cases involving police officers just happen to be among the 11 in 162,000 cases prosecuted that doesn't get indicted?

The Ferguson one is more nuanced because there isn't video and lots of other things factor into it. Not so bothered with that one. But can you imagine any scenario where the same events happen except the people doing the killing aren't cops and there isn't an indictment? Not even looking at whether you'd be convicted but there is no way in hell a non-officer group chokes a dude to death who isn't a threat on camera and isn't indicted.

So...... Is it true the cop was white that shot the Cleveland kid? Since, apparently, a few of us on here were led to believe the cop was black.

KB0938;1681847 wrote:Theyd of realized what they were dealing with (a child)if they didnt roll up onto the grass 2 feet in front of the person and shoot before even assessing the situation now wouldnt they? Thats the part I have a major issue with. If you get a call with an armed suspect supposedly why would you pull up 5 feet from him then exit your damn car? Im not a police officer obviously, but that CANNOT be SOP. Its basically inviting a dangerous situation. Sure any armed suspect call is dangerous, but the way the approached it clearly did nothing to defuse the situation

Even after they shot him, they judged his age to be 20 years old.

KB0938;1681852 wrote:Googles your friend. He got gunned down in Ohio for a BB gun too. He was on the phone when he got shot, clearly not a threat, and the cops did what they did in this scenario...shot him down basically at the same exact time as announcing themselves(and unlike this scenario he didnt even make any type of threatening movements). Spoiler alert, theyre cleared of all charges too.

I don't remember seeing video with an audio regarding this case. So I cant comment on what they said to him. but in the video I did see, I remember the kid falls to the ground around the corner of the shopping isle and then while on the ground, reaches around the corner for the bb rifle laying on the floor.

Glory Days;1681925 wrote:I don't remember seeing video with an audio regarding this case. So I cant comment on what they said to him. but in the video I did see, I remember the kid falls to the ground around the corner of the shopping isle and then while on the ground, reaches around the corner for the bb rifle laying on the floor.

http://www.whio.com/videos/news/911-call-surveillance-video-together/vCtDnb/

Glory Days;1681925 wrote:I don't remember seeing video with an audio regarding this case. So I cant comment on what they said to him. but in the video I did see, I remember the kid falls to the ground around the corner of the shopping isle and then while on the ground, reaches around the corner for the bb rifle laying on the floor.

They came through the sliding doors and yelled "put it down" or something like that and almost in the same breath they fired at him. He barely had time to turn towards them (a normal response to being yelled at) before they fired.

I don't know why he was being such a jackass and standing around with a bb gun. Doesn't seem necessary to decide what dog food you're going to buy. But I also don't know why the cops felt the need to shoot on sight.

Glory Days;1681923 wrote:Even after they shot him, they judged his age to be 20 years old.

Yet another reason to question their judgement.

Related:


Remember when a bunch of white dudes with semi-automatic weapons pointed them at Federal Agents and police and said they were willing to shoot to protect a dude who refused to pay for using public land?

How many of them got shot? Zero. How many were talking about how they were thugs or deserved to get shot for pointing guns at cops and agents? Not very many.

<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><iframe style="display: none;" allowtransparency="true" scrolling="no" id="rufous-sandbox" frameborder="0"></iframe>