Cops immediately shot a 12 year old holding a toy gun without warning.

[pattu1]

That video is still a blurry piece of shit and damn near worthless as evidence.

The video is simple support. What was done by the cops should never have been done that way.

Everybody agrees with that. What should be the consequences of that action - that is the debate.

[1715036680]

1715036680

[1715036680]

1715036680

[1715036680]

1715036680

[TheButterZone]

That video is still a blurry piece of shit and damn near worthless as evidence.

The video is simple support. What was done by the cops should never have been done that way.

It's so blurry anyone can dishonestly use it to "support" just about anything they say. I would rule it inadmissible as evidence as a judge, or nullify a fellow juror lying that it was crystal clear to them and all the evidence they needed to see. No sound, no other angle showing where the car came from, I can't see anybody's guns at all, can't make out faces, only bodies, can barely just infer that it was a police car (from the blurry appearance of a push bumper, low-profile LED lightbar, and what looks like a contrasting color stripe on the left side of the car that is wider than I would expect trim to be, so possibly "City of X Police" lettering).

[BADecker]

That video is still a blurry piece of shit and damn near worthless as evidence.

The video is simple support. What was done by the cops should never have been done that way.

Everybody agrees with that. What should be the consequences of that action - that is the debate.

It should go before a 12-person, fully informed jury, that has been informed that they not only have the duty to judge the officer, but that they have the duty to determine the law. It's called jury nullification. And they have the right and duty to determine the law in the case in any direction that they want.

If the Grand Jury won't bring this to trial, then the parents should file a common law claim that their property was wrongfully taken from them. They should require an eye for an eye, but thy might settle for $millions. Read about and listen to Karl at http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html.

[iCEBREAKER]

If the Grand Jury won't bring this to trial, then the parents should file a common law claim that their property was wrongfully taken from them. They should require an eye for an eye, but thy might settle for $millions.

I'm 100% sure you'd be the first to suggest suing the 'lazy/coward' cops if it was a real gun and they failed to prevent/stop a massacre/killing spree.

You want to reward these unfit guardians for ignoring their child while he modified an already-dangerous BB gun to appear exactly like an actual deadly weapon?

You want enrich the parents for allowing their wannabe gangsta to terrorize people at a local park with his realistic looking gun?

The parents should be sent the bill for all expenses accrued by their unsupervised out-of-control thug larva, and serve hard time for child neglect/endangerment.

[Nemo1024]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/I-ve-had-it--Eleven-Reas-by-Dave-Lindorff-American-Hypocrisy_American-Military_American-Terror_Citizens-United-141209-89.html

I'm going to say it: I am ashamed to be a US citizen. This doesn't come easily, because having lived abroad and seen some pretty nasty places in my time, I know there are a lot of great things about this country, and a lot of great people who live here, but lately, I've reached the conclusion that the US is a sick and twisted country, in which the bad far outweighs the good.

...

2. The police in the United States have become so militarized in both a physical sense and in terms of their training and self-image, that they are now more of an army of occupation than "peace officers" (there's an anachronistic term you don't even hear used anymore). Over and over we see police aggressively using force, including deadly force, in situations that call for calm and understanding. The most sickening thing to me, was watching a squad car in Cleveland race directly onto a park lawn right up to an enclosed gazebo where 12-year-old Tamir Rice was sitting, alone, playing with a toy gun. In less than two seconds, one of the cops exits the car and shoots the boy fatally in the stomach. There was absolutely no call for this execution. No one was around being threatened by the kid. The cops should have pulled up safely at a distance, assessed the situation, and then called on Rice to exit the gazebo and drop the gun, even if they feared it was real. Or they should have ordered him to stay put and drop the gun, and then, if he didn't comply, waited for back up, including a trained negotiator. Instead, they just raced in like it was a hostage rescue attempt, and blew a little kid away. Then they did nothing to help him after shooting him. Ugh! And yet, there is not a wave of universal outrage over this monstrous police murder.

[malaimult]

If the Grand Jury won't bring this to trial, then the parents should file a common law claim that their property was wrongfully taken from them. They should require an eye for an eye, but thy might settle for $millions.

I'm 100% sure you'd be the first to suggest suing the 'lazy/coward' cops if it was a real gun and they failed to prevent/stop a massacre/killing spree.

You are probably right but to a lower standard. If the gun was real and did any kind of damage to any living thing (animal or person) then the police would probably be blamed.

You want to reward these unfit guardians for ignoring their child while he modified an already-dangerous BB gun to appear exactly like an actual deadly weapon?

The parents should be charged with something. They should be held responsible for how their child was acting and for their child terrorizing all those people.

[TheButterZone]

According to longstanding precedent, the police have no duty to protect anyone, and all lawsuits against them alleging same are tossed. Police however swear an oath to not do exactly what they do, and are effectively immune from any real consequences for breaking it. I wanted to be a cop before I learned about the dark side of the blue line.

[jaysabi]

That video is still a blurry piece of shit and damn near worthless as evidence.

The video is simple support. What was done by the cops should never have been done that way.

Everybody agrees with that. What should be the consequences of that action - that is the debate.

He should be indicted and there should be a trial. The video is enough to question whether excessive force was used. The trial will allow the cop to give his side of the story, and a jury should decide if he unjustly took a life.

[malaimult]

According to longstanding precedent, the police have no duty to protect anyone, and all lawsuits against them alleging same are tossed. Police however swear an oath to not do exactly what they do, and are effectively immune from any real consequences for breaking it. I wanted to be a cop before I learned about the dark side of the blue line.

Against them personally, yes lawsuits will be tossed. However The police department and the city/multiplicity they work for is a different story as the victim can claim that their procedures caused them to be put in harms way

[TheButterZone]

According to longstanding precedent, the police have no duty to protect anyone, and all lawsuits against them alleging same are tossed. Police however swear an oath to not do exactly what they do, and are effectively immune from any real consequences for breaking it. I wanted to be a cop before I learned about the dark side of the blue line.

Against them personally, yes lawsuits will be tossed. However The police department and the city/multiplicity they work for is a different story as the victim can claim that their procedures caused them to be put in harms way

Against _any_ entity, tossed. There is no officer named District of Columbia.

[TrailingComet]

I realise he was a stocky kid but I saw his photo, he looked his age
What were the cops thinking?

[TECSHARE]

Cop Who Killed Tamir Rice Was Previously Kicked off Force for 'Dismal' Gun Performance, Emotional Instability
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/03/cop-who-killed-tamir-rice-was-previously

[TheButterZone]

In a "required-to-open-carry" State, things would be different.

It might be disastrous for a State to implement Open-Carry-Required on the spot, without any movement to get the people used to the idea, and that isn't the way it should be done. Neither is it the way that I am talking about.

Open carry in the past was a bit of a hassle. Even though it would be easier now, with all the modifications to holsters and such, who wants to open carry all the time in public. Nobody. It is a nuisance to have that thing hanging there. We have enough trouble carrying groceries to the car.

If the people of a State were used to the idea, training would be in place about how and when to use guns. We wouldn't need cops. There wouldn't be as many school shootings, because anyone using a gun in an armed school would be dead before he knew it. Everyone would know how to handle kids with toy guns; there might be toy gun areas. A real shooter in a toy gun area would be dead because folks would know how to handle such situations.

Once the bad guys are dead, only friendly, respectful people are left.

Implement this in your State, and you won't need a National Guard or police.



EDIT: Cops are simply trained and armed people. Train and arm everybody, and you won't need cops.

We are not alone:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/black-men-openly-carrying_b_6313176.html

[bf4btc]

According to longstanding precedent, the police have no duty to protect anyone, and all lawsuits against them alleging same are tossed. Police however swear an oath to not do exactly what they do, and are effectively immune from any real consequences for breaking it. I wanted to be a cop before I learned about the dark side of the blue line.

Against them personally, yes lawsuits will be tossed. However The police department and the city/multiplicity they work for is a different story as the victim can claim that their procedures caused them to be put in harms way

Against _any_ entity, tossed. There is no officer named District of Columbia.

Cities have settled lawsuits in the past when shotty police work has resulted in death by criminals

[TheButterZone]

According to longstanding precedent, the police have no duty to protect anyone, and all lawsuits against them alleging same are tossed. Police however swear an oath to not do exactly what they do, and are effectively immune from any real consequences for breaking it. I wanted to be a cop before I learned about the dark side of the blue line.

Against them personally, yes lawsuits will be tossed. However The police department and the city/multiplicity they work for is a different story as the victim can claim that their procedures caused them to be put in harms way

Against _any_ entity, tossed. There is no officer named District of Columbia.

Cities have settled lawsuits in the past when shotty police work has resulted in death by criminals

This discussion's context was about the longstanding precedent that police have no duty to protect any innocent from harm. While at the same time they can kill the slightest, victimless, non-violent "criminal" only moving his/her cardiopulmonary muscles, and suffer no real consequences. Having your employer use taxpayers' money to compensate your victim is not a real consequence, and neither is losing your job. Only losing your freedom and all assets is.

[bf4btc]

According to longstanding precedent, the police have no duty to protect anyone, and all lawsuits against them alleging same are tossed. Police however swear an oath to not do exactly what they do, and are effectively immune from any real consequences for breaking it. I wanted to be a cop before I learned about the dark side of the blue line.

Against them personally, yes lawsuits will be tossed. However The police department and the city/multiplicity they work for is a different story as the victim can claim that their procedures caused them to be put in harms way

Against _any_ entity, tossed. There is no officer named District of Columbia.

Cities have settled lawsuits in the past when shotty police work has resulted in death by criminals

This discussion's context was about the longstanding precedent that police have no duty to protect any innocent from harm. While at the same time they can kill the slightest, victimless, non-violent "criminal" only moving his/her cardiopulmonary muscles, and suffer no real consequences. Having your employer use taxpayers' money to compensate your victim is not a real consequence, and neither is losing your job. Only losing your freedom and all assets is.

When a police officer kills someone it is almost always going to be in self defense. The case of Michael Brown is a template as to the kind of reasons that police will kill someone - if they don't then the criminal is going to kill the officer. This is exactly the reason why we have the 2nd amendment

[Possum577]

Cops need to be held to a higher standard people need to respect their authority.

[TheButterZone]

According to longstanding precedent, the police have no duty to protect anyone, and all lawsuits against them alleging same are tossed. Police however swear an oath to not do exactly what they do, and are effectively immune from any real consequences for breaking it. I wanted to be a cop before I learned about the dark side of the blue line.

Against them personally, yes lawsuits will be tossed. However The police department and the city/multiplicity they work for is a different story as the victim can claim that their procedures caused them to be put in harms way

Against _any_ entity, tossed. There is no officer named District of Columbia.

Cities have settled lawsuits in the past when shotty police work has resulted in death by criminals

This discussion's context was about the longstanding precedent that police have no duty to protect any innocent from harm. While at the same time they can kill the slightest, victimless, non-violent "criminal" only moving his/her cardiopulmonary muscles, and suffer no real consequences. Having your employer use taxpayers' money to compensate your victim is not a real consequence, and neither is losing your job. Only losing your freedom and all assets is.

When a police officer kills someone it is almost always going to be in self defense. The case of Michael Brown is a template as to the kind of reasons that police will kill someone - if they don't then the criminal is going to kill the officer. This is exactly the reason why we have the 2nd amendment

You cannot legitimately claim self defense if you start an encounter by violating civil rights under color of authority and implicit threat of death or great bodily harm. It's like charging your innocent victim with assault for bleeding on you as you tried to beat them to death - something only LEOs have ever been able to do without any real consequences.

Cops need to be held to a higher standard people need to respect their authority.

Indeed. Unfortunately "a higher standard", when the hurdle for civil rights violations with impunity is currently set 1 nanometer off the ground, leaves light-years before we get to a reasonable standard, in innocent victims' eyes.

[BADecker]

This whole incident is one of the latest efforts of politicians for disarming the nation.

Consider. Are you going to let your children - children who you love - go to the park and play cops and robbers, or cowboys and Indians anymore? No. You fear for their lives.

What is the result? Fewer toy guns among the kids... even if the States don't individually get rid of toy guns by law.

The politicians who don't restrain the police are pushing the anti-gun laws by making the people afraid for their lives... and now their kids' lives.

If the people want to retain the strength of guns to protect themselves from government, they will have to start suing murderous police, person to person, man to man, bypassing their police office. The more the police are sued for all kinds of infractions, man to man, the more the politicians will lose money (the police bond is often financed by the city). The more they lose money, the more they will finally reign in the police.

You hear, now and again, about police in an area or two who are disciplined for actions like this, even to the point of prison. This is only a deception, a camouflage, so that people think that something is being corrected among the police. Don't be deceived. Such corrections are few and far between. It is only getting worse. Cops are only getting worse. And city councils are only finding more deceptive ways to get cops to be worse, all the while promoting more and more enslavement of the people.

Think of all the military weaponry and armament government is selling to local police departments.

[jaysabi]

According to longstanding precedent, the police have no duty to protect anyone, and all lawsuits against them alleging same are tossed. Police however swear an oath to not do exactly what they do, and are effectively immune from any real consequences for breaking it. I wanted to be a cop before I learned about the dark side of the blue line.

Against them personally, yes lawsuits will be tossed. However The police department and the city/multiplicity they work for is a different story as the victim can claim that their procedures caused them to be put in harms way

Against _any_ entity, tossed. There is no officer named District of Columbia.

Cities have settled lawsuits in the past when shotty police work has resulted in death by criminals

This discussion's context was about the longstanding precedent that police have no duty to protect any innocent from harm. While at the same time they can kill the slightest, victimless, non-violent "criminal" only moving his/her cardiopulmonary muscles, and suffer no real consequences. Having your employer use taxpayers' money to compensate your victim is not a real consequence, and neither is losing your job. Only losing your freedom and all assets is.

When a police officer kills someone it is almost always going to be in self defense. The case of Michael Brown is a template as to the kind of reasons that police will kill someone - if they don't then the criminal is going to kill the officer. This is exactly the reason why we have the 2nd amendment

You try to cling to your Second Amendment right around a cop, and you're going to get shot. That's what they do, especially if you're not white. Your Second Amendment right is just an excuse for a cop to claim self-defense, and we've all seen that when they invoke self-defense, they're untouchable in the eyes of the law.