Dispatched

Outside investigators (all from law enforcement) hired by prosecutors in Cleveland recommend that the police officer who shot Tamar Rice, 12, to death in under two seconds despite posing no threat ought to be left alone, uncharged, because he was misled by a police dispatcher.

29 Comments. Leave new

  • I don’t want anyone to be shot – but couldn’t they have waited until he pulled out what looked to be a gun (with the safety marking removed) and pointed it? It seems to me that if someone points what looks to be a gun at a police officer, that they might possibly expect to be shot at.

  • All governing media reports I’ve heard call the investigation made by a retired FBI agent and a prosecutor from Denver, “independent”.

    My guess is that the reports from people in the affected community would be called “biased” by the governing media.

    The state-supporting governing media controls the language, and language strongly influences the thoughts of the people. And public opinion surveys merely report on the efficacy of propaganda by the rate at which governing media’s language is parroted back by survey respondents.

  • I’ve got a bad boomer habit – I’m buying up some vintage toys I remember from my childhood. But in order to be legal to buy/sell, they have to have an ugly orange safety gadget stuck in the barrel. How does that keep anyone safe when cops don’t take the time to check?

    They shoot people holding cell phones. Maybe the cell phone needs to have an orange knob as well?

    For that matter, what’s to stop a bad guy from sticking an orange cork on the end of a real gun?

    • I understand that the “orange safety gadget” had been removed from Tamar’s toy gun, without which it is conceivable that it looked real and menacing.

      I’m sorry to say that under those circumstances the officer’s actions were not unreasonable.

      I have to wonder, though, if the 911-caller feels any remorse for reporting this kid at play.

      • “I’m sorry to say that under those circumstances the officer’s actions were not unreasonable.”

        Then the 911 caller would have been justified in shooting the kid himself. How do you think that would have gone over?

        If the caller was close enough to observe the gun and say its probably a toy, then the police could have made the same observation when they arrived on the scene, even without notification of the 911 caller’s “probably a toy” statement, if only they valued the life of the boy more than the time it would have taken to verify whether or not the situation was life threatening.

        Police have an “implied license to kill”, then lie about it and cover up evidence, that most mere mortals must live without.

        I’d rather be confronted by a licensed concealed carry person because he would face arrest in many states for even showing his weapon, unlike a police officer who displays it with impunity, often escalating the tension in a situation.

      • @ Glenn –

        Your entire post is “non sequitur.”

        Police do not have the luxury of determining the nuance between “probably a toy” and “probably a deadly weapon”; they have to make split-second decisions based upon their observations.

        Observe the image at the following link (actual photo of the toy in question) and make your own determination:

        http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/23/1416718324612_Image_galleryImage_LINK_TO_http_www_clevelan.JPG

      • derlehrer – would you be so forgiving if it was your kid that died? I waved my cap gun at strangers in the park when I was a kid – some of them even shot back with their fingers. Nobody killed me.

        The person that the cop didn’t take time to identify could have been a ‘responsible gun owner’ who had just dispatched the real bad guy. He could have been an undercover cop responding to the same call. He could have been completely unrelated to the call.

        ALL gun owners have a responsibility to make damn sure they know what they’re pointing at BEFORE they pull the trigger; cops even more so. A shooter should always take the time to figure out what else is in the line of fire – “what if I miss – what will I hit then? Is two seconds enough time to make that call? It’s barely time enough to aim at the firing range.

        Cops are allowed to carry guns where other people can’t, they receive training at taxpayer expense to properly asses dangerous situations; they should be *less* likely to fire than an untrained civilian.

      • @ CrazyH –

        1) “… would you be so forgiving if it was your kid that died?”

        *

        It wasn’t. Thus, your point is moot.

        Having said that, I will volunteer that before I surrendered my firearms to my two sons (daughter didn’t want any), I ALWAYS had loaded weapons in the house and taught my children to respect them and to treat every gun as if it were loaded, especially to keep the muzzle pointed down and away from anything not intended to be a target. I never would have permitted them to run around rampant in a park, pointing even a toy gun at strangers. That’s just irresponsible and asking for trouble — especially in today’s day and age.

        *

        2) “… they receive training at taxpayer expense to properly asses [sic] dangerous situations….”

        *

        EXACTLY! And any such trained policeman will assess and react properly before allowing a suspect to get off a shot or two at his partner or himself.

        My assessment of the situation stands.

      • As far as I can tell, the cops never even saw the gun. If they saw anything it was no more than the butt- never in Tamir’s hand, its tip never seen at all so it’s color is not relevant.

      • @ Russell –

        The video quality is very poor, and the police car obstructs some of the view; but somehow that pistol wound up on the floor of the gazebo. The driver of the car can be seen kicking it out of the way as Tamir lay on the floor.

    • derlehrer:

      > And any such trained policeman will assess and react properly.

      A twelve-year-old boy lies dead. Is that a proper reaction? Is two seconds long enough to make a life or death decision?

      >I also note that he stated he wasn’t sure if it was a toy or real. That’s on the tape of the call. The cops had no way of knowing

      911 *is* “the cops” – so yes, the cops did know. One wonders whether the dispatcher would have mentioned the ‘maybe it’s a toy’ part if the kid in question was white.

      > It wasn’t [derleher’s kid who died]. Thus, your point is moot.

      No, it’s “hypothetical” and the fact that you evaded answering it merely confirms my point. You would hope and expect that if it was your kid’s life on the line that the cop would have made a better assessment of the situation.

      • @ CrazyH –

        A 12-year-old boy is quite capable of pulling the trigger of a real pistol. These two policemen were responding to a “man-with-a-gun” call and reacted with a reasonable expectation of life-threatening danger. To answer your question: yes, it was a proper reaction. That’s what the two investigators determined — it wasn’t my decision, nor is it my judgment only.

        You have quite cleverly manipulated my words about THESE TWO cops not knowing whether the gun was a toy or real. The caller left open the possibility that it could have been real. To the best of my knowledge 911 dispatchers are *not* “the cops” — they also field calls for ambulances and for firefighters. That doesn’t make them paramedics or firefighters themselves, any more than it makes them cops.

        Finally, a “hypothetical” cannot prove anything at all — that’s why I ignored it: it isn’t relevant and nothing at all has been “confirmed.” My offspring were reared to know better than to wave around a firearm (even “fake”) in public and point it at people. That’s why I can say yours is a moot point. Conclusions based upon guesswork are invalid.

      • I have successfully confirmed that you don’t want to answer the question.

        Maybe your well-trained twelve-year-old grandkid has a candy-bar wrapper in his hand when the cop shoots him down. By your reasoning, that would be perfectly reasonable. It *might* have been a gun, he *might* have been ready to kill someone, so therefore the cop is justified in killing him.

        The 911 caller *might* have been making a false report. He “might* have given the toy gun to the kid just so he could call 911.

        Me, I prefer not to risk my grandkids’ lives on *might*

      • @ CrazyH –

        “I have successfully confirmed that you don’t want to answer the question.”
        *
        That’s the first thing in your garrulous, illogical and irrelevant ramblings that you have correctly stated. What point would be served by answering a question which you yourself have described as “hypothetical” (thus, “moot”)? Will that bring back the deceased? Will it serve to edify others? Will it give police officers pause that “might” result in the death or injury of said officers?

        (Rhetorical questions can be relevant when calling attention to inanities, which well describes the remainder of your last post. Pray tell, what relevance does any of that garbage have with regard to the topic?)

      • Now be nice, derlehrer.

        A hypothetical question is a valid rhetorical device used to explore abstract questions. We all have an interest in how cops decide to kill people, and I would prefer to have the conversation *before* one of my kids winds up dead.

        I believe that the bar should be far higher than “two seconds” and “somebody in the park might be dangerous.” If you truly believe that’s enough to make a life-or-death decision, then that decision is just as valid if it’s your grandchild holding a candy bar wrapper, or you holding a cell phone.

      • @ CrazyH –

        “A hypothetical question is a valid rhetorical device used to explore abstract questions.”

        *

        To what purpose? What do you hope to gain?
        (It is noteworthy that you have ignored all my previous comments calling attention to your lack of logic and your erroneous assumptions while you continue to pursue a fantasy conjured up in your own mind to condemn the actions of the police. One is driven to ask: why?)

        A two-second time period yields an opportunity for a suspect enough time to pull the trigger on the officers who have come to investigate a legitimate 911 report concerning a man with a gun, and who would be concerned with the expectation that they “might” encounter a situation that could prove deadly to them. Hesitation from the officers to neutralize the threat while leisurely mulling over the question of the seriousness of said threat, scratching their heads and dancing around during a potentially deadly situation could reasonably be expected to result in the death or serious bodily injury to the officers who responded. These officers did not have the luxury to sit down and analyze every aspect of what was transpiring; they had to react based upon their observations and their training. The fact of the matter is that you were not there and that you have no reasonable basis for your determination that the officer who delivered the fatal shot was out-of-bounds with his reaction. Professional, independent investigators who have more experience and training have determined otherwise.

        Your “candy-bar-wrapper” analogy is pure bullshit, and you know it. You aren’t looking for logical analysis but for any way to condemn the actions of the police, who acted in accordance with their training and assessment of a potentially deadly encounter. Why don’t you give a try at offering something substantial, rather than a self-conjured fantasy that makes you look completely ridiculous?

      • > To what purpose? What do you hope to gain?

        A world in which Tamir would still be alive today.

      • @ CrazyH –
        “A world in which Tamir would still be alive today.”
        *
        LOL!

        Not even *YOU* can be so self-delusional as to believe that can be accomplished by answering your “hypothetical” question.

        Sorry to be bearer of bad tidings, but nothing you can do will accomplish that goal.

      • But CrazyH,

        Derlehrer complained that he was deprived of some white privilege in favor of a minority of color and so being black was offense enough and easy enough to detect in 2 seconds. /s

      • derlehrer – I certainly hope that you were a grade school teacher. When kids get to high school, they are expected to utilize critical thinking to solve abstract problems; you can’t teach that which you don’t understand yourself.

        Let’s give you a little much-needed practice. The LARD gave a recording to the LAT, and that resulted in Ted’s getting fired. If we apply your logic to the situation, then we should ask the cops whether they did anything wrong. If they say ‘no’ then Ted’s firing was perfectly justified … right? Just because it looks wrong to us, that’s no reason to question LA’s finest.

        Another tool in our intellectual toolbox is ‘role reversal.’ Say a hypothetical young black man sees a hypothetical white cop walking towards him. He *knows* the cop is armed with a deadly weapon. He *knows* that cops kill young black men in disproportionate numbers. If he waits for the cop to draw his weapon it would be to late – so he shoots him dead as a preventative measure. Did he do anything wrong? Should we ask other young black men in the community whether he did anything wrong? If they say ‘no’ do we let him walk?

        At this point, a reasonably bright high school student will realize the flaw in his own reasoning. A troll will answer with more ad hominem attacks in a transparent attempt to avoid answering.

      • How does one counter “non sequitur” argumentation and obvious lack of logic?

        Let’s see if I can replicate what has been offered in an attempt to have me change my mind: The incident happened in November of 2014 and there was snow on the ground. Possibly the sky was grey, but it could have been blue. If this had occurred in July and if the sky had been yellow, Tamir would still be alive today, because things would have been completely different. See how logical that is?

        Two independent investigators (note that they had no connection to the local police) made the determination that the shooting was justified. There was a “look-alike” weapon observed and the officers judged the suspect to be about twenty years of age. Those factors affected the police in such a manner that they reacted as they did. Your hallucinations don’t change that, nor should they.

      • “I don’t respond to trolls”

      • @ CrazyH –

        911 dispatchers are the cops. They had all relevant information but just had the goal in mind to shoot a black kid. They wouldn’t have done that if the kid had been white. Remember all that?

        The TROLL has just pointed his finger, with the others directed back at himself.

        LOL!

        Don’t worry — you made yourself Number Four on my list. Bye! Bye!

  • alex_the_tired
    October 12, 2015 3:35 PM

    Twelve-year-olds, as has been pointed out, are not known for their judgment. This is why candy cigarettes were banned, because people realized it was not a good idea to have children get comfortable with the idea of smoking.

    Talk to every person who owns a gun responsibly: it is not a toy. It’s a weapon, a tool, whatever, but it is not a toy. But no one wants to be the one who tells the grieving parents, “Hey! What were you thinking? Why are you giving your kid a toy gun in the first place? Where is YOUR judgment?”

    • @ alex_the_tired –

      On the other hand, my childhood friends and I grew up with toy guns: cap pistols and BB rifles; and I was gifted with a .22-caliber rifle for Christmas when I was fourteen.

      The lack of judgment here is not in the presentation of a toy pistol, but in allowing it to be flaunted in a public park. As the 911-caller said: “It’s scaring the shit out of people.”

      [I also note that he stated he wasn’t sure if it was a toy or real. That’s on the tape of the call. The cops had no way of knowing.]

      • alex_the_tired
        October 12, 2015 7:17 PM

        Derlehrer,

        You make a vital distinction which I had not considered. It also makes the ludicrous idiocy of the whole “put an orange tip on it” even more obviously stupid.

        If I were some gun-totting thug, the first thing I’d do is paint some orange on the front of the gun. “Whew,” says my soon-to-be victim. “I thought that was a real gun until I saw that little bit of orange on the tip.”

        “Bang! Bang!”

  • Aside from the comments above – can you imagine if we didn’t have any court of law at all? – even poorly-functioning ones, and that we were all judged based on Internet output and the “comments” posted?

  • «Shoot (to kill) first and ask questions later» is not a reasonable policing principle….

    Henri

    PS : Very good to have you back, Ted ; hope your batteries have been recharged ! One thing is certain, you will not, alas, lack material on which to comment….

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu
css.php