<p>So, high crime area, teenage gangs, reign of terror, “nervous” cops. Got it. So the only thing they could have done is blow him away? Or do you think they that even in that environment, they could have done something more constructive? If so, what?</p>
<p>BTW, do you think this might have had anything to do with the shooter’s “nervousness”? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That, of course, is from the records of the police department where the shooter worked before he went to Cleveland PD. They further described him as:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So do you think any of that might have had anything at all to do with Officer Loehmann’s decision to shoot a 12-year-old-boy before he had any idea what was really going on?</p>
<p>The high crime bit also doesn’t seem to account for the fact nationwide, crime is at the lowest point in decades. Including Cleveland. </p>
<p>I attended college around 45 minutes away by bus/car and remembered Cleveland back in the mid-late '90s. It was much more dangerous and run down back then. </p>
<p>It’s the “Fort Apache” mentality the police have adopted about the population which they serve in the inner cities. It’s literally “shoot first and ask questions later.” The police have themselves to blame for not doing house cleaning of the bad cops in their midst. If they don’t, we’ll do it for them.</p>
<p>Since Ohio is an open carry state and they “thought” he was 20 by their laws he was perfectly in his rights to have a gun in that state. It doesn’t matter that it was a toy. Every time that I watch that video I feel sick watching the last moments of a bored kid playing across the street from his house. If the toy manufacturers wanted that orange tip to be secure, it would be strong enough to stay on the gun, or painted directly. In open carry states, cops should know better than to shoot first. </p>
<p>Interesting point, MizzBee. So in actuality, even if Tamir had been carrying a real gun, the police had no justification to restrain, let alone shoot him?</p>
<p>Yeah, great point, MizzBee. I guess we should start getting used to managing our response when we see some guy openly carrying a gun in states that permit it. The police should too. Or perhaps they do already, as long as the person carrying the gun is a white guy.</p>
<p>“Tamir Rice didn’t pull a gun on passers-by. To clarify.” </p>
<p>Well, yes actually that is exactly what the 911 caller reported. It probably would help if everyone started with the same basic information. And, interestingly race was not mentioned by anyone. But, it was a gang hang-out and although not an all black neighborhood it is an infamously dangerous area…</p>
<p>The dispatcher asks at that point because it’s part of the ID. Are we not allowed to describe suspects now because that’s going to make it hard for cops to find the bad guys? Sally, you have a race hang-up. I’m sorry.</p>
<p>marie, when you “pull a gun” on someone that means that you got the weapon out and pointed it directly at someone with intent that has been made know - an armed robbery for example. Sort of randomly playing with the gun or gun facsimile and even pointing it around in a general way while sitting on the swing is very different from pulling a gun on someone.</p>
<p>From the linked news story:
“There’s a guy in there with a pistol, you know, it’s probably fake, but he’s like pointing it at everybody,” the caller can be heard saying. “He’s sitting on a swing right now, but he’s pulling it in and out of his pants and pointing it at people,” the caller explained. “He’s probably a juvenile, you know?”</p>
<p>The point remains that the job of the professional is to assess the situation before taking action which these responders didn’t do. If someone calls 911 and says there’s a guy and I don’t know but I think he’s having a heart attack do the EMTs just race out and shock him without assessing independently?</p>