The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Is that the "gun" the kid had and was point / waving? A colt 1911. A great hand gun to have, no orange tip? Where is parental control on this?


video of the incident
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police



It seems to me that since the cops pulled up directly on the kid they had not choice except for self protection.

That being said the cops should not have pulled up that close but close enough to have a stand off and have the kid surrender the weapon.

They pulled too close, fired way to fast, even the judge agreed. Yes, some blame falls on the parents, but how many cops are being shot and killed vs citizens at this point?

When does officer safety trump the fact that they are supposed to serve and protect, not shoot at the first option and sort it out later? They fired on Tamir within 2 Seconds of arriving on scene, 2 seconds...

What is even more disturbing about this case is, after shooting him, the police walked around the scene and looked for the weapon while the kid lay dying on the snow. Tamir laid there for 4 minutes bleeding from a torso gunshot wound until a police detective and an FBI agent who happened to be nearby came and rendered aid.

Both cops also had issues.

In a memo to Independence's human resources manager, released by the city in the aftermath of the shooting, Independence deputy police chief Jim Polak wrote that Loehmann had resigned rather than face certain termination due to concerns that he lacked the emotional stability to be a police officer. Polak said that Loehmann was unable to follow "basic functions as instructed". He specifically cited a "dangerous loss of composure" that occurred in a weapons training exercise, during which Loehmann's weapons handling was "dismal" and he became visibly "distracted and weepy" as a result of relationship problems. The memo concluded, "Individually, these events would not be considered major situations, but when taken together they show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions, I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies." It was subsequently revealed that Cleveland police officials never reviewed Loehmann's personnel file from Independence prior to hiring him.

Garmback, who was driving the police cruiser, has been a police officer in Cleveland since 2008. In 2014, the City of Cleveland paid US$100,000 to settle an excessive force lawsuit brought against him by a local woman; according to her lawsuit, Garmback "rushed and placed her in a chokehold, tackled her to the ground, twisted her wrist and began hitting her body" and "such reckless, wanton and willful excessive use of force proximately caused bodily injury". The woman had called the police to report a car blocking her driveway. The settlement does not appear in Garmback's personnel file.

Amazing pieces of work, and both out there to take care of us. I feel safe, do you?

WTF is wrong with you, you crazy bastard?!

Stop defending murders just because they wear police uniforms!

That cop - who was already fired from another PD for incompetence - "had no other choice" but to murder a 12 year CHILD?!?

You're fucking crazy.

I really can only hope you experience some ridiculous shit like this one day.

Maybe then you'll realize how SHITTY OF A PERSON YOU ARE..

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, June 11th, 2015 5:02pm PDT - promote requested by enoch.

@bobknight33
here is what i don't get about you or lantern:
1.you state that you are a conservative with a "tea party" flavor to your politics,
YET...
you consistently defend the power of the state to authorize our ever-increasing militarized police force to engage in violence and brutality which often leads to the death of a citizen,often with impunity (such as this case).

this is neither conservative nor tea party,it is fascist.

2.many of your arguments point to obeying a lawful order,be polite and respectful and much of the brutality and violence would end.on this point i totally agree,
BUT....
you totally ignore how "equal under law" has been perverted to only serve the elite and those who can "pay for justice" and how the system of "justice" has been corrupted to target minorities and the economically insolvent (poor) and feed them into the largest prison system on the planet.

they are commodifying the poor,blacks,latinos in the name of profit,all for the same elitist fucknozzles who perpetrated fraud,theft and outright lies,walking away with trillions of our money and not a single indictment.(check that,ONE indictment of a low level banker..whoopdy-shit).

yet i see you consistently BLAME the poor,black and latino.

this is not conservative nor tea party....it is racist.

3.many of your posts deal with a corrupt government.how it is bloated and inefficient.you decry the 'welfare/nanny state" and the horrible misappropriation of funds.

this is a typical,and necessary argument.that is the way of political dialogue and while i am not debating here the finer points nor the validity of your position,i am,however,saying the discussion is a necessary one to engage in.

however,

you,almost without fail,disregard and will actually DEFEND:police brutality and military action on foreign soil.yet BOTH of these institutions are exclusively government controlled,operated and executed.(which is why many of lanterns posts make me laugh).

this is not conservative nor tea party ......... it is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

my point is:
your arguments and positions are not philosophically harmonious.
they are in direct opposition.your posted philosophies are a direct contradiction to what you espouse.

here is an example of late:
@newtboy tends to post cops behaving badly videos.
you will chime in,almost always,siding with the cop (in one fashion or another).
newtboy will make an argument about exercising your rights.the rights as a citizen in a situation with a representative of the state..
AND YOU WILL ARGUE WITH HIM.

in that instance..newtboy is more a tea party conservative than you are bob.

think about that for a moment bob....
newt is MORE of a patriot and constitutionalist than YOU are.
maybe you are just being a contrarian?
maybe just a bit of trolling?

but...in the end,your arguments make no sense due to their contradictory nature.
you can't be for a smaller,more accountable government and then look the other way when that very same government is over-stepping it's lawful directives.

Common sense, this kid did not have, nor his parents for letting him go out with that... kinda one of the reasons we did not let our son play with toy guns...

When I was a kid, parents were afraid to let their 10 year old have a toy gun because "You'll shoot your eye out". Today they're afraid to let a 10 year old have a toy gun because "cops will shoot you in the face".
Common sense says to me that that's an issue with the cops, not the toys.

I"d have to disagree. There are more and more young people using real guns, there is quite a bit of video evidence, facebook posts, etc, showing quite young black children with real handguns.

As for the video, I agree that the cops drove up far too close which limited their options of dealing with this child.

I have no prior knowledge of this incident.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

I do not "BLAME the poor,black and Latino "persons. I blame their actions or lack thereof.

I am not here to defend cops. They have a shitty job today and can't really trust anyone. They serve and protect us they have to protect themselves.

We live in a "police state" today because people are assholes thinking that they have the right to moth off at cops and each other with out consequences.

This is the world that we live in because all want to do out own thing and are being told that you have the right to do so.


You reap what you sow.

Well said.

Like they didn't have the option NOT to murder a child..

Sociopath logic: Incompetence = Mandate to Murder

ooooookkkk ttttthhhhheeeennnn..

Again, fixed that fer yuh

Dude.. you HAVE to be into BDSM.

Submissive Masochistic Bottom to the bone.. er.. emake.. @BoneRemake

Unfortunately, the law kind of errs on the side of caution for cops and everyone else when a gun is involved (Except the poor, the law never sides with them.) A gun immediately raises the stakes, period. The courts have unanimously ruled that they are to be taken differently. For example, you can shoot someone in the back if they don't drop the gun. Sounds harsh, but lets be real, they can turn in 2 second and shot. They can shoot others etc. This situation in the video is arguably different. Obviously the cops had a hard-on for making themselves look good. They deserve a trial that bankrupts them. But, as the law applies to everyone, they really can't be found guilty. George Zimmerman was found innocent and dumb motherfuckers on the Sift were amazed...but I told them the law was on his side from the start and they ridiculed me. Jokes on them--it was...and sadly it is on these cops' sides here...

Under a video about an innocent child being killed due to our gradual march towards a police state, you are justifying the need for a police state because people "mouth off" at the cops.

This kid was a satisfactory sacrifice because some people say mean things to the police. We should tolerate people being innocently killed, having their houses partially destroyed, being mistreated and actively hunted because of skin colour, police brutality and everything it encompases. Because sometimes, guys. Sometimes... people say nasty things to the police. It nearly makes me cry that people can be so mean to police officers. I hope this kid learns a lesson from this. I don't know what lesson - maybe "don't let other people be mean to the police"? Might be useful in the afterlife.

Go back and read the rest of what I said.

We did.

It's just as crazy as the rest of the shit you normally say.

The kid was 12. The cops are incompetent and trigger happy.

You're gladly justifying the murder of a child.

The evil killer clown avatar makes sense now.

Just so I'm clear... Both partners planned to have the child walk around with a realistic toy gun, then planned to be the responding officers so that they could then murder the child. These are the facts as you know them? Otherwise, there was no murder here... Possibly manslaughter...
That being said, we should not have to expect the police to hold off on shooting someone with a gun. As was mentioned, having a child with a real gun is not out of the realm of possibility. The gun pictured looks very real, especially in the few seconds they could see it.
Yes, the police are there to serve and protect, not die.
They have a right to protect themselves and stopping to analyse whether a gun is real or a toy is not realistic.
If this had been one of the colorful nerf type guns, I would have a different opinion, but that gun looks real.
I guess in your book, you would have the police hold fire until they are shot at? Well, at that point it may be too late.
This was a tragedy, but I do put part of the blame in the parents court as well as the child..
Too be honest, with all the backlash police are getting, what happens if they decide to all be more hands off?
Hello 911, whats your emergency?
Someone is breaking into my house.
OK, let us know when they are done and we will come investigate.

I'm not saying that we should just ignore what the police do in their actions, I'm just saying we shouldn't crucify every action since the outcome doesn't please us.