Again. Police murder two more innocent black men. How do we stop this?

[Frobozz]

Ive kind of been lurking on this one...

You're absolutely correct, a Grand Jury should be rigged in favor of "Send this to trial," and a Prosecutor should not be playing the role of Defense attorney.

I disagree that Grand Juries should be rigged in favor of "send this to trial". A Grand Jury is supposed to be our, the citizen's, Constitutional protection against prosecutors just sending things to trial. It is supposed to require that probable cause exists to believe that a felony offense occured. The outrage over the police shootings is that it is clear that probable cause exists to believe that the matter should proceed through a true bill indictment. This does not mean the case gets set for trial, rather it just means that the officer is formally indicted and now faces prosecution.

I still will not say that the police officers murdered Tamir Rice until a trial is set and completed (which I understand will not happen now), but it certainly seems like there are a lot of things that need to be reviewed in the followup of the case, and if possible a new Grand Jury with a more honest Prosecution. Again, I know it won't happen, and I'm still not certain about the liability of the officers even if it were to go to trial because I'm not clear on how legally "interlinked" their wrongful approach is to their shooting of a seemingly aggressive individual. Personally, I feel there is at least some degree of responsibility for a reaction to a reaction of a wrongful action, but I would need to see precedence in either direction (and the logic therein) before outright agreeing to it.

Tamir Rice was murdered. The shooter (aka the murderer) acted with the required intent (purpose) to kill another human being. The other officer should be charged with either complicity to murder (less likely) or voluntary manslaughter under Ohio law. The prosecution in the Tamir Rice case was an absolute joke, I am embarrassed to have ever worked for that office.

Remember... the city of Cleveland paid out over 6 million dollars on this case. They agreed that the Officers committed an unjustifiable homicide. You can call it a murder.

[Frobozz]

It's a well written article that highlights much of what you already said, but I like the part that starts off describing how the general population was duped into not understanding what went on behind closed doors.

The article is pretty damning of the officers, and I wonder how the trial itself might have gone if the Grand Jury had properly recommended the case go to trial. I also wonder why Grand Juries are so secretive: I can understand keeping the jurors unidentified for safety reasons, but is there any particular reason for the session itself to be hush hush?

There seems to be a misunderstanding as to how the legal system works. A case does not go straight from a grand jury to a petite jury for trial. A grand jury's only function is to determine if there is probable cause to believe that a person committed a felony offense. They are intended to be a safeguard on our rights from prosecution.

The reason grand juries are supposed to be secret is to shield the grand jurors, and witnesses who testify at them, from public scorn and ridicule. On cases where the masses want blood the grand jury is supposed to be able to sit in private, shielded with secrecy, and impartially decide the matter.

Sadly, this goal is not being met. Prosecutors tell the grand jury what to charge and almost always 99.95% of the time the grand jury responds with a true bill indictment.

That is why there is so much outrage over the killings. The proecutors, if they wanted, could walk in and obtain an indictment on any one of these officers in a matter of minutes. The average grand jury session on a murder is 15 minutes.

[Frobozz]

Yes, Tamir Rice was shot and killed for pointing a realistic looking weapon at a police officer. In this particular incident:

1. The weapon lacked the appropriate orange tip to indicate toy vs. real. Pro tip: looking down the barrel of a toy gun vs. a real gun, they are nearly identical, and the time it takes to differentiate would prove lethal if the firearm in question is real.
2. The weapon was pointed towards the officer the moment he stepped out of the car. Pro tip: pointing a firearm at ANY armed individual is going to get you shot.
3. Someone else called the police to report someone with a "probably fake" gun. Pro tip: if you call 911, dispatch is not going to tell the police the gun is "probably fake, but he is pointing it at everyone." They're going to report that someone called reporting a possibly armed individual in the park. The police are going to respond as though the weapon is real, because that's the safest course of action.

Calling someone a murderer without investigation or trial is wrong.

The perpetuation of misleading, incorrect, or false facts is one of the problems in these situations. Facts:

1. Tamir Rice did not point a "realistic looking weapon at a police officer".
2. Tamir Rice did not point anything at a police officer.
3. The police had no reason to believe that Tamir Rice possessed a weapon/toy.
4. The police violated internal policies based on the manner in which they approached Tamir Rice.
5. The police did not have reasonable suspicion, or probable cause to believe that Tamir Rice committed a crime or was in possession of an illegal weapon.

I also note a number of "pro tips" that you raise. What is the basis for your "pro tip"? You stated " The weapon was pointed towards the officer the moment he stepped out of the car. Pro tip: pointing a firearm at ANY armed individual is going to get you shot."

This is patently false. Tamir Rice never even drew the toy gun out of his waist before being shot - his hand was not even on it.

The next pro tip is equally disturbing " Someone else called the police to report someone with a "probably fake" gun. Pro tip: if you call 911, dispatch is not going to tell the police the gun is "probably fake, but he is pointing it at everyone." They're going to report that someone called reporting a possibly armed individual in the park. The police are going to respond as though the weapon is real, because that's the safest course of action"

In real life dispatch is required to pass on all relevant information. Relevant information here is that the gun is "probably fake". Believe it or not this is not the first time that the police have to respond to a kid scaring people with a toy gun. Happens all the time, there is protocol for it.

But you also mention that the police are going to respond as if the gun is real. Fair enough, however, they did not do that here. In this case they had no reason to believe it was Tamir that had the gun. There was no one else around him at the time they murdered him. There was no evidence that he had the gun, there was no evidence he was the one to brandish it. Nothing. The violated several internal polices by approaching him in a way that can lead to only one conclusion: The riding officer was going to shoot the black kid.

[Tathar]

Being a Police Officer isn't an easy job. No one ever told me it was going to be. I agree with some things you say Ari but disbanding and/or disarming us isn't the answer
when most if not all of the truly bad people out there have guns. I think better training, training consistency across the country, and higher standards will help a lot. Also,
society itself must change/mature. The world as we know it has changed. It's not all gummy bears and rainbows boys and girls. The days of feeling safe enough to leave
your car or house unlocked are gone. It sucks, but it is true. I'll be the first to admit that there are bad shootings, but most have been good shootings. Those good shootings
have been held to the Graham standard (Graham vs Conner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor). People that are not police must understand that we must make
split second decisions, to which judges and lawyers argue months over. Our training (local agencies, not Federal nor state level) is piss poor to say the least. I, thankfully have
been trained by the US Army and Louisville Metro (which is the best police academy outside of the KSP academy). Below is a couple neat videos which I believe all people that
are not cops should watch.

[Frobozz]

Tathar, as someone who has been on both sides of the spectrum (prosecutor and defense attorney) there is alot that you posted that worries me. In fact it frightens me deeply to hear the type of argument that implicitly contains the fear that police officers and police apologists use all the time.

The implicit message you are arguing is that the world is a dangerous place and as such we should be willing to give up freedom for security. That might be OK in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, but that is not acceptable here.

This issue of police brutality is in no way new. In fact it is something that has existed in our country since before its founding as a Constitutional Republic. The reason the Bill of Rights exists is to combat the violence that the police have historically, over 200 years, visited upon the civilian population.

The issue of police brutality is not unique - it is just getting caught more on camera, and is sent around the world faster. Do people really believe that police officers are suddenly more brutal because the world is more dangerous?

Anyone who believes that is misinformed, ignorant, a fool, or a liar (and maybe a combination of several). Take a look at what the police did to the Italian community in the 1890s, the chinese in the 1910s, the jews in the 1920s, and African Americans from 1930 to current day. Do you think fire hoses and dogs were good police work? That's a rhetorically question for anyone who thinks this is a new problem.

Let me use a statistical analogy for you. A taxi cab driver is more likely to be shot on his job than a police man. A dentist is more likely to be stabbed at his. A service industry worker is more likely to be assaulted at her job. Being a police officer is becoming increasingly more safe, and in fact is one of the safer jobs an individual can have.

Well then why do we hear all about how police officers are in such a dangerous field? That's what they are trained to believe. They ignore the body armor, the riot suits, the military grade equipment yet they retain the military grade mindset (without the great restraint that the military must always have).

Police can bring down a terrorist who just blew up a marathon without killing him, they can bring down a terrorist that blew up NYC/NJ without killing him - yet they can not bring down an unarmed black man without killing him? Why?

Policing has never been, and never will be a noble profession. It is a profession of violence, oppression, towards the civilian population. The police union is one of the most powerful groups in the country and it's PR campaign is one of the greatest around.

Are there good people who are police officers? Absolutely. Are there good cops? Rarely.

[Gromgor]

Are there good people who are police officers? Absolutely. Are there good cops? Rarely.

There's a quote that has helped shape my mind as I grew into an adult:

"There are those who are good men and those who are good at being a man and rarely do the two coincide."

Being a cop is a lot like that. Police work is the very literal violent response to transgressions contrary to government policy. It is not about serving the community outside of the unrealistic line of reasoning that government serves the communities best interest. It's easy to be a good man. To make that respectable decision that society agrees is best. It's really hard to be good at being a man - where you retain your principles, especially those that fall contrary to the current mob mentality. It's easy to be a cop who tows the blue line. Who never questions "Am what I doing keeping with my oath to uphold the Constitution - and thus CITIZEN'S rights?" Because that takes a gut check. That's the bit that makes one into a cop that's good at being a cop.

Being a cop means being the bruiser that breaks the knee caps of those who aren't paying their dues and respects to the mob boss currently running the city.

Being a cop means being SAFER than any and all citizens that are currently interacting with that cop.

Police work is violence against the citizen on behalf of the elected collective representatives and it should ALWAYS be questioned, examined and administered with extreme restraint.

The current actions of the police fall far, far outside of the trust intended to be instilled in them.

[Tathar]

Tathar, as someone who has been on both sides of the spectrum (prosecutor and defense attorney)

Both sides? Being a prosecutor and a defense attorney is hardly grounds to say you know what Law Enforcement Officers face everyday...lol You go ahead sit inside the courthouse and sip your pumpkin spice latte and let murderers out on home incarceration. Unless you have ever had to wrestle with a full grown man on the ground for almost 10 minutes just to arrest him for nearly killing his wife (broken orbital and jaw bone) at 3am by yourself then you have no argument.
In no way am I saying trade freedom for security. I served in the military to guard the freedoms we have here in the U.S. As for your statistical analogies, where are the statistics? You just spouted off what you have heard in the leftest news reports. Police work is dangerous, that is a proven fact! How many cabbies and dentists have been killed this year along compared to LEOs. I'm not saying others jobs are not dangerous, but police inherently go to work with targets
on their backs. It is the nature of the beast. In my 10 years as an Officer have have been shot at twice and ran over once. I know your kind though, you'd pay good money to watch people kill police on live TV just to get your rocks off and scream down with our oppressors. Just next time you need assistance because of someone shooting at you, trying to rob you, or breaking into your house, please feel free to call a criminal and see if they will help you

"Those who turn their backs on Law Enforcement better learn to make friends with criminals"

[Sier]

Let me preface this argument with the following:

• If I walked up to you each morning and smacked you upside your head, would you start ducking by day 3?
• If you ordered Taco Bell for Lunch and got food poisoning, how soon would you be returning?
• If you buy a certain brand tire and have three blowouts in the same month, would you be switching brands anytime soon?

Now let's ask the bitter pill question:
If you get shot at or attacked by a certain race 9/10 of the time, will you start to avoid that race or avoid them altogether?

Cops are flesh and blood, not mechanical. We are hard wired to respond to positive and negative incidents. We're each capable of thinking through each incident differently to various degrees of success, but the instinct and experience is still there, and it is going to make an impact on our decisions. This is taught racism, but it's understandable to a degree as to how easily it can sneak into someone's mindset.

If a cop does something completely stupid and shoots someone needlessly, they need to be punished. Depending on the severity, they should spend the rest of their life behind bars. It's a shame it happened, but there needs to be zero tolerance to prevent future incidents and provoke thought before action.

You can reform some taught racism, however that which has been driven into instinct through experience is a more difficult animal. Some of it (non experience driven) is flatly inexcusable. Some of it merited a civil rights movement, which is still in process, and may take several hundred years to successfully conclude. But if you are consistently punched, kicked, stabbed at, beaten, and shot at by a certain group, then by golly your mindset is going to start to change.

The issue is going to be racial reform more than cop reform. This is not accomplished by improving schools. This is not accomplished by cracking down on crime harder. This is not accomplished by charity. This is accomplished by improving the moral compass of an entire people. Any other alternative is merely chipping away at the problem with only partial success.

Cops generally don't shoot the poor black man whose car broke down. They are remembering the ones before him who had a direct hand in crime. Those are the ones we need to focus on.

[Aristotle]

Let me preface this argument with the following:

• If I walked up to you each morning and smacked you upside your head, would you start ducking by day 3?
• If you ordered Taco Bell for Lunch and got food poisoning, how soon would you be returning?
• If you buy a certain brand tire and have three blowouts in the same month, would you be switching brands anytime soon?

In none of those examples is the "perpetrator" given the legal power to imprison me, confiscate my property, and kill me.

Cops generally don't shoot the poor black man whose car broke down. They are remembering the ones before him who had a direct hand in crime. Those are the ones we need to focus on.

When you are given the power to take people's life and property, you are simply not allowed to have that type of reaction.

If you do, then you are not fit for the job. Period.

This is why we need to disarm the police. They don't need guns the vast majority of the time. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Guns are pulled and used far too often, when they should rarely ever be part of a situation.

[Sier]

This is why we need to disarm the police. They don't need guns the vast majority of the time. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Guns are pulled and used far too often, when they should rarely ever be part of a situation.

There are a few prerequisites to making this happen.

1. If you disarm the police, you will have to disarm the people - Be it wholesale or select portions.
2. If you disarm the people, you will need to guarantee the criminal elements no longer carry firearms.
3. If you disarm the police without meeting prerequisites 1 and 2, you will need to ensure the police are comfortable in their position where each routine traffic stop could potentially end in a one sided armed conflict.

It's very simple to make the statement the police should be disarmed, but this is an extremely complicated overhaul. There are no easy steps to making *any* of the above prerequisites occur. If the above prerequisites are not put into play before that happens, you will not have an effective police force due to the imminent police strikes, resignations, and disastrous deaths which are certain to follow.

This is not the UK where it is an absurd rarity to own a firearm, and the police do not have to worry quite so much over simple incidents.

Disarming the police is a partial solution to a larger problem.

In reality, the correct solution(s) to the current cop violence epidemic would be as follows:
1. Ensure threat to life to the police is minimized (Gun Control) OR Reform the criminal element before it becomes a criminal element (Improve Moral Compass of Society as a Whole).
2. Improve the conditions of the criminal element - If someone is able and willing to work, they should work. If someone is able and willing to seek advanced education, they should do so.
3. Hold the Police Accountable. (Body Cameras, Stricter Penalties for Manslaughter)
4. Once items 1-3 are addressed and a Utopia is met, then and only then you can successfully disarm the police without incident.

Otherwise...yea, this is never going to happen. At least not with any level of success or permanence.