![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM: Two independent investigations from a Colorado prosecutor and a former FBI supervisory agent have concluded that the shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice was reasonable and objectively justified, arguing that any reasonable officer placed in the same scenario could have concluded deadly force was necessary.
As you might expect, Rice’s family disagrees with those findings.
Note that these are just third-party investigations – the actual case hasn’t started yet. But it’s not hard to see where this is going – if the grand jury decides to press charges against officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback, I would be surprised.
Vox has a good write-up here on the independent investigations, the details of the shooting, the officers/police force involved, and the legal background behind the circumstances under which deadly force is justified.
And the details make one thing clear: if the grand jury decides the shooting was justified, then we’re pretty much saying that it is legally and socially acceptable for cops to execute anyone they feel is threatening them, regardless of age.
Okay, I’m exaggerating a little. But there’s an obvious disconnect here. I can pretty much guarantee that all of the people backing the police officers involved in the Rice shooting would be less inclined to support them if it was their kid shot down in two seconds. But Tamir Rice isn't their kid. So I guess they feel they can afford to fall back on the same simplistic pro-police meme that I see on Facebook every single time something like this happens (paraphrased):
I support our brave law enforcement officers because we must have Law And Order at all costs, and once you start second-guessing the police yr only one step away from total anarchy etc and so on.
Jon Stewart has already addressed this, but it’s worth repeating: it’s entirely possible to be pro-police and anti-corruption, anti-racist and anti-shooting-unarmed-kids at the same time. And the more that bad cops are allowed to hide behind grand juries who find that their actions are technically legal under loose SCOTUS guidelines, the more it undermines the authority of legitimate law enforcement. Ask Frank Serpico if you don’t believe me.
I guess the question really boils down to this: do you want to live in a society where the police can justify shooting unarmed petty criminals and innocent people, even if they’re kids, and regardless of the severity of the crime they were allegedly and initially stopped for – shoplifting, selling illegal cigarettes, broken taillight, etc?
ADDENDUM: Yes, yes, I know some people will claim that Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Walter Scott are different because they allegedly challenged or resisted the police. Like that’s an excuse to kill them. Or justifies what happened to Tamir Rice.
Don’t shoot,
This is dF
As you might expect, Rice’s family disagrees with those findings.
Note that these are just third-party investigations – the actual case hasn’t started yet. But it’s not hard to see where this is going – if the grand jury decides to press charges against officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback, I would be surprised.
Vox has a good write-up here on the independent investigations, the details of the shooting, the officers/police force involved, and the legal background behind the circumstances under which deadly force is justified.
And the details make one thing clear: if the grand jury decides the shooting was justified, then we’re pretty much saying that it is legally and socially acceptable for cops to execute anyone they feel is threatening them, regardless of age.
Okay, I’m exaggerating a little. But there’s an obvious disconnect here. I can pretty much guarantee that all of the people backing the police officers involved in the Rice shooting would be less inclined to support them if it was their kid shot down in two seconds. But Tamir Rice isn't their kid. So I guess they feel they can afford to fall back on the same simplistic pro-police meme that I see on Facebook every single time something like this happens (paraphrased):
I support our brave law enforcement officers because we must have Law And Order at all costs, and once you start second-guessing the police yr only one step away from total anarchy etc and so on.
Jon Stewart has already addressed this, but it’s worth repeating: it’s entirely possible to be pro-police and anti-corruption, anti-racist and anti-shooting-unarmed-kids at the same time. And the more that bad cops are allowed to hide behind grand juries who find that their actions are technically legal under loose SCOTUS guidelines, the more it undermines the authority of legitimate law enforcement. Ask Frank Serpico if you don’t believe me.
I guess the question really boils down to this: do you want to live in a society where the police can justify shooting unarmed petty criminals and innocent people, even if they’re kids, and regardless of the severity of the crime they were allegedly and initially stopped for – shoplifting, selling illegal cigarettes, broken taillight, etc?
ADDENDUM: Yes, yes, I know some people will claim that Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Walter Scott are different because they allegedly challenged or resisted the police. Like that’s an excuse to kill them. Or justifies what happened to Tamir Rice.
Don’t shoot,
This is dF
