It isn’t relevant since there was no indication of any instability during his time serving with the Cleveland PD.
If it’s relevant at all it simply shows the PD failed to do even the most basic due diligence in hiring him but still has no relevance to how he acted that day.
His behavior with Rice demonstrates he wasn’t fit for duty as his previous employer had determined.
He lied about it on his application. It doesn’t absolve the Cleveland PD from their responsibility but it implicated him as well.
What a load of crap. Everything he did that day was lawful and justified hence the reason the shoot was ruled “a good shoot” and the reason he was no billed by the GJ.
His actions with respect to the shooting violated no law and no department policy period.
So did he do the right thing by shooting Tamir Rice?
Given the circumstances of course just as the review board and GJ found.
It was right to shoot a boy armed with a pellet gun?
Sorry, that’s not ever going to be right with me.
Only one person involved here knew it was a pellet gun and he’s the guy that was waiving it around.
The facts haven’t changed, it was good shoot and the GJ no billed him because he violated no law and no department policy.
He acted completely lawfully and appropriately given the circumstances.
Gotcha. You think it was was good he shot that boy.
That would appear to be the difference between the two of us. I consider it a tragedy.
Who said anything about “good” or “bad” other than yourself.
What’s at issue is whether or not he acted appropriately under the circumstances and the investigation shows that’s exactly what he did.
His actions were perfectly lawful and followed department procedures and guidelines given the circumstances of the event.
It’s a tragedy that never should have happened but it wasn’t the officer who shot him that was responsible for putting the gun in the boy’s hand, him threatening/intimidating people with it, or allowing him out of the house with it.
It wasn’t the officer who was responsible for failing to relate all of the relevant information to the arriving officers, that was the fault of the dispatcher.
It wasn’t he who placed himself in a situation where he had no choice but to fire, that was the idiot driving the car.
It was the boy who made an obvious threatening move towards him getting up off of the bench, rapidly approaching, and attempting to draw the gun from his waste band. That was the boy who was then shot perfectly lawfully and appropriately.
All the officer had to work with was the information given him by dispatch and the situation his TO put him in where he was left with no choice.
So was it good he shot the boy or not?
Why do I need to repeat myself?
Who said anything about “good” or “bad” other than yourself.
Do you not understand the difference between a shooting being ruled as “Good” or “Bad” meaning lawful or unlawful, within or not within department policy?
Was it good he shot him?
Was that the right thing to do?
I don’t think so. Do you?
It isn’t a matter of good or bad, it is a matter of what was lawful and reasonable under the circumstances.
What part of that is it you fail to understand?
His actions were perfectly lawful and followed department procedures and guidelines given the circumstances of the event.
It’s a tragedy that never should have happened but it wasn’t the officer who shot him that was responsible for putting the gun in the boy’s hand, him threatening/intimidating people with it, or allowing him out of the house with it.
Why do I need to keep repeating myself, am I using words you can’t grasp?
I’m asking a question you refuse to answer. Why do you keep making me repeat myself?
Was it good he shot him?
It’s not about whether it was legal ir not. Was it good?
You’re asking a question and getting the proper answer instead of the one you are hoping for.
There is no moral component here of good or bad as I said it was a tragedy that never should have happened.
The only thing at issue is whether or not it was lawful and reasonable under the circumstances present and it was both.
You’re right about one thing. It should never have happened because he should have never been a cop.
That’s the issue.
But keep pounding away at your red herring if you want.
The incident would have happened no matter who was sitting in the passenger seat that day with the same result.
There is no red herring other than the one you keep dragging around.
His actions that day were lawful, reasonable, and within department policy which is why it was ruled a good shoot by the investigating board and why he was no billed by the GJ.
To this day he is still a cop.
They had no respect for human life - at least not a black human life. It’s really that simple and this is what needs to change.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
He should have never been there that day. He’s unfit for service. I feel sorry for the people he’s supposed to serve.
Oh my. Scary looking tall children. Trigger happy cop.
