
How to make a police shooting disappear - chris_overseas
http://www.gq.com/story/tamir-rice-story
======
hga
Geeze, there's no mystery here. Point a realistic fake gun (1911 airsoft
replica with the orange band in front removed) at an armed person and,
surprise, in return they'll shoot you with their real gun. And no sane
prosecutor or grand jury will try to prosecute them for clear, white line
self-defense. What's so difficult to understand about this??

There are _so many_ bad cases of police shooting or otherwise killing people
when they had no cause or worse, why focus on ones where they were justified?

~~~
dewyatt
I see that you failed to read the article.

Literally the second paragraph:

    
    
      > Because the boy never pointed a gun at a cop. He wasn’t given the chance to even put his hands up.

~~~
hga
Sorry, initially I just skimmed the article to see if it said anything new and
interesting, it seems I'm misremembering and he just started to draw his gun,
and was only prior to that pointing it at the people (a felony, BTW) who
called 911, but that makes no difference, it was a justified shooting based on
the video and the known facts of the case.

That Roger Clark who they're leaning on so much in the story? He wouldn't be
afraid if someone pointed a gun at him? He's an idiot, or simply someone
lacking the normal emotion of fear; if the latter, such people are useful, but
are not representative of the normal population, the standard by which we
determine justification for using lethal force.

~~~
soneil
This is basically the whole point of the article. That people only remember
the press release, not the details.

Their experts didn't agree that the video showed him pulling the gun at all.
One said it showed him reaching for it, the other side it showed him jerking
after he'd been shot. And personally, I'd have a hard time believing either of
them can be conclusive - in one frame between we both his hands clearly, one
single frame in dispute, and in the next frame he's already been shot.

It's far from clear-cut.

~~~
hga
In terms of judging if the police committed a crime, it's sufficiently clear
cut, the standard comes down in favor of the (potential) defendant's side when
if it's not "conclusive" like you and some of the experts claim.

Assuming, of course, their testimony was credible, sufficiently consistent,
etc.

And my memory error wasn't "from the press release", but from the fact that he
_was_ pointing it at people prior to the police showing up.

~~~
soneil
Oh totally agree that the video isn't enough to find anyone guilty (it doesn't
pass "reasonable doubt"). But the question here was whether it even deserved a
trial. And they argued the video was conclusive enough that a trial wasn't
warranted. And that I'm less comfortable with, personally.

