CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING OF TAMIR RICE

Of all the highly publicized police shootings that we’ve experienced recently, the killing of 12 year old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio troubles me the most.  Many blame the child or the officers.  But could it be that our laws, traditions and beliefs make such events almost inevitable?

Rice had not violated any law.  He had a toy gun that is designed to shoot plastic pellets.  They are promoted and sold specifically for people who want to play combat and gunfight games.  The guns and ammunition are available online from mainline retailers including Amazon, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart.  People play gunfight games in forests, parks and at businesses organized for the purpose.

Someone called 911 to report a person with a gun in his hand near a recreation center.  The caller wanted police to check the situation and added that the person might be a child and the gun might be a toy.  As police approached, the toy gun was in the open and visible. Then Rice appeared to put it into the front of his pants. It was no more “concealed” than if he had placed it into a holster.  His actions with the toy were legal.  Had he been an adult, he could legally have done the same thing with a real gun because Ohio is an open carry state.

Video from a nearby camera shows that less than two seconds elapsed between the time the patrol car stopped and the time that Tamir Rice was shot.  Rice had not violated any law and was not threatening anyone at the time police arrived.  They had the opportunity to communicate with him from a distance over their loudspeaker and to approach him slowly.  Instead they drove the patrol car close to him at speed and stopped abruptly – enough to frighten anyone.  By using less intimidating procedure, police might have avoided the problem, but they squandered that opportunity and rushed to confrontation.  The case went to a Grand Jury which did not indict either officer.

From the police perspective, two officers were dispatched to look into a situation where someone was reported to be pointing a gun at people.   The officer who killed Rice says that Rice appeared to be handling the gun in a threatening way.  He says that he feared for his own safety and shot Rice to protect himself and his partner. Despite video evidence that the atmosphere of threat and fear was created by the police themselves, the grand jury agreed that the officer had cause for fear and therefore was justified in shooting Tamir Rice .

Police were legally justified in shooting and killing a person who had committed no crime because they perceived that individual’s actions as threats to their safety.  That interpretation of law has been upheld in many places and at many times including this case where a child was treated in a threatening manner by police and then killed by them because they perceived his behavior as threatening.

The Rice family did not feel that justice had been served.  After the Grand Jury returned no indictment, they sued the City of Cleveland. Recently the City agreed to pay $6 million in damages but did not formally admit any fault or liability by the city or its officers.  Even though there was no criminal prosecution,  the City’s attorneys obviously thought it likely that a jury would find the killing unjustified.  The  historical significance of this case is demonstrated by the Smithsonian Museum’s interest in preserving the recreation center gazebo where in occurred.

If police fear for their safety because you appear to have a gun in your hand, does that justify them shooting you?  And if not, how does the officer protect himself from criminals?  Is it time to examine and reconsider laws that allow open carry of firearms?  Or is it time for police to stop bothering people who openly carry guns?  Should parents continue to teach children, especially black children, to fear police?  Or should it be illegal for police to intimidate people and then shoot them, as they did with Tamir Rice?

The answers to those questions may be complex but I’m confident of one thing.  Reconsideration of our laws is long overdue.