A 12-year-old child was shot to death by police officers in Cleveland. The child was alone in an empty park playing with a toy gun. The police claimed that the child was with a group of friends; that he ignored repeated commands to put up his hands; that he reached for what appeared to be a weapon. Only then, say the police, were they forced to use lethal force.
The officers did not know that there was a security camera across the street recording the entire incident. I leave to the viewer to assess the credibility of the officers.
Cleveland dot com copied the video and posted it in an article demanding answers from the police. My open rely to the editors of that publication follows:
“…the police have a lot of explaining to do.”
Given that the police have already lied about their actions, saying the child refused repeated orders to put up his hands – a claim made manifestly false by the video – how does one manage to express the expectation there could be any possible explanation, justification or excuse?
The stern way you appear to demand answers in the face of evidence that leaves no goddamn questions only underscores the degree to which police are given license to use force in any way they see fit against anyone that comes along. Even after LYING about the murder – and there is nothing else to call it – of a small child sitting alone in an empty park playing with a TOY, you still want them to tell you HOW IT IS that such a thing might have happened; what confluence of circumstance led to this awful (but, of course, unavoidable) outcome. They need to EXPLAIN.
Perhaps when they finish scuffing their feet, looking at their hands and stuttering about how no one understands the dangers they face every day while keeping us safe from children in empty parks, you’ll explain why it is that your paper’s tongue is jammed so deeply up the backdoor of a thin blue pair of child murderers.
One wonders at what point your newspaper would stop asking for explanations; stop giving murdering cops the opportunity to cobble together a “valid excuse” for why they shot a 12-year-old child who posed NO DANGER to ANYONE without so much as a single word.
‘He was big for his age. He looked like a demon. He had rage in his eyes. I thought he would charge me. He went for my gun. It’s difficult to be a cop, you know…you never know when you will be confronted by a 12-year-old sitting alone in a park and be forced to make a split-second life-or-death decision. YOU WEREN’T THERE!’
You ask a series of WHY questions as if there are possible answers; as if there’s some string of words that a cop might utter that would justify what appears on that tape: TWO SECONDS after those brave men arrived to serve and protect, a pubescent child was shot and killed. And they have ALREADY LIED ABOUT IT.
But even THAT – the knowledge that you are demanding answers from people who lie with the first goddamn words out of their mouth; who lie as a matter of standard operating procedure; who attempt to justify what cannot possibly be justified with complete fiction; LIES THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTED WERE IT NOT FOR THE CONTRADICTING VIDEO – does not stop you from demanding an explanation. “WHY? Tell us what reasoning you employed!”
I have a better question: Which member of that police force has the videotape of your editor-in-chief fucking a pig?