New Jersey cops shoot Radazz Hearn seven times as he pulls up pants

No, her cigarette did not pose a threat to the officer. If it was a threat, he wouldn't have pulled her out of her car but would have shot her where she sat. At the point of the officer about to hand her a ticket, he has no right to order her to put her cigarette out. She was in her car. She wasn't looking at him which is also not a crime. Did she disrespect him? Perhaps because she wasn't deferential but as a police officer he should see that every day and be professional enough to deal with it.

It wasn't because you were white; it was because white correlated to a demographic that had a very low rate of youth with guns, and deadly crimes. Look at NYC in the latter half of the 19th century, and white Protestant cops did not want to go into Irish neighborhoods for fear of their own safety. So, the solution was let the Irish police their own, and Irish cops were hired and put into Irish neighborhoods.

You seem to gloss over your admitting you were "middle class," as you state above. That to me is the operant word. As long as socioeconomic class correlates to crime of any demographic, the split second analysis that police have to effect is not going to be as correct as some would insist.

And, being a northern urban person you likely are aware of the poor Chassidic Jews in NYC that live literally off of charity, yet do not have police over-reacting for fear for their own safety. Why? Could some cultures have a history of violent behavior greater than the mean (average)?

Let's all read a William Faulkner novel to see that we're not talking racial stereotypes, but referring to cultural sociology.

So it is a fait accompli that she was murdered?

This is news to me.

So it has been determined that a woman found hanged in her cell, that has made at least one previous suicide attempt, was definately murdered?

That trial by peers and a conviction sure happened quickly. I can't keep up.

*******

to Izzy and parados....

No, she did not use the cigarette as a weapon, but it was not, in my opinion, an "abuse" of her rights for her to be told to put it out.

Lit cigarettes can, and have been used as weapons. If this officer in his professional opinion determined that he felt he could be harmed by a lit cigarette, for his own safety I have no problem with him telling someone to put it out. We couldn't see Bland in the car, see if her face was angry or even enraged, and if it might be a possibility she could thrust a burning object at him.

I myself have jabbed a lit cigarette at someone, and yes, they were burned, and backed away from me quick.

Yes parados, a lit cigarette can definately be a weapon.

I hear cries of "oh but it's her right to smoke". Yes, and she also has the option to not exercise such an "important" right. Me? Maybe I'm crazy, but if I were smoking something with a hot ember on the end, and a police officer in the course of talking to me asked me to put it out, would decide it was not such a horrible thing to abstain from for a time. Maybe because I have this amazing ability to think that choosing to cooperate in such ways will probably lessen the amount of time I'm stopped.

Yeah, people have the right to do a lot of things. Nowadays it seems of paramount important to exercise all of your rights, regardless of the situation, 24 hours a day.

Since when has this been the best course of action at all times?

There are times when having this overwhelming need to exercise some miniscule right regardless of the potential consequences equals stubborn idiocy.

If a police officer tells you to put out a stupid cigarette. ******* put it out.
If approached by an officer, do not run away. At the least it will end up being chased. duh.

Common sense isn't all that common.

These are 14 year old kids interacting with professionally trained police officers. The police officers should understand the demographics and the needs of the specific community they are paid to serve. When police officers are shooting unarmed 14 year old kids, thee police are ******* up. It is ridiculous to blame the unarmed kids for the deadly actions of the police. I don't care what demographic we are talking about.

The ability to avoid shooting shooting unarmed community members (including 14 year old kids) is a very important part of being a police officer.

If you can't do that for any reason, including fear, then you shouldn't be a police officer.

To recap:

So far, we have determined the following:

Radazz Hearn is definately dead. His breathing and heartbeat are just a clever parlor trick. We know he is dead because it could not be any other way for this news story to happen.

Sandra Blank was definitively, and without question, murdered. We know that because....well, just because. I mean, the woman wouldn't put out her cigarette, 'nuff said. Who wouldn't have murdered her days later over that?

The officer approaching Hearn was able to determine upon a glance that this person who was running from him and putting his hand to the waist of his pants, was without question exactly 14 years old. There is no possible chance that he could have looked any older. I mean, like no way. No 14 year old ever looks any older than that. Especially when seen at night, in the street. Isn't even worth considering.

What's your point Chai?

1) Sandra Blank did nothing to deserve death. You admit to having actually attacked someone with a cigarette, and yet no one would argue that you deserved death.

2) Police officers should do their job, or they should quit. It is part of a police officer's job to put themselves at risk to avoid the possibility of shooting an unarmed 14 year old kid. A police officer who is not willing to accept this risk should find a new job. Do you have a problem with this?

This police officer fucked up. And in general, the fact that these police officers keep shooting unarmed black people means the system is fucked up.

It is case after case where police officers are killing unarmed black people at a much higher rate than any other demographic group. This is fucked up.

Re #1....wow, you really get sarcasm.

Also, where did I say I attacked someone with a cigarette? I said I jabbed one at a person, and burned them, but it wasn't an attack. If you can't figure that out, I can't help you. I said a lit cigarette can indeed be used as a weapon.

As far as putting their life at risk, yes they do so, potentially every day. But to say that they should not protect themselves when they feel they are at risk is Not True. So yes, I do have a problem with the false assumption that because they put themselves at risk, they are supposed to go against their life preserving instincts to not be harmed or killed.

Musing here, maybe that's the problems I'm encountering....People are confusing that fact that a police officer took a job knowing his life can, and probably will at some point be put at risk during his duties. That in no way means however, that he's supposed to ignore things that in his professional opinion could harm or kill him.
The job of the officer is not to blindly not stop potential harm to him. That would be a death wish, and make the officer pychologically incapable of the job.


Again, and the point some people seem to be missing, is that bad police officers exist. They should be dealt with. However, it's like, as I said, a witch hunt recently, twisting and turning stories, leaving out pertinent facts that change of essence of the story, assuming from the get go the police officer must be at fault, and each person being judge jury and hangman.

I feel like there's a mob with pitchforks out there, jonesing for blood. There's little rational thought. No one is stepping back and looking at the entire picture.
If I had all the fact, I could formulate an opinion of my own as to the officers culpability.

But, in truth, as exhibited here, I've been hearing all sorts of crazy conclusions. The boy is dead! The boy is dead!...no he's not. They murdered that woman! they murdered that woman! Whoever "they" are. Did they? I don't know, no one has determined that yet. Yet, when the family immediately states "oh...she would never have done that", well that's all we need to hear to make it gospel truth, isn't it? Never mind the fact it has been found she's made a previous suicide attempt, and that we absolutely have reached no conclusions as to what happened in that cell.

Sandra Blank may have done nothing to deserve death. Then again, she may have killed herself, as she had tried in the past. Which I guess is her right.

Why are people paying so much attention to media sensation, youtube videos. and cherry picking and changing at will the facts that are currently known?
Why are we not looking at what happened, and waiting for further statements and evidence to be brought to light, that could change our knowledge of what happened?

Maybe the policeman did shoot inappropriately. Maybe Sandra Blank was murdered. Maybe maybe maybe.
I just don't know, and won't until I know the entire, fact based, evidenced based story.

It's almost like some people want to have police officers harmed, in order to prove they are really doing their job properly.

So your argument is that the police can violate your rights all they want and everyone should comply.
1. A police officer can't order you to stop doing something that is legal. It was not a threat since she was in her car. He was outside. The door of the car was closed. He could take one step back if he felt a threat from the cigarette. Your argument is asinine when you say it was a threat. (Police also can't order you to stop filming them but they have been known to do that as well.) Based on the video it appears the officer clearly violated Sandra Bland's rights when he ordered her out of the car at the end of the stop. Once he had written the ticket and gone back to her car with it, he had lost the ability to order her out under current Supreme Court rulings. He cannot claim he was in danger from traffic since he had already stood there before he went back to his car.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/106/case.html

2. Running from a police officer when you see one is not illegal and is not a reason for a police officer to stop you let alone shoot you. This has been ruled on by the Supreme Court. A police officer that chases you simply because you ran away is violating your rights unless they have a valid reason other than your running.

Yes, because as I said parados...the part you chose to leave out, is that it's so earth shatteringly important to exercise each and every single human right we have at every single instant of our lives. God forbid that for one nano second we be decide to not actively do exactly what we want to do at any give time, because it's our right.

What was I thinking? Of course she shouldn't have put out that cigarette. For an entire 5 minutes she would have had to suffer the tortures of the damned, all the circles of hell simultaneously, because she didn't feel like it. Of course she should have completely exercised that right. No way should she have had to put up with an officer who was Maybe going to give her a ticket because she changed lanes without signaling (which is on tape BTW)

That's because every single right that we have is absolutley equally important and we should never use our powers of thinking into the future to decide if what we want to do at this instant is worth even one extra second waiting to get a ticket for something we actually did, and move on with our lives.

So many people are so ******* self important that it's impossible to comprehend that doing something like putting out a cigarette may be against their "rights" but it sure goes a long way in not making your every waking instant the Me Me Me Show.

The audacity of people and their all important piddley ass rights like smoking a cigarette. There are some rights we have we may be willing to die or worth being held up for a few minutes, or be arrested for, etc etc etc in order to exercise them. If this is one of them, you're welcome to it.

and BTW, she didn't die over a cigarette.



Ya know what? Sometimes ya just gotta go with the flow, even if it's not the direction you were originally heading. If Blank had a crystal ball which saw her being taken to jail, I wonder if she would have been smoking when the cop walked up in the first place. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing in the big cosmic wheel of life she might just have put that smoke out. She at least, if she felt suicidal again, could decide where she wanted to end it all.

I can't speak to the legality of running away from a cop. But I do know it's probably a very very stupid thing. Very. Regardless of who you are.

But hey, this dead/not dead kid is big news until 24 minutes from now.

First of all, I never said she died over the cigarette. However, if the police officer had acted properly she never would have been arrested in the first place and one can certainly tie the arrest to her death in jail.


The part you keep leaving out is that police officers are supposed to be professionals trained in what they can and can't do under the law. This has nothing to do with what other people should or shouldn't do when they are confronted by an officer. Police officers every day deal with people that act badly and yell at them and do lots of other things that would set of every day citizens. Most police officers take it and keep the situation under control without responding with violence on their part. Most officers would have done one of two things, ignored the cigarette or offered to come back when the cigarette was done.

This statement shows how outlandish your argument is. That you would justify a police officer killing someone because they refused to put out their cigarette is rather audacious, don't you think? Police are supposed to be the grown ups in the room during a traffic stop. They are the ones that should calm the other person down. That is their ******* job, to protect the ******* rights of others. (Since you want to get all scatological.)

You also don't seem to understand sarcasm, as in the "you're welcome to it" comment. Where you preceived "outlandish" I was expressing, "come on folks, are you ******* kidding me?" Sorry (not) if that was too subtle for you.

As already stated, and really anything I have to say here would be repeating, I have acknowledged "There are bad cops, and they need to be dealt with" That covers everything and anything any person wanting to go one about this "they're supposed to be professionals" have to put up with asshole citizens, etc etc.

Really? Are you going to try to make me address you specifically over "I never said...."? after all the comments alluding to that already made? Sorry, I lost my score sheet as to who exactly said what in which post. Mea culpa. Yes and read sarcasm there. On an unsarcastic note, I simply don't have the time or energy to look up exactly what each and every individual has said, which is BTW, my right. Now you could say, but then you're not doing it correctly! I didn't say that and you have to directly address that!
Yeah, but I'm choosing not to exercise a right which is pretty much beating dead horses.


Actually, since she was suicidal before any of this, I'm not convinced there is any kind of connection at all.

Anyway, I wouldn't be at all surprised if any of us, when stopped by a police officer for something wrong we definately and obviously did (or not), and was told "put out that cigarette" we directly and quickly did just that.

At least if I were sitting in the passenger seat, and you were giving guff about "it's my right' I'd look right at you and say "stop being stupid and put it out for Christs sake" It's funny, I live in the real world where putting out a smoke is not some human rights violation I'll need therapy for, for PTSD or something.

Guess that's how I've managed not to hang myself or get my ass shot for being an idiot and running away from a police officer.

Since you were specifically replying to my post, I would think you would be reading it and responding in real time and would know I didn't say something but I guess that is expecting too much of you.

You wouldn't get your ass shot, Chai, even if you ran away from a police officer.

That's really the point you are missing here.

What you're saying is that the onus is on the black person to do exactly what they're told to do by the police officer no matter how unreasonable his demands.

If black people have problems with a racist police force they're being unreasonable. The police can carry on harassing and abusing black people. You seem to have a problem with it being reported.

Yes, and I would have expected you to read my reply addressing that, so I guess we're even.

What Chai is saying is reasonable. There is nothing unreasonable about suggesting that someone shouldn't run away from a police officer who stops them.

But there are two separate issues here.

1) Someone stopped by police should cooperate.
2) Police shouldn't shoot people unless they are absolutely certain that there is an imminent danger to themselves or others. (And, not cooperating does not mean there is imminent danger).

I agree with the point that Chai is making, I just think she is missing the secondary point.

What is happening is that the police are shooting far too many people who are not at all dangerous to anyone (including 14 year old unarmed kids). And the real problem it is clear that people who are Black (including 14 year old unarmed kids) are far more likely to be shot then White kids.

This is maddeningly unfair. The police should be shooting fewer people, and they should be much more careful to be sure that someone is an imminent deadly threat before they shoot. And they certainly should not be treating Black kids any different than White kids when making this life and death decision.

I have problem with agreeing with Chai's point. I only wish she could see the point the other side is making.

I see three big categories why a policeman would shoot someone. There are probably more and shades of these three, but IMO, they are:

- The policeman is in danger.
- Even though there is no threat a reasonable person can see, the policeman is scared.
- The policeman is expecting a certain amount of respect and to be obeyed and this is not happening, causing him to get irate.

The first one is obvious, so I'll discuss the second and third.

After the Rodney King, LA riots, there was a lot of work around trying to improve and understand the LA police situation. They brought in psychologists to interview police (can't find the link) and the police described how generally when they pulled over a black man, they were scared and immediately saw him as a dangerous threat out of proportion to the actual threat. So, if you are scared, you are scared, but police have to be trained not to draw down on someone without a rational situation analysis. Some will argue that there is not time to do this. I will argue the opposite, that there must be time to do it or else the policeman should not engage. The policeman controls the traffic stop, the approach in the neighborhood, etc. If his mind isn't in the right place, slow it down. I was scared so I killed someone who was not a thread is absolutely not a defense to me although it seems to work for a lot of people.

The last one is to me the most dangerous and damaging to police reputation. You don't tell someone smoking in a car to put out a cigarette because it is a weapon. No doubt you could give me a nasty little burn with it, but you are not going to kill me or even put me out of action. All you are going to do is ensure you get a trip to jail. The only reason to tell someone to put out a cigarette is the little power trip it provides. Why would you slam someone to the ground for selling single cigarettes? Why shoot someone in the back for running away? Well, because when a policeman says jump, you say "how high". As long as we condone and even approve of that behavior, we will see more of it. Police should be guardians of the public, not enforcers of the peace.

No, that is not what I'm saying. No idea where you got that from.

Since you, parados, bob and others have a compulsion to either (a) read words that were not written and (b) simultaneously not read written words that are in the English language, I'll explain, yet again.


Please pay attention this time.

What I am saying is a person (get this now, I'm saying a person, regardless of race, religion, social or financial status) should be able to know enough to obey a directions of an officer of the law, that is not in any way unreasonable.

For instance, and as much as I dread bringing up this idiotic cigarette situation yet again....It is in no way unreasonable for an officer to tell a person to put out a cigarette. Even though it is some God given right apparantly to smoke, it is in no way unreasonable to be told by a police officer when he's talking to you put the cigarette out.
On the other hand, it is reasonable under some situations for an officer to tell someone to put out the cigarette. For example, if he has in his opinion determined it may represent a safety hazard to him.

Secondly I am under the opinion that it would be an extremely rare occurance where a person would be justified in running away from a police officer when he approaches you.

Now, a person may choose to run from a police officer if he feels he has done something wrong, or has something in his position he shouldn't have. However, this would be a move of desparation, but I can see how you would want to get away if you are involved in anything you shouldn't be.

If however, you are doing nothing illegal, there is no reason I can think off why anyone would try to escape the police. Is it your "right" to run from the police?
Well, the Supreme Court has stated 'if you run from police, that's suspicion.'"

So regardless of what your rights are, the police are now justified of being suspicious.

The police officer in this case, who was justified being suspicious of a person fleeing, in addition made a hand movement of grabbing at their waist.

In this case, the police where responding to a report of gunshoots being fired. A person ran away, arousing suspicion. The same person while fleeing, reaches for his waist, where normally a gun would be carried.

I don't think it's a huge leap to connect seeking someone shooting guns, to someone trying to run away, and making the same type of motion a person trying to draw a gun would make, and thinking one's safety and life may be in danger.

Even though a police officer is aware his life may be in danger when confronting a situation, they are not obliged to do nothing to ensure their own personal safety.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but were I a black person in the US right now, confronted by a cop, my instinct would be to run.

Well said Engineer. I would like to hear Chai comment on this. I suspect that race comes into this as well... an officer would be much less likely to do this with a middle class White or Asian woman.