The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Was Tamir Rice was justifiably killed by Officer Timothy Loehmann?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 673 times Debate No: 84961
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Tamir Rice was shot and killed by Officer Timothy Loehmann on November 22, 2014. The 26 year old officer was responding to a call at the Cudell Recreation Center about a black "male" who was pointing a gun at people. Upon arrival, Tamir reached into his waistband to retrieve the pistol. The officer fired 2 shots into Tamir's chest. They later found that the pistol Tamir was carrying was actually an airsoft gun with its orange tip removed. The officer should not face any charges as Tamir was breaking multiple laws including; carrying a concealed weapon with unlawful intentions, unlawful use of a weapon, endangerment, endangerment of a peace officer, etc.


Friendly greetings everyone, I will once again be Con for this debate, and be defending the shooting of Tamir Rice in which case was without doubt justifiable in every sense of the word.

Justifiable definition, capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible: justifiable homicide.

Funny enough, I saw this video when it first happened, and to my surprise, the cops did the right thing here in this case compared to other cop video's which is irrelevant for this debate.

If you go and watch the video, you will see a young black boy with a toy gun (probably without the orange tip) waving the gun around, making threatening gestures towards people who happen to be walking in the park, and to make a long story short, the police were then called onto the scene, and when they arrived, they were greeted by a person who was pulling something out from their waistband. That same person matched the description given by witnesses, so the cops knew this was the suspect, and you can never be sure if the gun is real or not, and I think anyone who is a cop will not wait for the suspect to pull out the gun.

The video can be watched up above. Now let's discuss this tragedy that should have not happened.

You can argue all day that the cops should have parked further from the scene to watch the kids actions, you can say they (the police) should have used a megaphone to communicate with this kid and keep in mind here folks, you have no idea how old this boy is and can only go by judgement. Needless to say, you could not tell his age from afar especially, maybe up close? Sure, and speaking of getting up close, at the time of this moment when the cops arrived, the boy had his gun in his pants, so he didn't look much of a threat then and there has been many many MANY movies, and video's where a cop receives a description of a suspect, and guess what? They drive by and stop their vehicle beside the suspect for a brief chat, so this is quite common even if it's a bad tactic, but again, the most IMPORTANT thing here to realize is that the KID DID NOT HAVE HIS GUN OUT when the cops arrived. This is obviously important because if he had the gun out, the cops most likely would have not pulled so close, and that's quite evident in lots of cop videos you can find online with armed suspects with weapons drawn. You watch most of those, and you'll see the cops from a distance using defensive measures to combat the suspect in whatever way means possible. So again, they pulled up to him and let's just assume for a minute here that they didn't know he was the suspect, let's just assume they wanted to ask him if he had saw anyone with a gun?
Well, now were greeted with two different scenario's, both in which are negative and not a winning situation because in both scenario's, the kid would have still attempted to pull out his gun, and it's human instinct to react, and cops are trained to react in under extreme cases.

I would argue it wasn't smart of the boy to carry a toy gun in the first place to a public area. I would argue it wasn't smart for a boy to go around threatening and scaring other people with the gun. At the age of 12, you should be a little more developed by now. I would also argue this could have been a suicide by cop scenario, even at such a young age.There are many children in this world who are 12 and think about suicide and while it's extremely rare to see a suicide by cop from such a young age as 12, I wouldn't be surprised.

Also, did I mention that blacks carry stereotypes? It's sad, but given the violent history of blacks which make up a pretty good portion of the crime rate and are most likely to go to jail, and given that the location of this shooting which isn't quite the most fanciest place to live, one should be cautious, especially a cop since they are already hated by many, especially a majority of blacks.

So lets go back and paint the picture on the canvas. You have a description of a black male with a gun, you arrive on the scene, and see a black male walking around. So you go over to stop the black male and question him, and he quickly reaches into his waistband without saying a single word to you and now you see something black being pulled out rather fast, are you going to wait? Why didn't the kid hold his hands above his head when he saw them arrive? Why didn't he tell them he had a toy gun and tell them the situation? Now the cops are faced with two scenarios which involve waiting for a gun to be pulled out (could be real, and there are cases where younger people have killed others, and some most sickening than just using guns) or you can subdue the suspect and are in the right of using such lethal force given the description from the calls that came in.

I think most would probably try to subdue the suspect and not wait. Now granted, you may try to tackle him, but as we all know, cops are trained to shoot at targets, and as we all know, cops don't use their tasers and other gadgets as much as they should.

I doubt they shot him because he was "black" too, but yeah they might have been more cautious of him. I'm sure if it were a white kid, the situation would have been exactly the same. I mean go back and watch the video, the situation occurred so fast with little time to think, and granted, the video is compressed, and what not, but do to the cops pulling up so close, they didn't have much time. The kid could have done a lot of things to prevent this from happening.

Also, I would question the parents of this kid more than anything. Why would a boy take a gun and go around scaring others? It just doesn't make sense. I would totally look at the parents and their history because it's clear the upbringing of this kid who was shot was not in good taste to society, and just to think if this kid lived knowing he could get away with holding a gun as an adult and still act this way? He could have killed someone for real but I digress, and that is something we will never know but to go back to the parents, you really got to question them. Were they telling their kid of all the bad things cops do to blacks, were they brainwashing the kid with news stories of blacks being shot by cops? That's something to look into.

Again, this is a justifiable case, one in which you can make many defenses for the policemen in this story, and I think this might be the biggest argument because you can actually defend the cops here. Other cop video's are irrelevant and there are tons of cases where the cop was in the wrong, and justice is being served cause most are being arrested for their actions with the exception of the Brown shooting although you can defend the cops actions in that case too which is why Wilson wasn't arrested. The cops who got arrested were clearly in the wrong and you could not defend them really, but none of this matters cause it's irrelevant and we are focused on Tamir Rice.

I would challenge you, or anyone to defend the boy in this news story. Please enlighten me on the subject and tell me why it was ok for the boy to do what he did. Can you defend that honestly?

Can you also give me sources where the cops were justified killing someone? I will tell you right now, not every case is the same. Not all bad people are going to behave the same and do the same. You got to look at every situation.

What happened was a tragedy for several reasons, but it's something that could have been avoided, and it's something that is justified.
Debate Round No. 1


DawsonS forfeited this round.


Looks like my opponent is deciding to concede this debate therefore please vote con.

The resolution was in question format with the pros first round speech more so a documentation if you will. He never argued for his case which made it unclear what side he was truly on. In retrospect, looking back, I think i chose the wrong side perhaps, but given that the pro made no attempts to defense his case in round 1, and conceded round 2, I provided a strong case for the justification in the shooting of Tamir Rice.

Tamir Rice was out of control, had bad parents who didn't teach him right from wrong, and overall just did not supervise him and rather brainwashed him with most likely the news media coverage among other things which gave the kid the idea of going out with a toy gun to scare people in the park which led to his death sadly.

This situation was completely preventable, and you cannot blame the cops as I said in round 1 with good arguments that the pro of course can't rebuttal, and obviously didn't here.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2


DawsonS forfeited this round.


So it seems the pro has decided to concede the debate and give up.

I listed good arguments that justify the shooting of Tamir.

As I have said, it was unclear by mistake of my own that he could have been defending the shooting but he never argued the defense that he made which seemed to be more of just a documentation/representation about what happened.

Anyhow, I did make the better arguments seeing that he conceded, but in this particular case, you can't really say the cops weren't right doing so. The best argument one could possibly make is the cops used terrible tactics which led to little to no reaction time of them firing their guns cause of the kid attempting to pull out his toy gun from his waistband. The tactics were terrible, but again, this happens in movies and quite often. Yes the cops should be blamed, and yes they are morons, but they were justified in the killing of Tamir Rice. This leaves little room to debate for the con side in my opinion given the only strong argument is what I said above, and the cop mentality these days on top of that is just the cherry needed to cause some controversy.

Anyhow, please vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DawsonS 2 years ago
Okie now accept it I fixed the problem ;-;
Posted by DawsonS 2 years ago
No one accept this I fked it up
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by spacetime 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit. Pro merely posted a description of the debate topic's background, and none of Con's arguments were responded to.