Right on cue to blame the victim. All of them look alike.
Victim?
Of what? Who's a victim?
He ran around a school yard or playground with a gun and got what he was pretty clearly asking for.
Cops were rightfully cleared, so who's the victim again?
You clearly have a bias. I've played on a playground with friends playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians countless times with toy guns without the cops rolling in and shooting one of us.
Except this dumba$$ was by himself pointing a black gun at people.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 12-29-2015 08:55 AM by blunderbuss.)
(12-29-2015 04:57 AM)HappyAppy Wrote: At the very least he was the victim of an unfortunate series of errors (as the prosecutor said). A reasonable person can look at this event and think that the cops shouldn't be charged, yet still think it's a tragedy because a 12 year old child is dead.
Quote:On November 22, 2014, Cleveland Police Officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback were dispatched to a call involving a person with a pistol outside a recreation center. As a result, 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was in possession of fake or replica of a Colt 1911 semi-automatic pistol, was shot by officer Loemann and died from his wounds.
The tragic incident set off a firestorm of public criticism. Ultimately, a Cleveland judge issued a nonbinding order on June 11 stating that there was probable cause for the district attorney to bring criminal charges against the officers, noting that he was "thunderstruck" by how quickly the officer employed lethal force.
Many people incorrectly believe that police should wait and see what someone is going to do with a weapon before using any force. If that were the law or even police policy, then there would be lots more dead police officers because criminals would realize that they get to take the first shot.
Two days later, likely in response to the judge's order, the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department investigative file was released by the district attorney.
This case file, which was not available to the judge, includes some vital details which, in all likelihood, led to the grand jury's decision not to accuse any officer of any criminal wrongdoing in Rice's tragic death.
The starting place to examine any instance of police use of force is the law. The law that applies is provided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Graham v. Conner.
The case specifically provides that any use of force incident must be "objectively reasonable" under the totality of the circumstances and that "[t]he "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." It also clarified "the 'reasonableness' inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation."
In light of this ruling, let's turn to the specific facts: the totality of the circumstances as considered by the grand jury and outlined in the official investigation that support the shooting as legally justified.
1. The dispatcher advised the officers "Cudell Rec Center... there's a black male sitting on a swing pulling a gun out of his pants and pointing it at people." It is important to note here that the officers here did not know that the 911 caller had informed the dispatcher that the gun was "probably fake" or that Rice may have been a juvenile.
2. Tamir Rice, while being a mere 12 years old, appeared much older. He weighed 195 pounds at the time and both responding officers believed he was an adult as did officers who responded after the shooting.
3. As the officers pulled up to confront Rice, surveillance video of the shooting verifies that Rice could be seen "pulling up his outer garment with both hands near the right side of his waist." This is consistent with Loemann's contention that he saw Rice reaching for his gun.
4. After firing two shots at Rice, Officer Loemann "stumbled and fell backward, regained his footing, and found cover behind [the police vehicle]." This is objective evidence that Officer Loemann truly believed he was in fact dealing with an armed and dangerous individual. Otherwise, he would not have felt the need to seek a position of cover.
5. Upon realizing the injuries to Rice, the officers asked for the responding ambulance to "step it up" -- meaning to expedite their response to the scene. This shows that there was no malice, ill will or indifference to human life on the part of the officers.
6. Multiple veteran officers, including the responding officers, believed the gun that Rice possessed was in fact real and Rice himself had been warned, upon receipt of the gun, to be careful with it because it looked so real.
The bottom line is that the shooting was objectively legal in the totality of the circumstances. Most of those circumstances were unknown to the judge who ruled in an advisory opinion that there was probable cause to charge the officers in the shooting. But one must analyze from the vantage point of the cop on scene who has to make a life or death decision in a split second.
Furthermore, I think the release of district attorney's investigative file was in response to the judge's ruling and suggests that he did not want this grand jury to indict the officers. A competent and responsible prosecutor should more concerned with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," the standard needed to convict, rather than the much lower standard of "probable cause" needed to arrest someone.
The officers who were involved were dispatched to a "man with a gun" call and were advised that he was pointing it at people. They also were not told he may be a juvenile. He was almost 200 pounds and appeared to them to be an adult according to the report. Every officer who saw the fake gun thought it was real when they first saw it.
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2015 02:54 PM by Kaplony.)
My biggest problem is how they came in SWAT style on the kid. Some say that the kid was trying to show the officer that it was a toy. However, in a 2 sec reaction where you pull the squad car in like in an action movie in the grass nearly taking out the Gazebo, the officer really has not had a chance to assess the situation.
(12-30-2015 03:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote: My biggest problem is how they came in SWAT style on the kid. Some say that the kid was trying to show the officer that it was a toy. However, in a 2 sec reaction where you pull the squad car in like in an action movie in the grass nearly taking out the Gazebo, the officer really has not had a chance to assess the situation.
We talked about that when the incident first happened. I stated then that IMO they encountered Rice far sooner than what they anticipated, primarily because had Rice had an actual gun at the very least he shoots Loehmann before he ever gets out of the car.
Quote:There were bystanders at the recreation center
Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Matthew Meyer presented surveillance images during the press conference that showed dozens of innocent bystanders in and around Cudell at the moment officers arrived.
"Officer Garmback, based on the information given to him by dispatch, has a reasonable belief that he faced a potential active shooter because he had an apparently reliable report of a man with a gun at a rec center filled with children and adults," Meyer said.
"We expect that officers would risk their lives to confront a gunman threatening innocent people at a recreation center," he said.
I understand it a little bit more. Probably wouldn't have done it for the tactical reason listed above, but I understand why they did. The senior officer on scene made the judgement call that while the tactical situation wasn't ideal the element of surprise would overcome that. Had it been a real gun and an true active shooter it's hard to say if it would have been effective or not but I can understand the thought process.
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2015 03:42 PM by Kaplony.)
(12-30-2015 03:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote: My biggest problem is how they came in SWAT style on the kid. Some say that the kid was trying to show the officer that it was a toy. However, in a 2 sec reaction where you pull the squad car in like in an action movie in the grass nearly taking out the Gazebo, the officer really has not had a chance to assess the situation.
We talked about that when the incident first happened. I stated then that IMO they encountered Rice far sooner than what they anticipated, primarily because had Rice had an actual gun at the very least he shoots Loehmann before he ever gets out of the car.
Quote:There were bystanders at the recreation center
Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Matthew Meyer presented surveillance images during the press conference that showed dozens of innocent bystanders in and around Cudell at the moment officers arrived.
"Officer Garmback, based on the information given to him by dispatch, has a reasonable belief that he faced a potential active shooter because he had an apparently reliable report of a man with a gun at a rec center filled with children and adults," Meyer said.
"We expect that officers would risk their lives to confront a gunman threatening innocent people at a recreation center," he said.
I understand it a little bit more. Probably wouldn't have done it for the tactical reason listed above, but I understand why they did. The senior officer on scene made the judgement call that while the tactical situation wasn't ideal the element of surprise would overcome that. Had it been a real gun and an true active shooter it's hard to say if it would have been effective or not but I can understand the thought process.
So it was determined before they got there that they were planning to shoot if they were looking for the element of surprise.
(12-30-2015 03:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote: My biggest problem is how they came in SWAT style on the kid. Some say that the kid was trying to show the officer that it was a toy. However, in a 2 sec reaction where you pull the squad car in like in an action movie in the grass nearly taking out the Gazebo, the officer really has not had a chance to assess the situation.
We talked about that when the incident first happened. I stated then that IMO they encountered Rice far sooner than what they anticipated, primarily because had Rice had an actual gun at the very least he shoots Loehmann before he ever gets out of the car.
Quote:There were bystanders at the recreation center
Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Matthew Meyer presented surveillance images during the press conference that showed dozens of innocent bystanders in and around Cudell at the moment officers arrived.
"Officer Garmback, based on the information given to him by dispatch, has a reasonable belief that he faced a potential active shooter because he had an apparently reliable report of a man with a gun at a rec center filled with children and adults," Meyer said.
"We expect that officers would risk their lives to confront a gunman threatening innocent people at a recreation center," he said.
I understand it a little bit more. Probably wouldn't have done it for the tactical reason listed above, but I understand why they did. The senior officer on scene made the judgement call that while the tactical situation wasn't ideal the element of surprise would overcome that. Had it been a real gun and an true active shooter it's hard to say if it would have been effective or not but I can understand the thought process.
So it was determined before they got there that they were planning to shoot if they were looking for the element of surprise.
Quite a leap in logic there.
Surprise can disorient a subject long enough for you to restrain them. Maybe in the first few seconds the suspect is focused on the car and not the officers getting out of it. If the suspect is indeed an active shooter that distraction can save several innocent civilian lives, or can overwhelm the suspect enough that he simply gives up.
(12-30-2015 03:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote: My biggest problem is how they came in SWAT style on the kid. Some say that the kid was trying to show the officer that it was a toy. However, in a 2 sec reaction where you pull the squad car in like in an action movie in the grass nearly taking out the Gazebo, the officer really has not had a chance to assess the situation.
We talked about that when the incident first happened. I stated then that IMO they encountered Rice far sooner than what they anticipated, primarily because had Rice had an actual gun at the very least he shoots Loehmann before he ever gets out of the car.
Quote:There were bystanders at the recreation center
Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Matthew Meyer presented surveillance images during the press conference that showed dozens of innocent bystanders in and around Cudell at the moment officers arrived.
"Officer Garmback, based on the information given to him by dispatch, has a reasonable belief that he faced a potential active shooter because he had an apparently reliable report of a man with a gun at a rec center filled with children and adults," Meyer said.
"We expect that officers would risk their lives to confront a gunman threatening innocent people at a recreation center," he said.
I understand it a little bit more. Probably wouldn't have done it for the tactical reason listed above, but I understand why they did. The senior officer on scene made the judgement call that while the tactical situation wasn't ideal the element of surprise would overcome that. Had it been a real gun and an true active shooter it's hard to say if it would have been effective or not but I can understand the thought process.
So it was determined before they got there that they were planning to shoot if they were looking for the element of surprise.
Quite a leap in logic there.
Surprise can disorient a subject long enough for you to restrain them. Maybe in the first few seconds the suspect is focused on the car and not the officers getting out of it. If the suspect is indeed an active shooter that distraction can save several innocent civilian lives, or can overwhelm the suspect enough that he simply gives up.
They used a car for distraction. There was a case in California where cops thought a guy was robbing a bank and did the same thing. Driving toward somebody isn't going disorient them. One could argue that the cops put themselves in more harm doing that. Are they going to shoot out of the car or through the windshield. I'm trying to understand the logic. Almost better to just run the person over, I've seen that too.
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2015 04:33 PM by firmbizzle.)
(12-30-2015 03:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote: My biggest problem is how they came in SWAT style on the kid. Some say that the kid was trying to show the officer that it was a toy. However, in a 2 sec reaction where you pull the squad car in like in an action movie in the grass nearly taking out the Gazebo, the officer really has not had a chance to assess the situation.
We talked about that when the incident first happened. I stated then that IMO they encountered Rice far sooner than what they anticipated, primarily because had Rice had an actual gun at the very least he shoots Loehmann before he ever gets out of the car.
Quote:There were bystanders at the recreation center
Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Matthew Meyer presented surveillance images during the press conference that showed dozens of innocent bystanders in and around Cudell at the moment officers arrived.
"Officer Garmback, based on the information given to him by dispatch, has a reasonable belief that he faced a potential active shooter because he had an apparently reliable report of a man with a gun at a rec center filled with children and adults," Meyer said.
"We expect that officers would risk their lives to confront a gunman threatening innocent people at a recreation center," he said.
I understand it a little bit more. Probably wouldn't have done it for the tactical reason listed above, but I understand why they did. The senior officer on scene made the judgement call that while the tactical situation wasn't ideal the element of surprise would overcome that. Had it been a real gun and an true active shooter it's hard to say if it would have been effective or not but I can understand the thought process.
So it was determined before they got there that they were planning to shoot if they were looking for the element of surprise.
Quite a leap in logic there.
Surprise can disorient a subject long enough for you to restrain them. Maybe in the first few seconds the suspect is focused on the car and not the officers getting out of it. If the suspect is indeed an active shooter that distraction can save several innocent civilian lives, or can overwhelm the suspect enough that he simply gives up.
They used a car for distraction. There was a case in California where cops thought a guy was robbing a bank and did the same thing. Driving toward somebody isn't going disorient them. One could argue that the cops put themselves in more harm doing that. Are they going to shoot out of the car or through the windshield. I'm trying to understand the logic.
(12-30-2015 04:32 PM)firmbizzle Wrote: They used a car for distraction. There was a case in California where cops thought a guy was robbing a bank and did the same thing. Driving toward somebody isn't going disorient them.
It isn't? You are standing there shooting someone when a car comes out of nowhere to within feet of you and you wouldn't be disoriented?
Quote:One could argue that the cops put themselves in more harm doing that.
Of course they did, but when you make the decision to intervene to save a life you always put yourself in more harm. On both of my saves I put myself in more harm when I made the determination to enter the structure to effect the rescue. For that matter in every structure fire I fought interior I put myself in more harm than if I took the safe way out. When you work in public safety you make those decisions, most of the time in a matter of seconds. Lucky for me I don't have the uneducated public second guessing every time I did it like law enforcement does.
Quote:Are they going to shoot out of the car or through the windshield.
If the situation required it yes they would have, but from the video it appears they were going to get out of the vehicle and apprehend the suspect. That plan changed when Rice pulls up his shirt and reaches for the gun. At that point you as a law enforcement officer have two choices: 1. shoot and live or 2. Wait and die.
Quote:I'm trying to understand the logic. Almost better to just run the person over, I've seen that too.
As I stated above, with the knowledge gained from the prosecutor I wouldn't have done what they did, but I'm making that determination 404 days after the incident with a lot more information at hand than they had the opportunity to do so.
As for running them over, ask a couple former SC Troopers what happens when you hit black people with patrol cars in the era of the Obama Justice Dept.
(12-30-2015 04:32 PM)firmbizzle Wrote: They used a car for distraction. There was a case in California where cops thought a guy was robbing a bank and did the same thing. Driving toward somebody isn't going disorient them.
It isn't? You are standing there shooting someone when a car comes out of nowhere to within feet of you and you wouldn't be disoriented?
Quote:One could argue that the cops put themselves in more harm doing that.
Of course they did, but when you make the decision to intervene to save a life you always put yourself in more harm. On both of my saves I put myself in more harm when I made the determination to enter the structure to effect the rescue. For that matter in every structure fire I fought interior I put myself in more harm than if I took the safe way out. When you work in public safety you make those decisions, most of the time in a matter of seconds. Lucky for me I don't have the uneducated public second guessing every time I did it like law enforcement does.
Quote:Are they going to shoot out of the car or through the windshield.
If the situation required it yes they would have, but from the video it appears they were going to get out of the vehicle and apprehend the suspect. That plan changed when Rice pulls up his shirt and reaches for the gun. At that point you as a law enforcement officer have two choices: 1. shoot and live or 2. Wait and die.
Quote:I'm trying to understand the logic. Almost better to just run the person over, I've seen that too.
As I stated above, with the knowledge gained from the prosecutor I wouldn't have done what they did, but I'm making that determination 404 days after the incident with a lot more information at hand than they had the opportunity to do so.
As for running them over, ask a couple former SC Troopers what happens when you hit black people with patrol cars in the era of the Obama Justice Dept.
What are Rice's options here? What is he suppose to do? You are laying out the officer's choices but again they put themselves in that situation forcing Rice to make a split second decision. Same thing with these no knock raids. How do you expect people to react when you surprise them? Fight or Flight.
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2015 05:13 PM by firmbizzle.)
(12-30-2015 04:32 PM)firmbizzle Wrote: They used a car for distraction. There was a case in California where cops thought a guy was robbing a bank and did the same thing. Driving toward somebody isn't going disorient them.
It isn't? You are standing there shooting someone when a car comes out of nowhere to within feet of you and you wouldn't be disoriented?
Quote:One could argue that the cops put themselves in more harm doing that.
Of course they did, but when you make the decision to intervene to save a life you always put yourself in more harm. On both of my saves I put myself in more harm when I made the determination to enter the structure to effect the rescue. For that matter in every structure fire I fought interior I put myself in more harm than if I took the safe way out. When you work in public safety you make those decisions, most of the time in a matter of seconds. Lucky for me I don't have the uneducated public second guessing every time I did it like law enforcement does.
Quote:Are they going to shoot out of the car or through the windshield.
If the situation required it yes they would have, but from the video it appears they were going to get out of the vehicle and apprehend the suspect. That plan changed when Rice pulls up his shirt and reaches for the gun. At that point you as a law enforcement officer have two choices: 1. shoot and live or 2. Wait and die.
Quote:I'm trying to understand the logic. Almost better to just run the person over, I've seen that too.
As I stated above, with the knowledge gained from the prosecutor I wouldn't have done what they did, but I'm making that determination 404 days after the incident with a lot more information at hand than they had the opportunity to do so.
As for running them over, ask a couple former SC Troopers what happens when you hit black people with patrol cars in the era of the Obama Justice Dept.
What are Rice's options here? What is he suppose to do? You are laying out the officer's choices but again they put themselves in that situation forcing Rice to make a split second decision.
Raise his hands and nobody outside of him, the officers, and his parents likely know of this incident.
And remember that the officers were put in the position they were in because Rice was brandishing a realistic looking weapon in a public park.
Firm there is no perfect world. There are much worse cases of police conduct. Cop saw him reaching into his waist for a gun. Dispatch
told them a guy was hanging at the park Rec Center pointing a gun at people. There isn't time for a polite conversation.
![[Image: CXW752FUMAEiT-v.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXW752FUMAEiT-v.jpg)
![[Image: CLEVELAND-web3-blog427.jpg]](http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/01/22/us/CLEVELAND-web3/CLEVELAND-web3-blog427.jpg)
![[Image: B5Vinu4CEAEhiec.jpg:large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5Vinu4CEAEhiec.jpg:large)
![[Image: 607e513c13bbf58939fbd0140007ab76.jpg]](http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/30/607e513c13bbf58939fbd0140007ab76.jpg)
