Cleveland Judge Finds Probable Cause to Charge Officers in Tamir Rice Death

[RavenSky]

Adding "(most likely)" to your bogus claim does not let you get away with blaming Tamir Rice for a "mistake" that not only do you have ZERO evidence he did, but Toni has already shown you he did NOT make.

Probability is always a function of knowledge we have at the time. Yes, another boy admitted to removing the tip but he also said he warned Tamir to be careful because the gun looks so real. Tamir definitely wasn't careful. In fact, he used said gun to shoot at car tires. "He did nothing wrong, no not a thing" just like Trayvon Martin, right?

Trayvon Martin did NOTHING wrong either, but thanks for bringing up yet another example of you - Derec - continuing to malign and blame a black child in his own death at the hands of white men behaving badly with guns.

 

[Arctish]

It's interesting how quickly "shooting at car tires" has become part of the narrative, while "shooting before the car stopped moving" keeps getting the brushoff, especially considering the evidence of "shooting before the car stopped moving" is indisputable while the "shooting at car tires" claim comes without a source:

Investigators were told that Tamir used the airsoft gun, which shoots non-lethal plastic projectiles, to shoot at car tires that day. <link to TIME magazine repeating an AP story>

Investigators were told by whom?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's guilty of shooting an unarmed 12 year old boy who was committing NO crime.

He was armed with a realistic looking replica. He waved said replica in a public park which I do think is a crime. And cops had no way of knowing he was 12 or that the gun wasn't real.

Unfortunately, waving a replica is not a crime. It should be, though--the handling rules for realistic replicas should be pretty much the same as for real weapons. The reality is that the cops are going to behave as if the weapon is real.

 

[laughing dog]

He was armed with a realistic looking replica. He waved said replica in a public park which I do think is a crime. And cops had no way of knowing he was 12 or that the gun wasn't real.

Unfortunately, waving a replica is not a crime. It should be, though--the handling rules for realistic replicas should be pretty much the same as for real weapons. The reality is that the cops are going to behave as if the weapon is real.

For some inexplicable reason, you seem to imply that the appropriate police behavior in the situation is to go in with guns blazing without assessing the actual situation.

 

[Toni]

It's interesting how quickly "shooting at car tires" has become part of the narrative, while "shooting before the car stopped moving" keeps getting the brushoff, especially considering the evidence of "shooting before the car stopped moving" is indisputable while the "shooting at car tires" claim comes without a source:

Investigators were told that Tamir used the airsoft gun, which shoots non-lethal plastic projectiles, to shoot at car tires that day. <link to TIME magazine repeating an AP story>

Investigators were told by whom?

Also: if the officer shot Tamir within two seconds of arriving, how could they have told him THREE times to drop his 'weapon?' How could Tamir have possibly complied without reaching for the toy whose lack of that all important orange tip was concealed in Tamir's waist band and which apparently, in addition to being a young black male who was large for his age, was reason for the police to shoot without actually fully exiting the police vehicle?

Why did the police hesitate to give aid after they shot a child but did not hesitate long enough to fully exit their vehicle before shooting him?

Why is an unarmed child more culpable in his own shooting than two armed, trained adult professional police officers?

 

[laughing dog]

Probability is always a function of knowledge we have at the time. Yes, another boy admitted to removing the tip but he also said he warned Tamir to be careful because the gun looks so real. Tamir definitely wasn't careful. In fact, he used said gun to shoot at car tires. "He did nothing wrong, no not a thing" just like Trayvon Martin, right?

Trayvon Martin did NOTHING wrong either, but thanks for bringing up yet another example of you - Derec - continuing to malign and blame a black child in his own death at the hands of white men behaving badly with guns.

At least he has not said he will masturbate to the discussion tonight.

 

[Toni]

Trayvon Martin did NOTHING wrong either, but thanks for bringing up yet another example of you - Derec - continuing to malign and blame a black child in his own death at the hands of white men behaving badly with guns.

At least he has not said he will masturbate to the discussion tonight.

Doesn't mean he won't.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

They had no way of knowing he was 12 or that the gun was not real.

Does that mean that he didn't kill a 12 year old?

When you put on a badge and a gun, you (not your partners not your parents, not any suspect you may encounter) take the responsibility of protecting the citizenry and being held accountable for actions. You have to stand the test in judgment and you have to stand there for yourself.

You know what they say? Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

And he will be judged. but that will not bring Tamir back or make his killing righteous. Because the BEST choice is not to kill 12 year old boys, but as you have made abundantly clear, the killing was just an oopsie, if even that. Nothing to see here.

 

[Toni]

It's interesting how quickly "shooting at car tires" has become part of the narrative, while "shooting before the car stopped moving" keeps getting the brushoff, especially considering the evidence of "shooting before the car stopped moving" is indisputable while the "shooting at car tires" claim comes without a source:

Investigators were told that Tamir used the airsoft gun, which shoots non-lethal plastic projectiles, to shoot at car tires that day. <link to TIME magazine repeating an AP story>

Investigators were told by whom?

Since the officers were not responding to reports of shots fired or even vandalism, it doesn't matter if --and that is a big if-- they were told that someone was shooting tires.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It's interesting how quickly "shooting at car tires" has become part of the narrative, while "shooting before the car stopped moving" keeps getting the brushoff, especially considering the evidence of "shooting before the car stopped moving" is indisputable while the "shooting at car tires" claim comes without a source:

Investigators were told that Tamir used the airsoft gun, which shoots non-lethal plastic projectiles, to shoot at car tires that day. <link to TIME magazine repeating an AP story>

Investigators were told by whom?

And what pile of car tires? The pile in the alley or the pile behind Firestone.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No, the fact they rolled up the way they did and opened fire immediately is not "in hindsight" obviously.

Derec,
I know of no jurisdiction where police officers are trained to shoot people on site who are not a posing an immediate threat to anybody. If they did you would hear a lot more cases of people being killed under similar circumstances. (Not only that, but cases of them shooting the wrong suspect.)

 

[Toni]

It's interesting how quickly "shooting at car tires" has become part of the narrative, while "shooting before the car stopped moving" keeps getting the brushoff, especially considering the evidence of "shooting before the car stopped moving" is indisputable while the "shooting at car tires" claim comes without a source:



Investigators were told by whom?

And what pile of car tires? The pile in the alley or the pile behind Firestone.

Apparently, no one heard the police instruct Tamir to show his hands before they opened fire:

Cleveland prosecutors have released the results of an investigation into the killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was shot and killed by a police officer. The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office released a redacted version of the 224-page report, which was compiled by Sheriff’s Department investigators, which examines the events that led up to and followed the shooting of the black youth in November. There is a lot of information in the report, but one of the most significant appears to be that the investigators could not find a single witness who heard police officer Timothy Loehmann issue a warning before opening fire, reports the Northeast Ohio Media Group. Loehmann has said he ordered Rice to show his hands three times before opening fire.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...rn_12_year_old_tamir_rice_before_opening.html

 

[whichphilosophy]

This week, a group of activists and community leaders asked the court to have the officers arrested under an Ohio law that allows “a private citizen having knowledge of the facts” to start the process by filing an affidavit with a court. They argued that the widely seen video of an officer killing Tamir had given nearly everyone “knowledge of the facts.”

The Ohio law, in effect in various forms since 1960, is unusual and rarely invoked, and lawyers have disagreed about what might be achieved by using it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/u...charge-officers-in-tamir-rice-death.html?_r=0

Meanwhile the prosecutor maintains that the case will be brought before a Grand Jury.

So what, if anything, do you think was accomplished by the Judge's ruling?

If the Prosecutor brings the case before the grand jury it can go ahead.

 

[Derec]

Does that mean that he didn't kill a 12 year old?

It means they are not omniscient.

And he will be judged. but that will not bring Tamir back or make his killing righteous. Because the BEST choice is not to kill 12 year old boys, but as you have made abundantly clear, the killing was just an oopsie, if even that. Nothing to see here.

Yes he will be judged. And allowed to present a defense. The TIME article referenced above says something about Tamir reaching for the gun. If that can be substantiated there is a good chance they will walk on everything.

 

[laughing dog]

It means they are not omniscient.

And he will be judged. but that will not bring Tamir back or make his killing righteous. Because the BEST choice is not to kill 12 year old boys, but as you have made abundantly clear, the killing was just an oopsie, if even that. Nothing to see here.

Yes he will be judged. And allowed to present a defense. The TIME article referenced above says something about Tamir reaching for the gun. If that can be substantiated there is a good chance they will walk on everything.

Tamir Rice was allegedly reaching for something in his belt/pants. There is no way those officers had any idea what it was. Nor did they give Rice a chance to put his hand on anything. If this does go to trial, they had better hope they have a sympathetic jury.

 

[Derec]

Also: if the officer shot Tamir within two seconds of arriving, how could they have told him THREE times to drop his 'weapon?'

I wonder that myself.

How could Tamir have possibly complied without reaching for the toy whose lack of that all important orange tip was concealed in Tamir's waist band and which apparently, in addition to being a young black male who was large for his age, was reason for the police to shoot without actually fully exiting the police vehicle?

Are you saying he had to have reached for the gun? He could not have put his hands up or something and then try to explain? Let the police officer reach for the weapon and inspect it? Reaching for a gun is the stupidest possible thing he could have done and if it can be substantiated he hid that it would provide an excellent defense to the police officers.

Why did the police hesitate to give aid after they shot a child but did not hesitate long enough to fully exit their vehicle before shooting him?

Shock?

Why is an unarmed child more culpable in his own shooting than two armed, trained adult professional police officers?

First of all, not unarmed. Second, that's not the claim. The problem is that some on your side keep insisting that he had zero culpability and did nothing wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Tamir Rice was allegedly reaching for something in his belt/pants. There is no way those officers had any idea what it was. Nor did they give Rice a chance to put his hand on anything. If this does go to trial, they had better hope they have a sympathetic jury.

If he had it tucked in his waistband the (realistic) handle would have been sticking out and the police would have had an idea what he was reaching for.

 

[Derec]

It's interesting how quickly "shooting at car tires" has become part of the narrative,

It became part of the narrative when it was posted by somebody on your "side".

while "shooting before the car stopped moving" keeps getting the brushoff, especially considering the evidence of "shooting before the car stopped moving" is indisputable while the "shooting at car tires" claim comes without a source:

The reason is that nobody disputes that police made a mistake driving up to him like that. So no need to rehash that detail ad nauseam. On the other hand, there is a point of view on this thread that Tamir did nothing wrong whatsoever.

Investigators were told by whom?

I assume by witnesses.

 

[Derec]

Trayvon Martin did NOTHING wrong either, but thanks for bringing up yet another example of you - Derec - continuing to malign and blame a black child in his own death at the hands of white men behaving badly with guns.

I referred back to that case because I can see the same insistence that "he did nothing wrong". Except beat up a stranger.

And you are still insisting George Z. is a white man I see.

 

[Toni]

I wonder that myself.

Progress, at least.

How could Tamir have possibly complied without reaching for the toy whose lack of that all important orange tip was concealed in Tamir's waist band and which apparently, in addition to being a young black male who was large for his age, was reason for the police to shoot without actually fully exiting the police vehicle?

Are you saying he had to have reached for the gun? He could not have put his hands up or something and then try to explain? Let the police officer reach for the weapon and inspect it? Reaching for a gun is the stupidest possible thing he could have done and if it can be substantiated he hid that it would provide an excellent defense to the police officers.

Derec, he was a 12 year old child. Who had not been in any trouble: it is not at all like he was looking to be a gang banger. He was screwing around the same way I did when I was a kid, except I lived in the middle of nowhere and he lived in a city. He was acting like a 12 year old. A child. Because he was a 12 year old child. The fact that he was taller than I will ever be means only that he was tall for his age. But not that tall. Heck, I remember 2 boys in my 7th grade class--we were 12/13 years old then who were over 6 ft tall. They were still just kids.

He was playing with a borrowed toy. Like 12 year olds do.

Why did the police hesitate to give aid after they shot a child but did not hesitate long enough to fully exit their vehicle before shooting him?

Shock?

Probably.

Imagine being a 12 year old, playing outside the community center where you played most days and a car pulls up beside you and you get shot within 2 seconds. TWO SECONDS. Think you might be shocked? Think you would have time to think, to react? Heck, no one can even say they heard the police ask him to show hands. They just pulled up, one didn't even exit the car fully before he killed the kid.

Why is an unarmed child more culpable in his own shooting than two armed, trained adult professional police officers?

First of all, not unarmed. Second, that's not the claim. The problem is that some on your side keep insisting that he had zero culpability and did nothing wrong.

Because he did nothing wrong. He did NOTHING to cause his own death. He was a child playing outside as he was accustomed to doing, where he was accustomed to playing. A police car pulls up beside him, a cop half jumps out and kills him.

Talk about shock.

The police were frozen in their tracks, couldn't or wouldn't offer any aid. Prevented his sister from going to him. But they, the adult, trained, professional police officers are allowed 4 minutes of shock. More, actually, as neither of them was helpful once someone did arrive and begin to administer first aid.

But not a 12 year old black boy. No, he must immediately intuit what police officers want and obey instantly: no 10 second rule for him! Because they didn't even give him that.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It means they are not omniscient.

Did I say they were? If I didn't, what is your point? Other than to not under any circumstances say that that officer killed that boy.

And he will be judged. but that will not bring Tamir back or make his killing righteous. Because the BEST choice is not to kill 12 year old boys, but as you have made abundantly clear, the killing was just an oopsie, if even that. Nothing to see here.

Yes he will be judged. And allowed to present a defense. The TIME article referenced above says something about Tamir reaching for the gun. If that can be substantiated there is a good chance they will walk on everything.

Do you have proof of this? Does the Times? NO?

Well?