Rice family lawyers request DOJ investigation into conduct of prosecutor's office

[RavenSky]

... if a person repeats a contention with no new facts the post is discarded. Would make this thread maybe 50 posts not 180.

And reduce Loren's post count from 105659 to maybe 50 as well

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And what makes it regrettable? That's my point.

It was based on incomplete information. Whether it is wrongful is based on what others given the same information would decide in the split second they had to make the decision. (If the threat were real and they didn't shoot they were dead.)

A split second decision wasn't required until a training officer allowed his newb partner to jump out and put himself in harms way, for absolutely no reason.

 

[Toni]

No.

They didn't even take the time to determine if they found the person described by the 911 caller.

There was no weapon or 'weapon' in sight. No shots fired. Not even 'maybe shots fired

None of that matters. They pulled up, he reached for a gun. That's all the facts they have to go on. You can't introduce any facts not known by the cops.

Except he didn't have a gun.

Look. I've seen the video, multiple times. The kid looks like a kid, acting like a kid. If I had been told that this was an adult and not a child, I would have thought it was a slow adult, with perhaps some developmental disability, simply from the body language and the way the kid moved.

Not aggressive. A little unsure of himself. Like he's trying to figure out what's going on, what they want. And then he's dead.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It was based on incomplete information. Whether it is wrongful is based on what others given the same information would decide in the split second they had to make the decision. (If the threat were real and they didn't shoot they were dead.)

A split second decision wasn't required until a training officer allowed his newb partner to jump out and put himself in harms way, for absolutely no reason.

A partner that had been dismissed from his previous job for the exact behavior that got Tamir Rice killed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. He alleged reached for his belt when they shouted at him.

Forget the "alleged"--they have video. Reach for a gun when confronted by cops and you should expect to be shot.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No. He alleged reached for his belt when they shouted at him.

Forget the "alleged"--they have video. Reach for a gun when confronted by cops and you should expect to be shot.

He wasn't "reaching" for a gun, but a toy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is utter bullshit in this case. There was absolutely no reason for the cops to act with the haste that they did. They had time. They chose not to use it and instead killed an innocent 12-year old boy. This was not a "mistake". This was a choice on their part, and why they (the cops) should be prosecuted for a crime.

Calling it bullshit doesn't make it so. They didn't know what they were pulling up to. All they had to go on was someone reaching for a gun when confronted by the police. The reasonable assumption is that they are intending to use it.

The real problem here is allowing people to play around with realistic replicas in public.

- - - Updated - - -

It was based on incomplete information. Whether it is wrongful is based on what others given the same information would decide in the split second they had to make the decision. (If the threat were real and they didn't shoot they were dead.)

A split second decision wasn't required until a training officer allowed his newb partner to jump out and put himself in harms way, for absolutely no reason.

Not jumping out wouldn't have changed the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

None of that matters. They pulled up, he reached for a gun. That's all the facts they have to go on. You can't introduce any facts not known by the cops.

Except he didn't have a gun.

Looks real, it will be treated as real. You're trying to introduce a fact that the cops didn't have.

Look. I've seen the video, multiple times. The kid looks like a kid, acting like a kid. If I had been told that this was an adult and not a child, I would have thought it was a slow adult, with perhaps some developmental disability, simply from the body language and the way the kid moved.

Not aggressive. A little unsure of himself. Like he's trying to figure out what's going on, what they want. And then he's dead.

Which proves nothing. Even if the cops had known he was 12 it wouldn't have changed things.

- - - Updated - - -

Forget the "alleged"--they have video. Reach for a gun when confronted by cops and you should expect to be shot.

He wasn't "reaching" for a gun, but a toy.

How many times do I have to repeat it--looks real, it will be treated as real.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It was based on incomplete information. Whether it is wrongful is based on what others given the same information would decide in the split second they had to make the decision. (If the threat were real and they didn't shoot they were dead.)

A split second decision wasn't required until a training officer allowed his newb partner to jump out and put himself in harms way, for absolutely no reason.

Not jumping out wouldn't have changed the situation.

Really? So not stopping the car right there and jumping right out, not barking orders (unintelligible?) via a bullhorn wouldn't have changed circumstances?

Forget the "alleged"--they have video. Reach for a gun when confronted by cops and you should expect to be shot.

He wasn't "reaching" for a gun, but a toy.

How many times do I have to repeat it--looks real, it will be treated as real.

Looks real? What looked real? He never had time to pull anything out.

 

[arkirk]

If the cops thought the kid was a danger, why did they NOT TAKE COVER? The answer is that they knew they would be killing this boy and had sufficient excuse. They did not take cover because they intended to and succeeded in shooting him before he could possibly become a danger. This is typical cop treatment for black people. All the slugs in the body speaks to a disturbing need cops seem to have to make sure their victim will not live after the encounter to accuse them of their crime...murder.

 

[ksen]

Calling it bullshit doesn't make it so. They didn't know what they were pulling up to. All they had to go on was someone reaching for a gun when confronted by the police. The reasonable assumption is that they are intending to use it.

The real problem here is allowing people to play around with realistic replicas in public.

- - - Updated - - -

It was based on incomplete information. Whether it is wrongful is based on what others given the same information would decide in the split second they had to make the decision. (If the threat were real and they didn't shoot they were dead.)

A split second decision wasn't required until a training officer allowed his newb partner to jump out and put himself in harms way, for absolutely no reason.

Not jumping out wouldn't have changed the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

None of that matters. They pulled up, he reached for a gun. That's all the facts they have to go on. You can't introduce any facts not known by the cops.

Except he didn't have a gun.

Looks real, it will be treated as real. You're trying to introduce a fact that the cops didn't have.

Look. I've seen the video, multiple times. The kid looks like a kid, acting like a kid. If I had been told that this was an adult and not a child, I would have thought it was a slow adult, with perhaps some developmental disability, simply from the body language and the way the kid moved.

Not aggressive. A little unsure of himself. Like he's trying to figure out what's going on, what they want. And then he's dead.

Which proves nothing. Even if the cops had known he was 12 it wouldn't have changed things.

- - - Updated - - -

Forget the "alleged"--they have video. Reach for a gun when confronted by cops and you should expect to be shot.

He wasn't "reaching" for a gun, but a toy.

How many times do I have to repeat it--looks real, it will be treated as real.

Less than 2 seconds.

That's all that really needs repeating.

 

[atrib]

Which did not occur in the Rice case: the time to determine is before the police shoot, not afterwords.

You misunderstand. There wasn't time to determine if it was real or not, thus it was treated as real. He was treated as someone who is going for their gun. Remember, his mother is a drug trafficker, this is someone who grew up in the criminal lifestyle.

How is this relevant to the actions of the officers? Are you claiming the officers knew Tamir Rice was a 12 year old with a mother who may have links to drug trafficking, and shot him for this reason? Are you claiming the 12 year old Tamir Rice was also a drug traffiker? Why did you bring this up if not to draw our attention away from the reckless actions of the police?

- - - Updated - - -

Dispatch distills it down to facts, not speculation.

Dispatch is supposed to pass on the information the caller provides.

A dispatcher who thinks he or she is in a position to know the facts from where they sit at their desk, and selectively passes on information based on his or her opinion, is a dangerous idiot.

Facts: Individual playing with gun.

Speculation: Individual is kid, gun is fake.

And had the police actually spent a few minutes investigating the situation instead of opening fire immediately upon arriving at the scene, they would have ascertained that Tamir Rice was a kid playing with a pellet gun, not a crazy individual out on a shooting spree. At the very least, the police showed a callous and reckless disregard for human life through their actions which is in direct contradiction of their sworn duty to serve and protect the community they police, if not outright malice and premeditation, and they should be held accountable for their actions. I am certain that you and Derec understand this, but refuse to acknowledge it since the victim was black and not worthy of the rights that are accorded to non-black citizens.

 

[laughing dog]

No. He alleged reached for his belt when they shouted at him.

Forget the "alleged"--they have video.

Then you should watch it. Rice died with nothing in his hand. That is a fact. You (and the killer) assumed he was reaching for something in his belt. For all you know, his hand had an involuntary muscle spasm. Or that he was going to scratch his balls. Or pull out a piece of gum.

Reach for a gun when confronted by cops and you should expect to be shot.

The police did not know there was a gun in his belt.

Rice's parents have every right to ask for a federal DOJ investigation of the prosecutor's actions. I doubt anything will come of it. One can only hope Loehmann loses his job and the other officer is disciplined in some fashion.

 

[Toni]

Calling it bullshit doesn't make it so. They didn't know what they were pulling up to. All they had to go on was someone reaching for a gun when confronted by the police. The reasonable assumption is that they are intending to use it.

The real problem here is allowing people to play around with realistic replicas in public.

- - - Updated - - -

It was based on incomplete information. Whether it is wrongful is based on what others given the same information would decide in the split second they had to make the decision. (If the threat were real and they didn't shoot they were dead.)

A split second decision wasn't required until a training officer allowed his newb partner to jump out and put himself in harms way, for absolutely no reason.

Not jumping out wouldn't have changed the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

None of that matters. They pulled up, he reached for a gun. That's all the facts they have to go on. You can't introduce any facts not known by the cops.

Except he didn't have a gun.

Looks real, it will be treated as real. You're trying to introduce a fact that the cops didn't have.

They saw nothing in his hands---because he had nothing in his hands.

The cops had zero facts about Tamir Rice. They simply roared up on a child in a park, started screaming at him and shot him dead. Without even any report of shots fired.

Notice in the video, no one seems afraid of Tamir Rice. No one. No one avoids him, seems alarmed or concerned. No one takes cover from this 'dangerous person.'

Maybe because they took more than 2 seconds to assess the situation but also because they were not armed and ready to kill.

Look. I've seen the video, multiple times. The kid looks like a kid, acting like a kid. If I had been told that this was an adult and not a child, I would have thought it was a slow adult, with perhaps some developmental disability, simply from the body language and the way the kid moved.

Not aggressive. A little unsure of himself. Like he's trying to figure out what's going on, what they want. And then he's dead.

Which proves nothing. Even if the cops had known he was 12 it wouldn't have changed things.

The cops had no reason--ZERO reason to roar up in a patrol car, start screaming at a kid playing in the park and then shoot him.

No reason. None. Even if he had been 22 or 32 or 42 or 52 or 92.

He was doing nothing wrong. Not one damn thing. Nothing.

Forget the "alleged"--they have video. Reach for a gun when confronted by cops and you should expect to be shot.

He wasn't "reaching" for a gun, but a toy.

How many times do I have to repeat it--looks real, it will be treated as real.

Except that the cops didn't see a 'gun,' toy or not. Those who did see Tamir with his toy took it to be a toy, and not a weapon.

 

[ksen]

They simply roared up on a child in a park, started screaming at him and shot him dead.

We don't even know if they did that. They certainly didn't have time to do that.

 

[ZiprHead]

And had the police actually spent a few minutes investigating the situation instead of opening fire immediately upon arriving at the scene, they would have ascertained that Tamir Rice was a kid playing with a pellet gun, not a crazy individual out on a shooting spree.

Probably 30 seconds could have been sufficient.

 

[RavenSky]

No. He alleged reached for his belt when they shouted at him.

Forget the "alleged"--they have video. Reach for a gun when confronted by cops and you should expect to be shot.

YOU should remember that there is video and we have all seen it. Tamir Rice was not "reaching for a gun"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was based on incomplete information. Whether it is wrongful is based on what others given the same information would decide in the split second they had to make the decision. (If the threat were real and they didn't shoot they were dead.)

A split second decision wasn't required until a training officer allowed his newb partner to jump out and put himself in harms way, for absolutely no reason.

Not jumping out wouldn't have changed the situation.

Really? So not stopping the car right there and jumping right out, not barking orders (unintelligible?) via a bullhorn wouldn't have changed circumstances?

Stopping the car right there wasn't a deliberate act, but due to sliding. As for the rest of it--I think he would have reacted the same when confronted by police even without any orders.

Forget the "alleged"--they have video. Reach for a gun when confronted by cops and you should expect to be shot.

He wasn't "reaching" for a gun, but a toy.

How many times do I have to repeat it--looks real, it will be treated as real.

Looks real? What looked real? He never had time to pull anything out.

If they couldn't see it then they would have had no reason to say he was reaching for it. Thus we can conclude they could see enough to identify it as a gun. Your unwillingness to admit the reality of the situation doesn't make it go away.

- - - Updated - - -

If the cops thought the kid was a danger, why did they NOT TAKE COVER? The answer is that they knew they would be killing this boy and had sufficient excuse. They did not take cover because they intended to and succeeded in shooting him before he could possibly become a danger. This is typical cop treatment for black people. All the slugs in the body speaks to a disturbing need cops seem to have to make sure their victim will not live after the encounter to accuse them of their crime...murder.

Take cover where?? There was no cover to take. Only the engine block provides any cover and that is nowhere near 100%.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And had the police actually spent a few minutes investigating the situation instead of opening fire immediately upon arriving at the scene, they would have ascertained that Tamir Rice was a kid playing with a pellet gun, not a crazy individual out on a shooting spree. At the very least, the police showed a callous and reckless disregard for human life through their actions which is in direct contradiction of their sworn duty to serve and protect the community they police, if not outright malice and premeditation, and they should be held accountable for their actions. I am certain that you and Derec understand this, but refuse to acknowledge it since the victim was black and not worthy of the rights that are accorded to non-black citizens.

<Throws hand grenade>

Are you going to investigate whether I pulled the pin or are you going to dive for cover?


If they take the time to investigate and they're wrong they're dead. You have a reckless disregard for cop lives.

 

[RavenSky]

And had the police actually spent a few minutes investigating the situation instead of opening fire immediately upon arriving at the scene, they would have ascertained that Tamir Rice was a kid playing with a pellet gun, not a crazy individual out on a shooting spree. At the very least, the police showed a callous and reckless disregard for human life through their actions which is in direct contradiction of their sworn duty to serve and protect the community they police, if not outright malice and premeditation, and they should be held accountable for their actions. I am certain that you and Derec understand this, but refuse to acknowledge it since the victim was black and not worthy of the rights that are accorded to non-black citizens.

<Throws hand grenade>

Are you going to investigate whether I pulled the pin or are you going to dive for cover?


If they take the time to investigate and they're wrong they're dead. You have a reckless disregard for cop lives.

You have a reckless disregard for rationality

There was analogous to a hand grenade in that park that day.

There was a kid playing.

Even if the cops thought they might be dealing with a real gun, there were no reports of shots fired, there was no one else in the park at the time, there was no "gun" in sight, and police did not have to roar up across the lawn. They should have stopped a distance away and properly assessed the situation.

 

[ksen]

<Throws hand grenade>

Are you going to investigate whether I pulled the pin or are you going to dive for cover?

Unlike the Tamir Rice case if you threw a grenade:

1) I'd actually see a grenade, and
2) I'd have more than 2 seconds to react

- - - Updated - - -

As for the rest of it--I think he would have reacted the same when confronted by police even without any orders.

What orders?