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

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

It's in the genes?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree. I don't think either of them think the shooting was unprofessional or reprehensible. The worst they believe is it was regrettable.

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.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That a 12 year old made mistakes that led to his own death.

And 12 year olds do that, have always done that, and will do that forever. Loren and Derec's position is to keep killing them - though not really - because they find it regrettable. And if it happened everyday in a park in the US under the same circumstances where cops roar up and open fire, they wouldn't tolerate it.

My position is that outside controlled conditions realistic replica weapons should be subject to basically the same rules as real guns. A 12 year old should not have unsupervised access to one in the first place. Organized airsoft competition, fine. Playing on the street, not acceptable.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.)

They had way more than a split second. Black people don't have superhuman reflexes and special senses.

 

[tupac chopra]

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.)

What bullshit. They should have taken more time and sussed out what was going on rather than rushing in and shooting as fast as they could.
With people like you mindlessly apologising for incompetent and or racist police the situation in your country will just get worse

 

[ronburgundy]

Facts: Individual playing with gun.

Speculation: Individual is kid, gun is fake.

No Loren, everything the caller said is their speculation based upon their subjective inferences of what they think they saw. This is obvious, due to the fact that there was no "gun", so it could not be a "fact" that he was playing with one. The "gun" could have been have also been a cell phone. The callers observations that the object was probably a fake gun, and that the person was a juvenile are no more speculated and subjective than their claim that there was anything resembling "a gun" at all.

The only fact is that "A caller says "X"", where X includes everything the caller said that is relevant. Eliminating part of what the caller said means that no facts are being communicated, only the dispatcher's subjective interpretation of what is happening. The fact that the caller said it might be a toy tells you that they did not in fact see "a gun" but rather see something that may be a gun but may be a toy that looks like a gun. Leaving out everything but "playing with a gun", as dispatch did, conveys the false information that a gun is in fact on the scene and the witness is certain of it. The absence of "probably fake" makes "a gun" mean a real lethal weapon, which was false. The cops were given false information, due to the omission of information that greatly altered what the included information implies.

It was egregious to withhold that vital information, it likely created a false expectation and impression in the minds of the cops, making them more likely to have shot than had they been accurately informed that the witness thinks the object is a toy and the person is juvenile (making a toy far more probable).

 

[laughing dog]

You misunderstand. There wasn't time to determine if it was real or not, thus it was treated as real.

Of course there was time. He had nothing in his hand when they drove up.

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.

1st, the officers had no clue who this kid was, so they had no idea whether he grew up in the "criminal lifestyle", unless, of course, you are implying they assumed he was a thug because he was black. 2nd, the insinuation that this kid was a "thug" because he "grew up in the criminal lifestyle" is akin to your "purple drank" insinuation about Trayvon Martin. It appears you will say just about anything about a dead young black male to justify his killing.

 

[Rhea]

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.)

Obvious bullshit.

They had way more than a split second. They had the opportunity to park a little ways away, get behind their car and call out.
THEY WERE WRONG to go charging up and take something that had plenty of time and turn it into a split second.

The split second was a DECISION that the cop made. A bad decision. A deadly decision. The kid didn't make it this way. The cop made it this way.
And then they kept his sister from holding him as he died. Monsters.

 

[RavenSky]

Maybe if the cops had been told that the caller thought the person might be a "juvenile" and the "gun" might be a "fake", they would not have roared up across the park lawn and killed Tamir Rice in under 2 seconds. Maybe, just maybe, they would have approached the situation differently.

I still fault them 100% for what they did to Tamir Rice, but I also fault the 911 operator or dispatcher for creating the unnecessary alarm in the cops.

But you do not fault Tamir Rice even 1%?

No.

He was kid playing in the park, doing what kids do. He did absolutely nothing different than any other 12-year old anywhere playing "cops and robbers". Unless you are calling for ALL toys guns to be outlawed, and ALL pretend play with toy weapons be outlawed, you cannot say that Tamir Rice did anything wrong.

You cannot blame him for being black. You cannot blame him for being big for his age. You cannot blame him for playing in the park, a legal activity. You cannot blame him for playing with the perfectly legal "air soft" not-gun. You cannot blame him for not reacting faster than the less than two seconds it took the cop to kill him.

I know that you DO blame him for all of those things, but it is irrational and unconscionable that you do.

- - - Updated - - -

And to be clear, you've been talking out of both sides of your mouth about Officer accountability in all of this.

It's called nuance. Quite different than what say RavenSky is doing ("Tamir Rice did nothing wrong whatsoever")

Not "nuance" - what you are doing is called "false equivalencies" and blaming the victim.

 

[RavenSky]

You misunderstand. There wasn't time to determine if it was real or not...

Yes there was.

 

[Toni]

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.)

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

 

[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.)

What bullshit. They should have taken more time and sussed out what was going on rather than rushing in and shooting as fast as they could.
With people like you mindlessly apologising for incompetent and or racist police the situation in your country will just get worse

Time is something they don't have--don't shoot and the threat is real and you die.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course there was time. He had nothing in his hand when they drove up.

But he reached for a gun when they showed up.

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.

1st, the officers had no clue who this kid was, so they had no idea whether he grew up in the "criminal lifestyle", unless, of course, you are implying they assumed he was a thug because he was black. 2nd, the insinuation that this kid was a "thug" because he "grew up in the criminal lifestyle" is akin to your "purple drank" insinuation about Trayvon Martin. It appears you will say just about anything about a dead young black male to justify his killing.

I'm talking about his motivations--I think he was afraid of being caught with a gun and tried to discard it.

 

[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.)

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.

 

[laughing dog]

But he reached for a gun when they showed up.

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

I'm talking about his motivations--I think he was afraid of being caught with a gun and tried to discard it.

And I repeat that the insinuation that this kid was a "thug" because he "grew up in the criminal lifestyle" is akin to your "purple drank" insinuation about Trayvon Martin. It appears you will say just about anything about a dead young black male to justify his killing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But he reached for a gun when they showed up.

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.

1st, the officers had no clue who this kid was, so they had no idea whether he grew up in the "criminal lifestyle", unless, of course, you are implying they assumed he was a thug because he was black. 2nd, the insinuation that this kid was a "thug" because he "grew up in the criminal lifestyle" is akin to your "purple drank" insinuation about Trayvon Martin. It appears you will say just about anything about a dead young black male to justify his killing.

I'm talking about his motivations--I think he was afraid of being caught with a gun and tried to discard it.

Loren, you worry me.

 

[Arctish]

Also: the cops did not pause even for a moment to assess the situation. They drove right up to the kid they assumed had been doing something before they arrived. Loehmann jumped out while drawing his weapon and shot the kid. That is not how cops protect and serve the community. That is how extra-judicial executions and mafia hits are done.

Rice did not have a weapon out, he was not threatening anyone, he was just standing there when the cops arrived. It is inexcusable that the cops shot him under those circumstances. No amount of hand waving or fear mongering or victim blaming or bullshitting can conceal the fact that Loehmann and Garmback screwed up. They arrived on scene already determined to use deadly force, picked out a likely suspect, and gunned him down without even trying to de-escalate the situation, not that it needed de-escalation. Rice was just standing there idly, no danger to anyone, not even himself.

 

[RavenSky]

Time is something they don't have--don't shoot and the threat is real and you die.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

But he reached for a gun when they showed up.

that is your claim. That is not anything resembling a fact.

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.

1st, the officers had no clue who this kid was, so they had no idea whether he grew up in the "criminal lifestyle", unless, of course, you are implying they assumed he was a thug because he was black. 2nd, the insinuation that this kid was a "thug" because he "grew up in the criminal lifestyle" is akin to your "purple drank" insinuation about Trayvon Martin. It appears you will say just about anything about a dead young black male to justify his killing.

I'm talking about his motivations--I think he was afraid of being caught with a gun and tried to discard it.

At least this time you acknowledge this is nothing but your self-serving opinion.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

I removed the non-fact from your claim.

Here are the actual facts:

1. Man reports a "probable juvenile" in the park with a "probably fake" "gun" pointing it at people and the man felt scared.
2. Dispatch-911 operator only reports part of the information, thereby leaving the impression of a far more serious situation that actually existed.
3. The two police officers failed to take any pre-cautions whatsoever. Had this actually been an active shooter situation, these clowns put themselves in severe danger. But it wasn't an active shooter situation. It was a kid playing in the park. They took zero time to assess the situation, or even determine if they had the correct person.
4. They sped up over the lawn of the park, may or may not have shouted orders that may or may not have even been audible to Tamir Rice, exited their vehicle even before it came to a complete stop, and opened fire on Tamir Rice in less than two seconds.

Those are the facts. Those facts show that there was no emergency, no reason for these cops to shoot Tamir Rice.

 

[repoman]

the cops could very easily have killed Tamir when they drove up so quickly if he darted out.

I am lazy to look this up, but what was/is their punishment? Especially the driver...

I think that the standard of a cop being able to unwisely or negligently close a distance to a suspect and then be "forced" to draw and shoot to be terrible. If murder doesn't stick some other thing should.

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