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

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you fucking with me? I've clearly indicated that the law doesn't lead to a killer conviction here. And my problem is that there needs to be a mechanism to offer accountability in cases like this? So you either aren't reading my posts or you are purposefully wasting my time.

So we agree except for your positive claim above.
And there is the mechanism of the internal investigation in place for things that are violating policy/procedure but do not rise to the level of criminal offense.

The worst he could receive is being fired. A job for a life?

Please see comment regarding false equivalence. You can't hold the actions of a likely confused 12 year old on equal weight with that of Police Officers.

I did not say there was equivalence, but that his actions contributed.

There would be no point in bringing it up unless the contributions were in near measure.

But do you think they should be fired? What would be the appropriate response to the shooting with these two officers based on the rule set at this time?

Obviously I do not know what the internal policies and procedures are, but I think the driver pulled up too close, so he is more likely to be sacked. The actual shooter doesn't seem to have done anything wrong given the circumstances he was thrust into, but he may be fired as a sacrificial lamb anyway.

Got it. So you don't think they should be fired and saying that there should be accountability is anything but doublespeak.

"Drawing" is a bit of a loaded term. Seeing he could not reasonably be expected to think he'd win a shootout with Officers with a pellet gun, it may be possible he was taking it out in a sense of disclosure.

Actually I'm guessing he was trying to dispose of it because he was afraid of the police.

Right in front of the officer? He was going to try and dispose of a toy. Aren't you two a little old to be drinking illegally?

 

[RavenSky]

I never said that. I said it was a tragic concatenation of circumstances and mistakes by both sides.

Tamir Rice did not "go for his waistband"

Yes, he did.

Prosecutors decided they couldn't get a conviction after seeing enhanced surveillance footage of the shooting, he said.
It showed the 12-year-old black boy was drawing what turned out to be a pellet gun from his waistband when he was shot, McGinty said.
[...]
It was "indisputable" that the boy was drawing the pistol from his waistband when he was shot, McGinty said earlier this week. He said Tamir was trying to either hand the weapon over to police or show them it wasn't real, but the patrolmen had no way of knowing that.
Assistant county prosecutor Matthew Meyer said it also was telling that the pellet gun was found on the ground after the shooting.
"For it to have fallen on the ground, it would have had to have been in Tamir's hand, which means he would have had to have pulled that gun out," he said.

Prosecutors defend urging no charges in Tamir Rice shooting

Raven, do you also still believe that Michael Brown had his hands up in surrender or that VonDerritt Myers was armed with a sandwich?

I have no idea who VonDerritt Myers is. As for Michael Brown, I do absolutely still believe that the majority of eye-witnesses stated that Michael Brown was putting his hands up as he was turning, and that the one claim that he was charging at the police was shown to be false by the fact that the claimant wasn't even on the scene.

As for Tamir Rice, I don't believe what prosecutors trying to protect the killer cops have to say. Don't you usually ignore what "shyster lawyers" say too? From your quote, it is a purely stupid claim to say that the toy could not have fallen out of the child's waistband Tamir did not have the toy secured in a gun holster. It was in his waistband

 

[laughing dog]

The actual shooter doesn't seem to have done anything wrong given the circumstances he was thrust into, but he may be fired as a sacrificial lamb anyway.

No one "thrusted" Loehman into anything. He made conscious decisions about his actions. He is responsible for his behavior. A 12 year unarmed boy is dead. So, it is obvious Loehman did something wrong.

 

[RavenSky]

I never said that. I said it was a tragic concatenation of circumstances and mistakes by both sides.

Except that you have failed to show any "mistakes" on the part of Tamir Rice that justifies the cop killing him

 

[laughing dog]

I never said that. I said it was a tragic concatenation of circumstances and mistakes by both sides.

Except that you have failed to show any "mistakes" on the part of Tamir Rice that justifies the cop killing him

He choose to born black and to wear a hoodie.

 

[RavenSky]

Problem being that the mistakes/negligence was distributed across several people, including Tamir himself.

Derec continues to blame a 12-year-old child instead of the supposedly-trained adult cop that killed him.

 

[Derec]

Except that you have failed to show any "mistakes" on the part of Tamir Rice that justifies the cop killing him

He choose to born black and to wear a hoodie.

Camo hat actually, according to the 911 caller.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said that. I said it was a tragic concatenation of circumstances and mistakes by both sides.

Except that you have failed to show any "mistakes" on the part of Tamir Rice that justifies the cop killing him

In the moment, going for his waistband/gun was the fatal mistake he made. Cops are justified in reacting to such threats with deadly force whether you like it or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Problem being that the mistakes/negligence was distributed across several people, including Tamir himself.

Derec continues to blame a 12-year-old child instead of the supposedly-trained adult cop that killed him.

Actually both share part of the blame. It is you who insists that Tamir did nothing wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

He choose to born black and to wear a hoodie.

Camo hat actually, according to the 911 caller.

According to the video, it looks like a hoodie.

Actually both share part of the blame.

Rice is dead, and Loehman is alive, well and free. Seems to me that Loehman has eluded any sort of consequence for his unwarranted killing of Rice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually both share part of the blame. It is you who insists that Tamir did nothing wrong.

Okay, cops are 90% responsible, Rice 10%.

 

[RavenSky]

Yeah, he went for his gun.

He couldn't have. He didn't HAVE a gun And not even the prosecutor Derec quoted thinks Tamir Rice "went for" his toy. At most, they say they think he was trying to show the killer cop he only had a toy. I've seen zero evidence that Tamir Rice even did that much.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that you have failed to show any "mistakes" on the part of Tamir Rice that justifies the cop killing him

He choose to born black and to wear a hoodie.

Oh that's right...

and be big for his age. Yes, he clearly did that on purpose so he could scare a cop into killing him.

 

[RavenSky]

Problem being that the mistakes/negligence was distributed across several people, including Tamir himself.

Derec continues to blame a 12-year-old child instead of the supposedly-trained adult cop that killed him.

Actually both share part of the blame. It is you who insists that Tamir did nothing wrong.

Yes, I do maintain that Tamir Rice did nothing wrong that contributed to him being killed by a cop who already had a history of incompetence. No, "both" do not "share part of the blame" for Tamir Rice being killed by a cop... unless by "both" you mean "both cops"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Problem being that the mistakes/negligence was distributed across several people, including Tamir himself.

Derec continues to blame a 12-year-old child instead of the supposedly-trained adult cop that killed him.

Actually both share part of the blame. It is you who insists that Tamir did nothing wrong.

Yes, I do maintain that Tamir Rice did nothing wrong that contributed to him being killed by a cop who already had a history of incompetence. No, "both" do not "share part of the blame" for Tamir Rice being killed by a cop... unless by "both" you mean "both cops"

I think we shouldn't keep the Officer's context in the event out. The Officers barked orders from the car (followed?) and the shooter was out of the car and he says Rice made a movement to the waste. The 12 year old (photo below) is likely confused by what is going on.


But the Officers don't see it as confusion, but rather non-compliance. Pretty much they are arriving on site of a teen waving around a gun at people. They see this as an immediate intervention to prevent a shooting of a civilian. The big trouble here is that they are told he is doing one thing, when arriving he isn't doing it, but they continue assuming he is a violent threat to both the public and themselves. The officers don't seem to ever assess the actual standing condition before acting. They arrived on site acting like there was a man in body armor, shooting a crowd of people... instead of some individual alone in a park.

 

[Trausti]

Problem being that the mistakes/negligence was distributed across several people, including Tamir himself.

Derec continues to blame a 12-year-old child instead of the supposedly-trained adult cop that killed him.

Actually both share part of the blame. It is you who insists that Tamir did nothing wrong.

Yes, I do maintain that Tamir Rice did nothing wrong that contributed to him being killed by a cop who already had a history of incompetence. No, "both" do not "share part of the blame" for Tamir Rice being killed by a cop... unless by "both" you mean "both cops"

Hey RavenSky! Let's get some realistic-looking toy guns, go to a public park, and point the guns at passers-by. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Withdrawn.

 

[Derec]

He couldn't have. He didn't HAVE a gun

Of course he had a gun. A pellet gun defaced to look like a real Colt 1911.

And not even the prosecutor Derec quoted thinks Tamir Rice "went for" his toy. At most, they say they think he was trying to show the killer cop he only had a toy. I've seen zero evidence that Tamir Rice even did that much.

It's in the video. And the prosecutor thinks Tamir went for the gun (toy is a misnomer as even a pellet gun is not a toy!) but he thinks (and I think he is probably right) he wanted to give it to the police. Unfortunately that is the last thing you want to do if confronted by police.

and be big for his age. Yes, he clearly did that on purpose so he could scare a cop into killing him.

 

[Arctish]

Hey RavenSky! Let's get some realistic-looking toy guns, go to a public park, and point the guns at passers-by. What could possibly go wrong?

Make sure you're wearing blackface, Trausti. And do it in Cleveland.

Also, please put amend your insurance policy to make me a beneficiary. KTHXBYE

 

[Arctish]

I don't have the skills to post a proper diagram, but if I did I'd make a decision tree out of these:

#1. Do you believe the police version of events?

The first version they offered was a pack of lies that included things like Tamir sitting at a picnic table with others, the gun being on the table, the cops slowly approaching him, etc. The second version only came about when the video was made public and includes disputed claims regarding Loehmann's actions in the 1.5 seconds between his arriving on scene and shooting Rice.

If you don't believe the police version, then you won't believe anything based on it such as the statement issued by the Prosecutor's office. If you do believe one of the police versions, then :

#2. Do you believe the police shouted orders to Rice as they pulled up, that Rice understood he was the one being shouted at, and Rice could make out the words?

Witnesses to the events did not hear Loehmann or Garmback say anything. If they were shouting from inside the car as they drove up, how would Rice have known they were shouting at him, much less what they were shouting? In the mere 1.5 seconds before Loehmann opened fire there was little chance for clearing up any misunderstandings. So do you believe there was actual communication between the police and Rice before Rice was shot?

If you don't believe Garmback and Loehmann communicated with Rice, then there was no failure to comply with their orders. Rice isn't responsible for their failure to communicate. If you do think Garmback and Loehmann communicated with Rice as the cruiser came roaring up to him, then:

#3. Assuming Loehmann or Garmback ordered Rice to drop his weapon and Rice heard and understood him, should he have immediately complied since compliance required him to reach for the object in his waistband?

I think this is where much of the Loehmann defense founders. If Loehmann told Rice to drop his weapon, then Rice reaching for the toy was an act of compliance. There is an alternative narrative being circulated that has Loehmann telling Rice to show his hands. If Loehmann told Rice to show his hands, then Rice's hands moving from his sides past his waist was also compliance.

How do you justify Loehmann shooting Rice as Rice complied with the shouted orders? Or were there no orders, and Loehmann shot Rice without trying to communicate with him or seek compliance?

#4. Should Rice have known better than to play outside with an airsoft gun given that he was big and black, and the airsoft looked like a real gun?

Is that why Loehmann shot him? Because he was a big black kid with a realistic looking airsoft gun in his waistband? It appears that most posters here think so, and some posters think the shooting was perfectly acceptable for those very reasons.

 

[Will Wiley]

What would happen if the cops were found at fault?

 

[ZiprHead]

#3. Assuming Loehmann or Garmback ordered Rice to drop his weapon and Rice heard and understood him, should he have immediately complied since compliance required him to reach for the object in his waistband?

If I remember correctly, the cops claim they ordered him to raise his arms, not to drop the weapon.

They still screwed up big time though.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In the 1.5 seconds, how did they know Rice was the one they were looking for? How did they confirm this?