No Federal Charges Against Officers In Tamir Rice Shooting.

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you are white, that doesn't always matter.

People point to double standard after white man threatens to shoot cop and walks away unscathed

All the same, people shouldn't just make things up.

Obviously you don't know the difference between being uncooperative with a police officer and pulling a gun on a police officer, huh?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

She was home. The kids went to the youth center like kids have done for years.

I don't know what that has to do with it. I grew up with a rec center nearby, and nobody ever brought a realistic looking gun to it and point it at passing cars.

 

[pknopp]

If you are white, that doesn't always matter.

People point to double standard after white man threatens to shoot cop and walks away unscathed

All the same, people shouldn't just make things up.

Obviously you don't know the difference between being uncooperative with a police officer and pulling a gun on a police officer, huh?

Philandro Castile was cooperative. Andre Hill was doing what he was told to do.

 

[pknopp]

She was home. The kids went to the youth center like kids have done for years.

I don't know what that has to do with it. I grew up with a rec center nearby, and nobody ever brought a realistic looking gun to it and point it at passing cars.

Kids have played with toys guns since guns were invented. The complaint wasn't that he was pointing it at cars either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Kids have played with toys guns since guns were invented. The complaint wasn't that he was pointing it at cars either.

Yes, kids have played with toy guns, in their house, in their backyards, and the toy guns didn't look anything like the real one. Today (as shown in the OP) those toy guns are almost indistinguishable from the real gun it's designed to look like. In the years growing up as a kid, I don't recall once me nor my neighbor friends taking a gun to the rec center.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Philandro Castile was cooperative. Andre Hill was doing what he was told to do.

Your link was about some guy named Burr, and he didn't pull a gun out on the officer.

 

[pknopp]

Kids have played with toys guns since guns were invented. The complaint wasn't that he was pointing it at cars either.

Yes, kids have played with toy guns, in their house, in their backyards, and the toy guns didn't look anything like the real one.

Of course they did.

 

[JoeB131]

Did you just wake up in this country yesterday? The government has been regulating guns all of our lives. A child has no amendment rights. Just because some kids took a rifle to school doesn't mean he had the constitutional right to do so, it means the school didn't disallow it.

Actually, all constitutional rights apply to children as well as adults... For instance, the police can't question a child without a parent or guardian present because that would violate their fifth amendment rights.

But again, "Silly Darkie, Rights are for White People!!!"

What was covered up? There is a video of the event. A video expert was called in and he and the jury went through it frame by frame.

Again, why was the prosecutor doing a defense attorney's job?

First of all, the Scene is a kids magazine. Secondly, you are once again posting articles you never read, because if you read it, it showed that grand juries have an option of a "no-vote."

Meaningless. McGinty didn't allow a vote because they probably would have indicted Loehmann, despite the chunks of bullshit he ladled.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, all constitutional rights apply to children as well as adults... For instance, the police can't question a child without a parent or guardian present because that would violate their fifth amendment rights.

But again, "Silly Darkie, Rights are for White People!!!"

If constitutional rights belong to children, find a 12 year old, go to a gun store, and let's see him buy a gun from a licensed dealer. If constitutional rights belonged to children, why can't they vote?

Your ignorance of police work is astounding. Police can question anybody they want be it a child or an adult.

Again, why was the prosecutor doing a defense attorney's job?

He wasn't. He presented the evidence, and it was up to the grand jury to indict or not. They decided not to.

Meaningless. McGinty didn't allow a vote because they probably would have indicted Loehmann, despite the chunks of bullshit he ladled.

He probably never met the man until he interviewed him after the shooting. Why would the prosecutor do that for a near total stranger? BTW, your dyslexia is acting up again. From your very own link, it stated right there (and I pasted it) that the prosecutor could not have stopped them from voting.

 

[pknopp]

Actually, all constitutional rights apply to children as well as adults... For instance, the police can't question a child without a parent or guardian present because that would violate their fifth amendment rights.

But again, "Silly Darkie, Rights are for White People!!!"

If constitutional rights belong to children, find a 12 year old, go to a gun store, and let's see him buy a gun from a licensed dealer. If constitutional rights belonged to children, why can't they vote?

Your ignorance of police work is astounding. Police can question anybody they want be it a child or an adult.

Again, why was the prosecutor doing a defense attorney's job?

He wasn't. He presented the evidence, and it was up to the grand jury to indict or not. They decided not to.

Meaningless. McGinty didn't allow a vote because they probably would have indicted Loehmann, despite the chunks of bullshit he ladled.

He probably never met the man until he interviewed him after the shooting. Why would the prosecutor do that for a near total stranger? BTW, your dyslexia is acting up again. From your very own link, it stated right there (and I pasted it) that the prosecutor could not have stopped them from voting.

Even after being presented the facts you still have to lie.

The grand jury never got the chance to vote on charges.

 

[Rigby5]

She was home. The kids went to the youth center like kids have done for years.

I don't know what that has to do with it. I grew up with a rec center nearby, and nobody ever brought a realistic looking gun to it and point it at passing cars.

All kids had realistic looking guns and took them to parts, rec centers, etc. to play with others in large scale games, when I was young.
Mattel sold millions.
If you bought a cheap plastic water pistol, you painted it to look real.
But even if a gun is real, someone pointing it is not sufficient to justify shooting them.
If so, then all cops would be dead because they frequently point guns at people with no justification.
The idea police have more power to do things like pointing guns at people is incorrect.
They are paid to accept MORE risk than ordinary citizens, not less. So they have less right to shoot than anyone.

 

[Rigby5]

...

He probably never met the man until he interviewed him after the shooting. Why would the prosecutor do that for a near total stranger? BTW, your dyslexia is acting up again. From your very own link, it stated right there (and I pasted it) that the prosecutor could not have stopped them from voting.

The prosecutor would likely have deliberately thrown the case because the prosecutor needs and wants police support every single day.
If the prosecutor would have done a good job on this case, his career in the prosecutor's office would have been over. In fact, the union would have ensured he was fired.
The prosecutors and police are some of the most corrupt people I have ever run into, and their main goal is to make tens of millions in revenue for the city, from fines, bail, fees, etc.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The prosecutor would likely have deliberately thrown the case because the prosecutor needs and wants police support every single day.
If the prosecutor would have done a good job on this case, his career in the prosecutor's office would have been over. In fact, the union would have ensured he was fired.
The prosecutors and police are some of the most corrupt people I have ever run into, and their main goal is to make tens of millions in revenue for the city, from fines, bail, fees, etc.

He could care less about police support. Not many voters in that crowd. It's a leftist myth that he swayed the jury or the laws because nobody was there outside of the GJ and only those behind the closed doors know what actually happened. Leftists are just unhappy the GJ didn't see any violation of law because there was no violation of the law. They just didn't like the idea a cop shot a 12 year old.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All kids had realistic looking guns and took them to parts, rec centers, etc. to play with others in large scale games, when I was young.
Mattel sold millions.
If you bought a cheap plastic water pistol, you painted it to look real.
But even if a gun is real, someone pointing it is not sufficient to justify shooting them.
If so, then all cops would be dead because they frequently point guns at people with no justification.
The idea police have more power to do things like pointing guns at people is incorrect.
They are paid to accept MORE risk than ordinary citizens, not less. So they have less right to shoot than anyone.

You are absolutely wrong. A police officer or licensed citizen (which I am one of) is allowed to use deadly force in our state if they believe that they or others are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's our law and you can check that out yourself if you'd like. Therefore if somebody is pointing a gun at me and I shoot them dead, there's not a damn thing any city can do to me because somebody pointing a gun at me is without a doubt giving me reason to believe I am in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death, and the same goes with a police officer.

In fact in our state, they applied the Castle Doctrine to CCW carriers. That means by law, somebody trying to break into my car is no different than trying to break in my house. I have the legal right to use deadly force.

 

[Rigby5]

The prosecutor would likely have deliberately thrown the case because the prosecutor needs and wants police support every single day.
If the prosecutor would have done a good job on this case, his career in the prosecutor's office would have been over. In fact, the union would have ensured he was fired.
The prosecutors and police are some of the most corrupt people I have ever run into, and their main goal is to make tens of millions in revenue for the city, from fines, bail, fees, etc.

He could care less about police support. Not many voters in that crowd. It's a leftist myth that he swayed the jury or the laws because nobody was there outside of the GJ and only those behind the closed doors know what actually happened. Leftists are just unhappy the GJ didn't see any violation of law because there was no violation of the law. They just didn't like the idea a cop shot a 12 year old.

That is totally untrue.
It is true we do not know exactly what happened, but grand juries are not average juries.
They are hand picked and so controlled by the prosecutor, that the old joke is that the prosecutor could get them to convict a ham sandwich if he wanted to.
So while we do not know the details, we do know the general likely events.

And you are totally wrong about prosecutors not caring about police support.
Not only is police support absolutely for his job, but police unions control millions of voters as well.

There clearly WAS a violation of law.
It was illegal for the police to drive up on the grass in the park, it was illegal for them to put themselves so close to the kid without first communicating, it was illegal to shoot without the presence of a deadly threat.

 

[Rigby5]

All kids had realistic looking guns and took them to parts, rec centers, etc. to play with others in large scale games, when I was young.
Mattel sold millions.
If you bought a cheap plastic water pistol, you painted it to look real.
But even if a gun is real, someone pointing it is not sufficient to justify shooting them.
If so, then all cops would be dead because they frequently point guns at people with no justification.
The idea police have more power to do things like pointing guns at people is incorrect.
They are paid to accept MORE risk than ordinary citizens, not less. So they have less right to shoot than anyone.

You are absolutely wrong. A police officer or licensed citizen (which I am one of) is allowed to use deadly force in our state if they believe that they or others are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's our law and you can check that out yourself if you'd like. Therefore if somebody is pointing a gun at me and I shoot them dead, there's not a damn thing any city can do to me because somebody pointing a gun at me is without a doubt giving me reason to believe I am in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death, and the same goes with a police officer.

In fact in our state, they applied the Castle Doctrine to CCW carriers. That means by law, somebody trying to break into my car is no different than trying to break in my house. I have the legal right to use deadly force.

That is wrong.
I am also a license concealed carrier, and just believing there is a threat is NOT a sufficient justification for shooting.
If that were true, I could shoot every armed person I see, including cops.
There has to be objective evidence that there not only is a deadly weapon present, but the likely intent to use it. For example, verbal threats, etc.
Just someone pointing a gun at you is NOT a legal justification for shooting them, in any state.
You need more than that.
Again, police point guns at me dozens of times, and I can not then legally shoot them.
It has nothing to do with them being police, but that just pointing a gun is not sufficient proof of attempted murder.
People point guns at others, like intruders all the time.
Pointing a gun is not proof of an intent to kill.

And the castle doctrine is irrelevant.
Sure you can use force to protect property, but there was no risk here of property or life.
Just a kid playing around.

If pointing a gun is proof of intent to kill, then the next time the police point a gun at me, I will be sure to arrest him for attempted murder.
You can't have it both ways.
The cop has no more right to point a gun than anyone else.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is wrong.
I am also a license concealed carrier, and just believing there is a threat is NOT a sufficient justification for shooting.
If that were true, I could shoot every armed person I see, including cops.
There has to be objective evidence that there not only is a deadly weapon present, but the likely intent to use it. For example, verbal threats, etc.
Just someone pointing a gun at you is NOT a legal justification for shooting them, in any state.
You need more than that.
Again, police point guns at me dozens of times, and I can not then legally shoot them.
It has nothing to do with them being police, but that just pointing a gun is not sufficient proof of attempted murder.
People point guns at others, like intruders all the time.
Pointing a gun is not proof of an intent to kill.

And the castle doctrine is irrelevant.
Sure you can use force to protect property, but there was no risk here of property or life.
Just a kid playing around.

If pointing a gun is proof of intent to kill, then the next time the police point a gun at me, I will be sure to arrest him for attempted murder.
You can't have it both ways.
The cop has no more right to point a gun than anyone else.

Like I said, look it up for yourself. Yes, you could shoot an armed person if they were pulling a gun on you. Legally armed people never pull out their weapon in public unless it's in a defensive action. If they pull out a weapon when there is no threat to them, you have every reason to believe they are presenting a threat to you.

If I got pissed off at somebody and said I'm going to kill you while armed, that's not a reason for them to conclude they are in jeopardy of harm or death. If I say I'm going to kill you while pulling out my firearm, they have every reason to believe I am going to kill them and can legally use deadly force to stop the threat.

When a police officer pulls a gun on a suspect, it's to prepare for a possible defensive action. You cannot shoot the officer because there was no reason to believe he put you in jeopardy of harm or death. Like all cases, if you comply with an officers orders, you have nothing to worry about.

In this particular situation, this kid (who apparently looked like an adult) was pulling a lifelike firearm on a police officer. The officer believed that the suspect was going to use that firearm against him, so he shot first in self-defense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is totally untrue.
It is true we do not know exactly what happened, but grand juries are not average juries.
They are hand picked and so controlled by the prosecutor, that the old joke is that the prosecutor could get them to convict a ham sandwich if he wanted to.
So while we do not know the details, we do know the general likely events.

And you are totally wrong about prosecutors not caring about police support.
Not only is police support absolutely for his job, but police unions control millions of voters as well.

There clearly WAS a violation of law.
It was illegal for the police to drive up on the grass in the park, it was illegal for them to put themselves so close to the kid without first communicating, it was illegal to shoot without the presence of a deadly threat.

It's not legal for the police to drive up on the grass? WTF did you get that from? Show me the law that states a police officer cannot approach a suspect without communicating first. A suspect pulling a gun out in front of an officer after being ordered to freeze is clearly a threat. So what should the officer be charged with? He broke no laws.

 

[Rigby5]

That is wrong.
I am also a license concealed carrier, and just believing there is a threat is NOT a sufficient justification for shooting.
If that were true, I could shoot every armed person I see, including cops.
There has to be objective evidence that there not only is a deadly weapon present, but the likely intent to use it. For example, verbal threats, etc.
Just someone pointing a gun at you is NOT a legal justification for shooting them, in any state.
You need more than that.
Again, police point guns at me dozens of times, and I can not then legally shoot them.
It has nothing to do with them being police, but that just pointing a gun is not sufficient proof of attempted murder.
People point guns at others, like intruders all the time.
Pointing a gun is not proof of an intent to kill.

And the castle doctrine is irrelevant.
Sure you can use force to protect property, but there was no risk here of property or life.
Just a kid playing around.

If pointing a gun is proof of intent to kill, then the next time the police point a gun at me, I will be sure to arrest him for attempted murder.
You can't have it both ways.
The cop has no more right to point a gun than anyone else.

Like I said, look it up for yourself. Yes, you could shoot an armed person if they were pulling a gun on you. Legally armed people never pull out their weapon in public unless it's in a defensive action. If they pull out a weapon when there is no threat to them, you have every reason to believe they are presenting a threat to you.

If I got pissed off at somebody and said I'm going to kill you while armed, that's not a reason for them to conclude they are in jeopardy of harm or death. If I say I'm going to kill you while pulling out my firearm, they have every reason to believe I am going to kill them and can legally use deadly force to stop the threat.

When a police officer pulls a gun on a suspect, it's to prepare for a possible defensive action. You cannot shoot the officer because there was no reason to believe he put you in jeopardy of harm or death. Like all cases, if you comply with an officers orders, you have nothing to worry about.

In this particular situation, this kid (who apparently looked like an adult) was pulling a lifelike firearm on a police officer. The officer believed that the suspect was going to use that firearm against him, so he shot first in self-defense.

No you can not shoot someone just for pointing a gun at you without more probable cause than that.
The cop pulling a gun on you is IDENTICAL to anyone pulling a gun on you, including this kid.
There is PLENTY of reason to believe the cop is the greatest danger of all, because cops are well known for shooting hundreds of people who were not threatening every year.
Police are probably the single most dangerous classification of people there are.
Most are ex-veterans who have been extremely badly trained to shoot any possible threat from their military service, and veterans should be automatically disqualified for that reason.

And NO, this kid was NOT pulling a gun.
He already had it out, in the open, in his hand.
The cops should have seen it before even driving onto the grass.
It was the cops themselves who caused the situation to appear risky to them, so they then can not claim self defense.
You can not legally shoot your way out of a dangerous situation that you yourself caused.
They legally are required to have used due diligence perceive and avoid the situation ahead of time.
If the cops can legally shoot this kid, then I can legally shoot any cop who tries to draw a gun on me.

 

[Rigby5]

That is totally untrue.
It is true we do not know exactly what happened, but grand juries are not average juries.
They are hand picked and so controlled by the prosecutor, that the old joke is that the prosecutor could get them to convict a ham sandwich if he wanted to.
So while we do not know the details, we do know the general likely events.

And you are totally wrong about prosecutors not caring about police support.
Not only is police support absolutely for his job, but police unions control millions of voters as well.

There clearly WAS a violation of law.
It was illegal for the police to drive up on the grass in the park, it was illegal for them to put themselves so close to the kid without first communicating, it was illegal to shoot without the presence of a deadly threat.

It's not legal for the police to drive up on the grass? WTF did you get that from? Show me the law that states a police officer cannot approach a suspect without communicating first. A suspect pulling a gun out in front of an officer after being ordered to freeze is clearly a threat. So what should the officer be charged with? He broke no laws.

No one can legally drive up on the grass because it is dangerous and frightening to people using the park.
Sure police can approach without communicating first when there is no danger or risk.
But it most certainly is illegal to deliberately put yourself at risk so that you then are forced to shoot, when there are safer alternatives. Same thing with all states having a duty to retreat when there is no property at stake.
And again, the kid ALWAYS had the gun in his hand. He did not suddenly pull it out.
The police could always see it, likely from half a block away.
So they broke dozens of laws.
What if you had done what the cops did?