No Federal Charges Against Officers In Tamir Rice Shooting.

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You are wrong on so many levels. First of all, when a police officer pulls a gun on you, you are assured it's not for a criminal act. If a stranger pulls a gun on you, you have no idea what their intentions are, and every reason to believe it's for an aggressive action. I am convinced you are not a CCW carrier because you seem to have no concept of the laws. People who get licensed are very informed about what the laws are.

Police do shoot hundreds of people every year. Shootings without justification end up with charges against the officer. There is no law anywhere that states a police officer can only use deadly force unless the adversary is also using deadly force. If some person twice the size of the officer attacks him or her, they can legally use deadly force even if they were unarmed. Again, you don't have a CCW or you'd know that.

At the grand jury, a video expert was summoned to testify in court. He gave an account of what the video showed frame by frame. In that explanation, he showed how Rice's shoulder lifted up as the officers were getting out of their car, indicating he was likely pulling up on something. He did not have the gun in his hand until they got out of their car.

Now, you don't have to believe me, but believe one of your own kind: CNN. Here is the explanation of what actually took place by the reporter. It's a short clip so it won't take up much of your time:



As she explained, when Tamir seen the patrol car, he stuck the gun down his pants. While they were getting out of the car, this enhanced video clearly shows him pulling the gun out, and that's when the officer fired.

 

[Flash]

Now that the sorry assholes got their way on changing the name of Southern forts will they now change the name of Ft Hood to Ft Tamir Rice?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Show me the law that states a police officer cannot drive on grass. It happens every day in this country.
Show me the police policy in any city or state that says the police officer must communicate with a dangerous subject before using deadly force.
It is not illegal for police to put themselves at risk when addressing a suspect. It happens dozens of times every day.
If I had done what the cops did, I would be in jail because I have no legal authority to address a subject--they do. We give them that authority.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Wrong.

If they are questioning them as a suspect, they have to get the parents involved. This is black letter law.

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

So he just happened to find the bullshit expert who manipulated images to "show" that Tamir was going for the toy. (Which again, makes no sense, since it was a TOY!!!)

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.

You mean if they were soooo incensed about his bullshit, they could have insisted on a vote... Um, yeah, I guess.
Most of them didn't realize they had been had until after they had gotten out.

The problem is, the DA's cover for the cops, even if they don't know them.

That's why every state should have an agency whose sole function is to review cases of police misconduct, with an expectation that they get a certain number of convictions.

 

[JoeB131]

Now that the sorry assholes got their way on changing the name of Southern forts will they now change the name of Ft Hood to Ft Tamir Rice?

Works for me.

 

[JoeB131]

As she explained, when Tamir seen the patrol car, he stuck the gun down his pants. While they were getting out of the car, this enhanced video clearly shows him pulling the gun out, and that's when the officer fired.

Video shows nothing of the sort, no matter how much McGinty claimed it did.

That's why he doesn't have a job, and Tamir's mom got 5 million.

 

[Aletheia4u]

I will careless about what goes on in these Democrat controlled states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nat/education/democratic-mayors-challenge-teachers-unions-in-urban-political-shift/2012/03/30/gIQA0xoJmS_story.html

Ted Strickland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Video shows nothing of the sort, no matter how much McGinty claimed it did.

That's why he doesn't have a job, and Tamir's mom got 5 million.

The video clearly shows that. You can't see it because you have a mental block that stops you. For everybody else, it's as clear as night and day. This is the enhanced video that you didn't even bother watching.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong.

If they are questioning them as a suspect, they have to get the parents involved. This is black letter law.

Then show me this law. There is no such law. The suspect is advised of his or her rights upon arrest. Your right is you don't have to speak to an officer and a right to an attorney before you answer any questions. There is no right to not be questioned without parents consent.

What Are Your Miranda Rights?

Your Miranda Rights are important and if you were not given a warning. Please submit the facts of your case today to speak with a professional lawyer.

www.mirandawarning.org

Now show me where it says anything about police not being able to ask a minor suspect questions.

So he just happened to find the bullshit expert who manipulated images to "show" that Tamir was going for the toy. (Which again, makes no sense, since it was a TOY!!!)

He didn't manipulate anything. Why do you on the left keep lying so much when it's so easy to prove you're lying?

You mean if they were soooo incensed about his bullshit, they could have insisted on a vote... Um, yeah, I guess.
Most of them didn't realize they had been had until after they had gotten out.

The problem is, the DA's cover for the cops, even if they don't know them.

That's why every state should have an agency whose sole function is to review cases of police misconduct, with an expectation that they get a certain number of convictions.

You can't convict a person unless they broke a law. I know you on the left yearn for the USSR, but the USSR is gone now. You can't lock people up because you don't like them or don't like what they did. If you want a government like that, move to Cuba or North Korea.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

You are wrong on so many levels. First of all, when a police officer pulls a gun on you, you are assured it's not for a criminal act. If a stranger pulls a gun on you, you have no idea what their intentions are, and every reason to believe it's for an aggressive action. I am convinced you are not a CCW carrier because you seem to have no concept of the laws. People who get licensed are very informed about what the laws are.

Police do shoot hundreds of people every year. Shootings without justification end up with charges against the officer. There is no law anywhere that states a police officer can only use deadly force unless the adversary is also using deadly force. If some person twice the size of the officer attacks him or her, they can legally use deadly force even if they were unarmed. Again, you don't have a CCW or you'd know that.

At the grand jury, a video expert was summoned to testify in court. He gave an account of what the video showed frame by frame. In that explanation, he showed how Rice's shoulder lifted up as the officers were getting out of their car, indicating he was likely pulling up on something. He did not have the gun in his hand until they got out of their car.

Now, you don't have to believe me, but believe one of your own kind: CNN. Here is the explanation of what actually took place by the reporter. It's a short clip so it won't take up much of your time:



As she explained, when Tamir seen the patrol car, he stuck the gun down his pants. While they were getting out of the car, this enhanced video clearly shows him pulling the gun out, and that's when the officer fired.

Wrong.
Police are the most trigger happy people on the planet, and clearly have ingrained military training where they shoot first and ask questions later.
They are the most irresponsible, dangerous, and criminal people in the entire world.
When police draw a gun on people without reasonable cause like seeing a weapon, that is a criminal act.
It is called reckless endangerment.
That is because once you have drawn and pointed, any accidental stumble can easily cause the gun to go off.
Any cop who does that has made himself a clear and present danger, who should be shot and killed in self defense.
Police are the least trustworthy on the planet.
They are not only the greatest danger we face as individuals, but they threaten our entire political and governmental system as historically being the means by which all dictatorships always take over.
And clearly police already are part of the fascists dictatorship take over, because they enforce illegal things like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, ridiculous tax laws, etc.,

And no, you are wrong about the law.
I not only am a CCW, but had taken half a dozens classes and tests due to the many states I live in.
In general you are wrong when you say you can use deadly force if the other person is twice your size.
That is because size does not cause a physical attack to have deadly potential. The only times size makes a difference is with women, because they face the additional threat of rape. Even if a male attacking another male is twice the size, the risk is not deadly, you should be able to prevent deadly harm, so you can NOT accelerate to a deadly response.
The ONLY time a cop is justified in using deadly force on a physical attack is if there is a risk the attacker could get the gun from the cop. Defense of control over the gun could justify deadly force, but just barely.

As for the video, you are totally wrong because the boy is clearly not moving and facing the police car.
They could easily see everything, and if they felt at all threatened, they should not have stopped or gotten out of the car.
Again, police can not deliberately charge into a situation they know will then become much more risky due to their own actions, and then claim self defense.
If there was a single ounce of risk, it was all entirely their own fault for their own stupid and reckless conduct.
They should be arrested and charged for scaring everyone in the park.
And most likely the bored child would have thought they were just playing.
No one would believe these cops would have done such a stupid and reckless act unless it was deliberate play.

But I will agree I was wrong about Rice already having the gun out.
This video does clearly show he had put it in his waist and was starting to pull it out.
But that is never justification for shooting by the police.
He was only 9' away, and that is crazy.
The cop should never have gotten out of the car, the car never should have entered the park, and the police deliberately caused the entirely risk themselves.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong.
Police are the most trigger happy people on the planet, and clearly have ingrained military training where they shoot first and ask questions later.
They are the most irresponsible, dangerous, and criminal people in the entire world.
When police draw a gun on people without reasonable cause like seeing a weapon, that is a criminal act.
It is called reckless endangerment.
That is because once you have drawn and pointed, any accidental stumble can easily cause the gun to go off.
Any cop who does that has made himself a clear and present danger, who should be shot and killed in self defense.
Police are the least trustworthy on the planet.
They are not only the greatest danger we face as individuals, but they threaten our entire political and governmental system as historically being the means by which all dictatorships always take over.
And clearly police already are part of the fascists dictatorship take over, because they enforce illegal things like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, ridiculous tax laws, etc.,

And no, you are wrong about the law.
I not only am a CCW, but had taken half a dozens classes and tests due to the many states I live in.
In general you are wrong when you say you can use deadly force if the other person is twice your size.
That is because size does not cause a physical attack to have deadly potential. The only times size makes a difference is with women, because they face the additional threat of rape. Even if a male attacking another male is twice the size, the risk is not deadly, you should be able to prevent deadly harm, so you can NOT accelerate to a deadly response.
The ONLY time a cop is justified in using deadly force on a physical attack is if there is a risk the attacker could get the gun from the cop. Defense of control over the gun could justify deadly force, but just barely.

As for the video, you are totally wrong because the boy is clearly not moving and facing the police car.
They could easily see everything, and if they felt at all threatened, they should not have stopped or gotten out of the car.
Again, police can not deliberately charge into a situation they know will then become much more risky due to their own actions, and then claim self defense.
If there was a single ounce of risk, it was all entirely their own fault for their own stupid and reckless conduct.
They should be arrested and charged for scaring everyone in the park.
And most likely the bored child would have thought they were just playing.
No one would believe these cops would have done such a stupid and reckless act unless it was deliberate play.

But I will agree I was wrong about Rice already having the gun out.
This video does clearly show he had put it in his waist and was starting to pull it out.
But that is never justification for shooting by the police.
He was only 9' away, and that is crazy.
The cop should never have gotten out of the car, the car never should have entered the park, and the police deliberately caused the entirely risk themselves.

This is police procedure. It's what all police officers do. That's how they are trained. They rush the subject in effort to stop somebody from doing what Rice did, and that is draw a weapon on them. Watch reruns of the show COPS. I've seen this happen with our own police force several times. One time it was just a call for a bunch of kids fighting. I was sitting on my front steps. The car of kids left the scene and was coming the opposite direction of the police car. He turned around, pulled them over in front of my house, got out of his car with his gun drawn and aggressively approached the car screaming for them to keep their hands where he could see them. The assisting officers were only seconds away, and they all pulled out their weapons when they got here. Perfectly legal and perfect police procedure. They drew their guns in preparation to defend themselves.

The job of a police officer IS to enforce the laws. That's their primary purpose. If you don't like the laws, you take that up with your representatives who wrote them, not the police. The police are only doing what they are paid to do.

As for when you can use deadly force, read the law. In most states like mine, the law is you can use deadly force if you believe that you (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That means if you perceive serious bodily harm, you can use deadly force. It doesn't have to be a threat of death only. Look at the Travon Martin case. Zimmerman was getting the shit beat out of him and shot Martin dead. He's a free man today because he broke no laws.

 

[Papageorgio]

CLEVELAND (WJW)– The U.S. Department of Justice closed its independent investigation into the deadly shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

The Justice Department said it found insufficient evidence to support federal criminal charges against Cleveland Division of Police Officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback. Rice’s family was notified of the decision on Monday.

“Although Tamir Rice’s death is tragic, the evidence does not meet these substantial evidentiary requirements. In light of this, and for the reasons explained below, career federal prosecutors with both the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office concluded that this matter is not a prosecutable violation of the federal statutes,” the DOJ said in a news release on Tuesday.

The DOJ said video of the incident is time-lapsed, grainy and doesn’t have audio so Rice’s hands are not visible at relevant times. Federal investigators also said Loehmann and Garmback gave several statements and consistently repeated main points.

Rice was shot and killed at Cudell Recreation Center on West Boulevard in Cleveland on Nov. 22, 2014 after a person called 911 reporting seeing a person with a gun. The caller said the individual was, “probably a juvenile” and the gun was, “probably fake.” That information was not passed along to the officers, according to the investigation.

Police said Loehmann opened fire when he said the boy reached towards his waistband. The gun turned out to be an airsoft pistol.

Loehmann was fired from the Cleveland Division of Police in 2017 for lying on his police application, not the deadly shooting. His termination, though appealed, was upheld by the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

Justice Department declines to file charges against officers in deadly shooting of Tamir Rice

The U.S. Department of Justice closed its independent investigation into the deadly shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

fox8.com

There is a divide on whether the officer was in his right to shoot the 5'9" 195lbs 12 year old. It's mostly divided on party lines: the cop haters vs the cop supporters. In spite of the grand jury ruling not to indict officer Loehmann, the city still made his mother rich by handing her 5 million taxpayer dollars, which could have been used for much better things for the citizens. Now, this is a second ruling that the officers did nothing illegal, while some will say Loehmann was still wrong. Before the cop haters chime in and say the kid only had a toy, here is a picture of the real gun, and the replica the toy was made from. Can you tell the difference, especially in a split seconds time?


View attachment 434890

Only a fucking moron would be for the police killing of children holding toy guns.

That wasn’t the decision, do you not know how to comprehend words? It seems you are consistently missing the point.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

If they are questioning them as a suspect, they have to get the parents involved. This is black letter law.

Then show me this law. There is no such law. The suspect is advised of his or her rights upon arrest. Your right is you don't have to speak to an officer and a right to an attorney before you answer any questions. There is no right to not be questioned without parents consent.

What Are Your Miranda Rights?

Your Miranda Rights are important and if you were not given a warning. Please submit the facts of your case today to speak with a professional lawyer.

www.mirandawarning.org

Now show me where it says anything about police not being able to ask a minor suspect questions.

So he just happened to find the bullshit expert who manipulated images to "show" that Tamir was going for the toy. (Which again, makes no sense, since it was a TOY!!!)

He didn't manipulate anything. Why do you on the left keep lying so much when it's so easy to prove you're lying?

You mean if they were soooo incensed about his bullshit, they could have insisted on a vote... Um, yeah, I guess.
Most of them didn't realize they had been had until after they had gotten out.

The problem is, the DA's cover for the cops, even if they don't know them.

That's why every state should have an agency whose sole function is to review cases of police misconduct, with an expectation that they get a certain number of convictions.

You can't convict a person unless they broke a law. I know you on the left yearn for the USSR, but the USSR is gone now. You can't lock people up because you don't like them or don't like what they did. If you want a government like that, move to Cuba or North Korea.

Depends on the state, whether the juvenile is under arrest or not, age, and a few other factors like if there is a danger to others.
But in general, the answer is no, the police can not question without a lawyer's approval.

{...
If your child is in custody and 15 years old or younger, they cannot be questioned by police until they consult with a lawyer in person, by telephone, or by video conference. This consultation cannot be waived by the minor. There is an exception that allows police to ask questions necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat. Failure to comply with this law will be considered by the court when deciding whether to admit the minor’s statement as evidence at trial.
Do minors have to talk to the police?

The short answer is “No.” Although police can question them, children do not have to talk to the police. They can decline to answer questions. If a child asks for a lawyer, then the police must stop asking questions.
...}

Can a Juvenile be Questioned by Police Without a Parent Present in California?

Learn more about how both school personnel and police can question a juvenile without their parent present. We cover questioning without a lawyer too!

cohendefense.com

If the juvenile is not under arrest or is over 15, then the police can question a juvenile.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
Police are the most trigger happy people on the planet, and clearly have ingrained military training where they shoot first and ask questions later.
They are the most irresponsible, dangerous, and criminal people in the entire world.
When police draw a gun on people without reasonable cause like seeing a weapon, that is a criminal act.
It is called reckless endangerment.
That is because once you have drawn and pointed, any accidental stumble can easily cause the gun to go off.
Any cop who does that has made himself a clear and present danger, who should be shot and killed in self defense.
Police are the least trustworthy on the planet.
They are not only the greatest danger we face as individuals, but they threaten our entire political and governmental system as historically being the means by which all dictatorships always take over.
And clearly police already are part of the fascists dictatorship take over, because they enforce illegal things like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, ridiculous tax laws, etc.,

And no, you are wrong about the law.
I not only am a CCW, but had taken half a dozens classes and tests due to the many states I live in.
In general you are wrong when you say you can use deadly force if the other person is twice your size.
That is because size does not cause a physical attack to have deadly potential. The only times size makes a difference is with women, because they face the additional threat of rape. Even if a male attacking another male is twice the size, the risk is not deadly, you should be able to prevent deadly harm, so you can NOT accelerate to a deadly response.
The ONLY time a cop is justified in using deadly force on a physical attack is if there is a risk the attacker could get the gun from the cop. Defense of control over the gun could justify deadly force, but just barely.

As for the video, you are totally wrong because the boy is clearly not moving and facing the police car.
They could easily see everything, and if they felt at all threatened, they should not have stopped or gotten out of the car.
Again, police can not deliberately charge into a situation they know will then become much more risky due to their own actions, and then claim self defense.
If there was a single ounce of risk, it was all entirely their own fault for their own stupid and reckless conduct.
They should be arrested and charged for scaring everyone in the park.
And most likely the bored child would have thought they were just playing.
No one would believe these cops would have done such a stupid and reckless act unless it was deliberate play.

But I will agree I was wrong about Rice already having the gun out.
This video does clearly show he had put it in his waist and was starting to pull it out.
But that is never justification for shooting by the police.
He was only 9' away, and that is crazy.
The cop should never have gotten out of the car, the car never should have entered the park, and the police deliberately caused the entirely risk themselves.

This is police procedure. It's what all police officers do. That's how they are trained. They rush the subject in effort to stop somebody from doing what Rice did, and that is draw a weapon on them. Watch reruns of the show COPS. I've seen this happen with our own police force several times. One time it was just a call for a bunch of kids fighting. I was sitting on my front steps. The car of kids left the scene and was coming the opposite direction of the police car. He turned around, pulled them over in front of my house, got out of his car with his gun drawn and aggressively approached the car screaming for them to keep their hands where he could see them. The assisting officers were only seconds away, and they all pulled out their weapons when they got here. Perfectly legal and perfect police procedure. They drew their guns in preparation to defend themselves.

The job of a police officer IS to enforce the laws. That's their primary purpose. If you don't like the laws, you take that up with your representatives who wrote them, not the police. The police are only doing what they are paid to do.

As for when you can use deadly force, read the law. In most states like mine, the law is you can use deadly force if you believe that you (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That means if you perceive serious bodily harm, you can use deadly force. It doesn't have to be a threat of death only. Look at the Travon Martin case. Zimmerman was getting the shit beat out of him and shot Martin dead. He's a free man today because he broke no laws.

No, totally and completely illegal.
Police have no more authority to do an illegal U turn, draw or point a deadly weapon, than anyone.
That should be obvious because government is not a source of any legal authority.
WE are the only source.
So police get their authority from us, so can not possibly be authorized to do anything we can not already do ourselves.
For if we could not do it, then we could not delegate that to the police for them to be able to do it.
Current police procedures are almost all entirely illegal.
For example, the War on Drugs.
Legal authority comes from defense of the rights of others, but the War on Drugs defends the rights of no one, so is utterly and completely illegal.

Police can not "defend themselves" by putting their superiors, the average citizens, at risk. And the rights of that car full of kids were superior to those police, because the kids are not willingly accepting pay to allow for risks.

What you fail to realize is we already live in an illegal authoritarian dictatorship, so you can use current police procedures to define what is legal.
Almost everything police do currently, such as over night parking tickets, are totally and completely illegal.
If you do not see how the US already is a corrupt dictatorship, just try asking some of half million innocent Iraqis we murdered over obvious WMD lies in Iraq?
That could not have happened if we were really still a democratic republic that recognized the inherent right of all citizens, even if they were Iraqi Muslims.

 

[Rigby5]

CLEVELAND (WJW)– The U.S. Department of Justice closed its independent investigation into the deadly shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

The Justice Department said it found insufficient evidence to support federal criminal charges against Cleveland Division of Police Officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback. Rice’s family was notified of the decision on Monday.

“Although Tamir Rice’s death is tragic, the evidence does not meet these substantial evidentiary requirements. In light of this, and for the reasons explained below, career federal prosecutors with both the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office concluded that this matter is not a prosecutable violation of the federal statutes,” the DOJ said in a news release on Tuesday.

The DOJ said video of the incident is time-lapsed, grainy and doesn’t have audio so Rice’s hands are not visible at relevant times. Federal investigators also said Loehmann and Garmback gave several statements and consistently repeated main points.

Rice was shot and killed at Cudell Recreation Center on West Boulevard in Cleveland on Nov. 22, 2014 after a person called 911 reporting seeing a person with a gun. The caller said the individual was, “probably a juvenile” and the gun was, “probably fake.” That information was not passed along to the officers, according to the investigation.

Police said Loehmann opened fire when he said the boy reached towards his waistband. The gun turned out to be an airsoft pistol.

Loehmann was fired from the Cleveland Division of Police in 2017 for lying on his police application, not the deadly shooting. His termination, though appealed, was upheld by the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

Justice Department declines to file charges against officers in deadly shooting of Tamir Rice

The U.S. Department of Justice closed its independent investigation into the deadly shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

fox8.com

There is a divide on whether the officer was in his right to shoot the 5'9" 195lbs 12 year old. It's mostly divided on party lines: the cop haters vs the cop supporters. In spite of the grand jury ruling not to indict officer Loehmann, the city still made his mother rich by handing her 5 million taxpayer dollars, which could have been used for much better things for the citizens. Now, this is a second ruling that the officers did nothing illegal, while some will say Loehmann was still wrong. Before the cop haters chime in and say the kid only had a toy, here is a picture of the real gun, and the replica the toy was made from. Can you tell the difference, especially in a split seconds time?


View attachment 434890

Only a fucking moron would be for the police killing of children holding toy guns.

That wasn’t the decision, do you not know how to comprehend words? It seems you are consistently missing the point.

Up that close, 9', they should have been able to recognize he was a juvenile.
They did not have to rush to shoot so quickly.
Nothing had been pointed at them yet.
They should never have driven up on the grass, as that was reckless engangerment to all the kids in the park.
They should never have approached someone they suspected might be armed at all, since it is close proximity that makes a pistol dangerous.
If they had kept their distance, there would have been no danger.

The fact is they did murder a child holding a toy, and there is no excuse for ever doing that.

 

[Papageorgio]

CLEVELAND (WJW)– The U.S. Department of Justice closed its independent investigation into the deadly shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

The Justice Department said it found insufficient evidence to support federal criminal charges against Cleveland Division of Police Officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback. Rice’s family was notified of the decision on Monday.

“Although Tamir Rice’s death is tragic, the evidence does not meet these substantial evidentiary requirements. In light of this, and for the reasons explained below, career federal prosecutors with both the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office concluded that this matter is not a prosecutable violation of the federal statutes,” the DOJ said in a news release on Tuesday.

The DOJ said video of the incident is time-lapsed, grainy and doesn’t have audio so Rice’s hands are not visible at relevant times. Federal investigators also said Loehmann and Garmback gave several statements and consistently repeated main points.

Rice was shot and killed at Cudell Recreation Center on West Boulevard in Cleveland on Nov. 22, 2014 after a person called 911 reporting seeing a person with a gun. The caller said the individual was, “probably a juvenile” and the gun was, “probably fake.” That information was not passed along to the officers, according to the investigation.

Police said Loehmann opened fire when he said the boy reached towards his waistband. The gun turned out to be an airsoft pistol.

Loehmann was fired from the Cleveland Division of Police in 2017 for lying on his police application, not the deadly shooting. His termination, though appealed, was upheld by the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

Justice Department declines to file charges against officers in deadly shooting of Tamir Rice

The U.S. Department of Justice closed its independent investigation into the deadly shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

fox8.com

There is a divide on whether the officer was in his right to shoot the 5'9" 195lbs 12 year old. It's mostly divided on party lines: the cop haters vs the cop supporters. In spite of the grand jury ruling not to indict officer Loehmann, the city still made his mother rich by handing her 5 million taxpayer dollars, which could have been used for much better things for the citizens. Now, this is a second ruling that the officers did nothing illegal, while some will say Loehmann was still wrong. Before the cop haters chime in and say the kid only had a toy, here is a picture of the real gun, and the replica the toy was made from. Can you tell the difference, especially in a split seconds time?


View attachment 434890

Only a fucking moron would be for the police killing of children holding toy guns.

That wasn’t the decision, do you not know how to comprehend words? It seems you are consistently missing the point.

Up that close, 9', they should have been able to recognize he was a juvenile.
They did not have to rush to shoot so quickly.
Nothing had been pointed at them yet.
They should never have driven up on the grass, as that was reckless engangerment to all the kids in the park.
They should never have approached someone they suspected might be armed at all, since it is close proximity that makes a pistol dangerous.
If they had kept their distance, there would have been no danger.

The fact is they did murder a child holding a toy, and there is no excuse for ever doing that.

No murder that has been determined, you are interjecting your feelings. Tragic a child has died, tragic for his family and the pain will never ease, nor will it go away. Thanks for your opinion, I see the evidence and conclusion differently.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Up that close, 9', they should have been able to recognize he was a juvenile.
They did not have to rush to shoot so quickly.
Nothing had been pointed at them yet.
They should never have driven up on the grass, as that was reckless engangerment to all the kids in the park.
They should never have approached someone they suspected might be armed at all, since it is close proximity that makes a pistol dangerous.
If they had kept their distance, there would have been no danger.

The fact is they did murder a child holding a toy, and there is no excuse for ever doing that.

Yes there is an excuse for doing that. When a "child" pulls a gun on a police officer. Do you think that if a child shoots somebody, it will be less deadly because it's a child pulling the trigger?

Show me any police procedure that states a police officer cannot defend himself unless a gun is pointed at him. Do you know how long it takes to lift your arm with a gun and fire? Less than a half-second.

It's less proximity that makes a handgun more dangerous. Did you ever shoot a gun before? If you did, you'd know that the more distance between you and the target, the less likely you will hit that target. In spite of all their training, especially when it comes to firearms, police miss their target most of the time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, totally and completely illegal.
Police have no more authority to do an illegal U turn, draw or point a deadly weapon, than anyone.
That should be obvious because government is not a source of any legal authority.
WE are the only source.
So police get their authority from us, so can not possibly be authorized to do anything we can not already do ourselves.
For if we could not do it, then we could not delegate that to the police for them to be able to do it.
Current police procedures are almost all entirely illegal.
For example, the War on Drugs.
Legal authority comes from defense of the rights of others, but the War on Drugs defends the rights of no one, so is utterly and completely illegal.

Police can not "defend themselves" by putting their superiors, the average citizens, at risk. And the rights of that car full of kids were superior to those police, because the kids are not willingly accepting pay to allow for risks.

What you fail to realize is we already live in an illegal authoritarian dictatorship, so you can use current police procedures to define what is legal.
Almost everything police do currently, such as over night parking tickets, are totally and completely illegal.
If you do not see how the US already is a corrupt dictatorship, just try asking some of half million innocent Iraqis we murdered over obvious WMD lies in Iraq?
That could not have happened if we were really still a democratic republic that recognized the inherent right of all citizens, even if they were Iraqi Muslims.

Anarchists like yourself do not write the laws--our representatives do. If you want to write laws, run for Congress. As for the police, we collectively give them the authority to do what they do. Yes, they can make u-turns in the street. They can go through red lights with the use of their warning equipment. They can go over curbs, grass, down hills because they are performing a police action. What makes something illegal is when there is a law written against it such as drugs, and police have the authority to arrest people who break those laws.

All civilized societies have authority. You may not like it, but we as people approve of this structure. We don't want to live under jungle law where you do what you want when you want.

 

[JoeB131]

The video clearly shows that. You can't see it because you have a mental block that stops you. For everybody else, it's as clear as night and day. This is the enhanced video that you didn't even bother watching.

I've looked at that tape. All I see is a kid who is shocked some maniacs almost ran him over with a police car a second before shooting him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've looked at that tape. All I see is a kid who is shocked some maniacs almost ran him over with a police car a second before shooting him.

If you did watch it, you can clearly see his shoulder lifting up with his arm in front of him. Was he zipping up his zipper or something?