No Federal Charges Against Officers In Tamir Rice Shooting.

[Meathead]

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 ******* 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.

At 190 pounds they should have recognized he's a juvenile? I was about 40 before I got that big, and I'm tall.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The cop at only 9' should have been able to tell it was not only a kid, but that since he was a kid, he would not have a real gun.
There were lots of people in the park, so then the police should have known the kid was not a danger.
No one else had been shot at, so there was no reason for the police to assume they were going to be shot at.
It takes more than half a second because you have to raise the gun up to eye level in order to begin sighting, which takes many more seconds. The cops shot way too soon even if the kid had a real gun and intended to commit murder.
It is proximity that makes a handgun more dangerous, which is why they should not have deliberately put themselves in such close proximity. That is totally their own fault and their own deliberately doing.

Just ask yourself if you would have driven up on the grass and shot a kid, or if anyone you know would do something like that? I would not have and if any civilian had, they would be in prison right now.

 

[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 ******* 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.

At 190 pounds they should have recognized he's a juvenile? I was about 40 before I got that big, and I'm tall.

At 40' away then only profile matters. But at 9' you can easily tell of a person is only 12.
At 12 the skin is different and there is no facial hair. The body is soft and smooth. The ears, nose, etc., are soft and rounded. There is on way to confuse a 12 year old with an adult at 9' away only.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

An anarchist is someone who thinks they can make their own authority, like these cops.
Legally police can only do what all civilians can do, and no more than that.
Would a civilians have gotten away with driving up on to a park and shooting a 12 year old?
No way.
They would be in jail.

There is no such thing as a "police action".
The police have no more real authority than anyone, and never can have more authority.
That is because they only borrow authority from those they defend.
But they had no authority here because they were not defending anyone.
The rest of the kids in the park did not feel threatened by this air-soft replica toy at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

An anarchist is someone who thinks they can make their own authority, like these cops.
Legally police can only do what all civilians can do, and no more than that.
Would a civilians have gotten away with driving up on to a park and shooting a 12 year old?
No way.
They would be in jail.

There is no such thing as a "police action".
The police have no more real authority than anyone, and never can have more authority.
That is because they only borrow authority from those they defend.
But they had no authority here because they were not defending anyone.
The rest of the kids in the park did not feel threatened by this air-soft replica toy at all.

The complaint received by police was not from the kids, it was from a concerned citizen who witnessed a person with a gun pointing it at people. No, police can do more than civilians. They have the authority to legally put somebody in handcuffs--you don't. They have the legal authority to bring charges against a suspect--you don't. They have the legal authority to put somebody in jail--you don't. They have the legal authority to strip search a suspect--you don't. They have the authority to confiscate evidence--you don't. They have the legal authority to enforce written laws--you don't.

Police are not citizens who put on a uniform and perform citizen acts. They are law enforcement that we as a majority pay to deal with legal matters unsafe to us. They had the authority to investigate a person with a gun in a public recreation center. That's what we pay them for. If police only had equal authority of citizens, then there would be no police force at all, would there? Now the Democrats are defunding their police departments, and look at what the results are.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

At 40' away then only profile matters. But at 9' you can easily tell of a person is only 12.
At 12 the skin is different and there is no facial hair. The body is soft and smooth. The ears, nose, etc., are soft and rounded. There is on way to confuse a 12 year old with an adult at 9' away only.

Then why did the police call in the suspect as a black male in their late teens or early 20's? The picture of this kid is another Travon Martin stunt. Post a picture of the person several years before they died instead of a current picture. Look at the picture I posted in the OP. Does that look like a 195 pound 5'9" kid????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The cop at only 9' should have been able to tell it was not only a kid, but that since he was a kid, he would not have a real gun.

You don't know this city very well, do you? As I posted earlier, the Mayor of Cleveland's grandson got busted for carrying a gun, and he was 13 at the time. We have kids shooting at each other constantly here.

There were lots of people in the park, so then the police should have known the kid was not a danger.

Wait a minute. What does how many people in the park have to do with how dangerous he was or could have been, and where is this evidence there were a lot of kids there in the first place? I seen no report about how many kids were there at the time.

No one else had been shot at, so there was no reason for the police to assume they were going to be shot at.

How ridiculous. Police get a call for a guy with a gun pointing it at people. Because he didn't shoot anybody yet, that means he wouldn't shoot at a police officer? Where do you dream up this stuff from?

It takes more than half a second because you have to raise the gun up to eye level in order to begin sighting, which takes many more seconds. The cops shot way too soon even if the kid had a real gun and intended to commit murder.

When criminals shoot guns, do you really think they stand there, breathe in and out, concentrate on their target? How silly. They just point at the direction of who they want to kill and shoot. That's how innocents get killed in these drive-by shootings.

It is proximity that makes a handgun more dangerous, which is why they should not have deliberately put themselves in such close proximity. That is totally their own fault and their own deliberately doing.

Yes, it was their doing because that's how they are trained at the police academy and city police procedure.

I could understand your concern if you were a little more honest. But based on your comments here, not only am I convinced you don't have a carry license, but also convinced you never shot a handgun in your life, otherwise you wouldn't be talking this way. So here and now, I'll teach you a little bit about it:

This is a term called "downrange." What is downrange? It's what could possibly get hit by your bullet WHEN you miss your target, and you will miss your target repeatedly. The further you are from your target, the more you will miss it. Because we gun owners and especially CCW holders are trained in this just like police officers, we with training know that the shorter the distance, the less likely a missed bullet will strike a house, a car, and most importantly, an innocent victim. The less distance, the less concern of downrange you have.

Before you fire a gun in self-defense, you must quickly and accurately assess your downrange. Police understand this too, which is why they attempt to get as close to the suspect as possible before firing their weapon, hence police procedure. At five feet away, it's almost impossible to miss your target. At ten feet away, you will miss perhaps one out of ten shots. At twenty feet away, you will likely miss half of your shots.

Now watch this video. It's dashcam footage of an actual stop by police where they returned fire on an armed suspect. Take note how close they are, and the fact they missed the suspect in all the excitement.

Just ask yourself if you would have driven up on the grass and shot a kid, or if anyone you know would do something like that? I would not have and if any civilian had, they would be in prison right now.

That is true because I have no legal authority to enforce the law. Police do.