Preserving My Children’s Innocence Is Preserving White supremacy.

[JoeB131]

The Tulsa officer has been charged and she can face up to life in prison. The police are releasing video and audio of the guy with the gun in Charlotte. The police were screaming at him to put down his weapon. You can even hear his wife yelling at him not to do it. He and the guy in Tulsa had a rap sheet a mile long. And oh yes, he had seven children. I'm sure he worked very hard to support all seven of them.

I listened to that tape. What I heard was a wife telling the police he didn't have a gun and begging them not to shoot him.

The cops haven't released THEIR Tapes yet.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I listened to that tape. What I heard was a wife telling the police he didn't have a gun and begging them not to shoot him.

The cops haven't released THEIR Tapes yet.

Well good, keep thinking that's what she was doing. If he didn't have a gun, why would she be screaming at police to not shoot him? Police just don't shoot people for the hell of it. I've been pulled over several times in my life, and nobody had to scream at the police to not shoot me.

On the other hand, since he did have a gun, of course it makes sense for her to scream at him to not go through with shooting at the police. She knew the cops were going to kill him because he did have a gun in his hand, and that's something that's been reported by the police already. They have his gun in their possession.

 

[JoeB131]

Well good, keep thinking that's what she was doing. If he didn't have a gun, why would she be screaming at police to not shoot him? Police just don't shoot people for the hell of it. I've been pulled over several times in my life, and nobody had to scream at the police to not shoot me.

THAT'S BECAUSE YOU ARE WHITE, YOU STUPID SHIT!!!

Sorry, had to put that in bigger letters.

On the other hand, since he did have a gun, of course it makes sense for her to scream at him to not go through with shooting at the police. She knew the cops were going to kill him because he did have a gun in his hand, and that's something that's been reported by the police already. They have his gun in their possession.

Did you actually listen to the tape where she says several times- "He doesn't have a gun!"

She knew the cops were going to kill him because that's how cops act in the Hood. That's why people are rioting. They've had enough of this shit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did you actually listen to the tape where she says several times- "He doesn't have a gun!"

She knew the cops were going to kill him because that's how cops act in the Hood. That's why people are rioting. They've had enough of this shit.

Watched it several times. At first she was trying to convince the police he didn't have a gun while begging them to not shoot him. When she knew that didn't work, she began screaming at her husband not to go through with it. He was a criminal and didn't have much fear for the police.

That's just the nature of black people; to try and convince people of something that's right in front of them. Sort of like the show COPS. The camera recorded everything but the black suspect keeps saying he didn't do it, he didn't do it.

He had a gun in his hand. He knew it, she knew it and the cops knew it. And no, they couldn't have planted a gun on him because there was too many cameras rolling. He had the gun and the cops now have his gun for evidence. Of course I understand evidence means little to a liberal.

 

[JoeB131]

Watched it several times. At first she was trying to convince the police he didn't have a gun while begging them to not shoot him. When she knew that didn't work, she began screaming at her husband not to go through with it. He was a criminal and didn't have much fear for the police.

Wow.. you have a vivid imagination... So if the cops tape validates he had a gun, why haven't they released it yet?

That's just the nature of black people; to try and convince people of something that's right in front of them. Sort of like the show COPS. The camera recorded everything but the black suspect keeps saying he didn't do it, he didn't do it.

Oh, that's the 'Nature" of black People. Really? Hey, guy, the sooner you come to terms with YOUR ******* RACISM, the better off you will be.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Watched it several times. At first she was trying to convince the police he didn't have a gun while begging them to not shoot him. When she knew that didn't work, she began screaming at her husband not to go through with it. He was a criminal and didn't have much fear for the police.

Wow.. you have a vivid imagination... So if the cops tape validates he had a gun, why haven't they released it yet?

That's just the nature of black people; to try and convince people of something that's right in front of them. Sort of like the show COPS. The camera recorded everything but the black suspect keeps saying he didn't do it, he didn't do it.

Oh, that's the 'Nature" of black People. Really? Hey, guy, the sooner you come to terms with YOUR ******* RACISM, the better off you will be.

Oh, that's the 'Nature" of black People. Really? Hey, guy, the sooner you come to terms with YOUR ******* RACISM, the better off you will be.

It's racist to point out how people really are? Then why is it every time a black kid gets shot by police, the mother is on television saying stuff like "My boy didn't do it. He was a good boy. Wouldn't do anything wrong to anybody" and then the news reports the rap sheet on the little bastard?

Blacks believe if they repeat something enough times, that will make it true. I don't know why they think that way, but they do.

Wow.. you have a vivid imagination... So if the cops tape validates he had a gun, why haven't they released it yet?

Police never release evidence before it's time. Besides, liberals don't believe videos either. Just like the Tamir Rice case. The video showed him pulling out something from the front of his pants when he was shot, and you liberals still don't believe it.

 

[JoeB131]

It's racist to point out how people really are? Then why is it every time a black kid gets shot by police, the mother is on television saying stuff like "My boy didn't do it. He was a good boy. Wouldn't do anything wrong to anybody" and then the news reports the rap sheet on the little bastard?

A rap sheet that usually doesn't involve anything worth shooting anyone over.

So you are going to produce Tamir Rice's rap sheet, right. "Playing with intent". "Chewing gum in class"....

Police never release evidence before it's time. Besides, liberals don't believe videos either. Just like the Tamir Rice case. The video showed him pulling out something from the front of his pants when he was shot, and you liberals still don't believe it.

Because the tape doesn't show that. It shows Officer McShooty blowing the kid away two seconds after he pops out of the car.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's racist to point out how people really are? Then why is it every time a black kid gets shot by police, the mother is on television saying stuff like "My boy didn't do it. He was a good boy. Wouldn't do anything wrong to anybody" and then the news reports the rap sheet on the little bastard?

A rap sheet that usually doesn't involve anything worth shooting anyone over.

So you are going to produce Tamir Rice's rap sheet, right. "Playing with intent". "Chewing gum in class"....

Police never release evidence before it's time. Besides, liberals don't believe videos either. Just like the Tamir Rice case. The video showed him pulling out something from the front of his pants when he was shot, and you liberals still don't believe it.

Because the tape doesn't show that. It shows Officer McShooty blowing the kid away two seconds after he pops out of the car.

Because the tape doesn't show that. It shows Officer McShooty blowing the kid away two seconds after he pops out of the car.

Sure, it doesn't show that because you say so. Forget the media, forget the testimony by video experts, forget the police investigation, forget the grand jury. Joe knows more than all those people.

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

A rap sheet that usually doesn't involve anything worth shooting anyone over.

So you are going to produce Tamir Rice's rap sheet, right. "Playing with intent". "Chewing gum in class"....

Too young to have a rap sheet yet, but it seems he wasn't far from it.

 

[JoeB131]

Sure, it doesn't show that because you say so. Forget the media, forget the testimony by video experts, forget the police investigation, forget the grand jury. Joe knows more than all those people.

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

It doesn't show that because if it did, you'd have no problem showing a still of Tamir with his hand ON the toy gun.

Expert says Tamir Rice had hands in pockets when shot by Cleveland police

An expert in biomechanics and kinetics has determined that Tamir Rice's hands were in his pockets and never came out of them when he was shot by Cleveland police officer Timothy Loehmann last December.

The expert also found that Tamir's toy gun was not visible to either Loehmann or his partner, Frank Garmback, and Loehmann shot Tamir less than a second after exiting the patrol car, not the 1.7 seconds that other experts have found.

Jesse L. Wobrock, an expert hired by attorneys representing Tamir's family in a civil lawsuit, formed his conclusions after studying enhanced video released last week by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Tim McGinty. Subodh Chandra, a Cleveland-attorney on the Rice's legal team, released Wobrock's report late Friday night along with updated reports by two other experts, who also studied the enhanced video and maintain their original positions that the shooting of Tamir was not justifiable.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't show that because if it did, you'd have no problem showing a still of Tamir with his hand ON the toy gun.

Expert says Tamir Rice had hands in pockets when shot by Cleveland police

An expert in biomechanics and kinetics has determined that Tamir Rice's hands were in his pockets and never came out of them when he was shot by Cleveland police officer Timothy Loehmann last December.

The expert also found that Tamir's toy gun was not visible to either Loehmann or his partner, Frank Garmback, and Loehmann shot Tamir less than a second after exiting the patrol car, not the 1.7 seconds that other experts have found.

Jesse L. Wobrock, an expert hired by attorneys representing Tamir's family in a civil lawsuit, formed his conclusions after studying enhanced video released last week by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Tim McGinty. Subodh Chandra, a Cleveland-attorney on the Rice's legal team, released Wobrock's report late Friday night along with updated reports by two other experts, who also studied the enhanced video and maintain their original positions that the shooting of Tamir was not justifiable.

So what? It was one guy hired by the Rice family. WTF did you think he was going to say?

And as your link stated, it's his word was against three other experts in the field by the prosecution.

 

[JoeB131]

So what? It was one guy hired by the Rice family. WTF did you think he was going to say?

And as your link stated, it's his word was against three other experts in the field by the prosecution.

except the city settled... for a shitload of money.

That's how much faith they put in the "prosecutions" witnesses. And this was the problem. The DA went into this with an attitude of "How do I exonerate Officer McShooty despite overwhelming evidence he shot a child?"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

except the city settled... for a shitload of money.

That's how much faith they put in the "prosecutions" witnesses. And this was the problem. The DA went into this with an attitude of "How do I exonerate Officer McShooty despite overwhelming evidence he shot a child?"

Wrong. Many people that face the threat of getting sued settle out of court. Settling out of court doesn't mean guilt, it means they either don't want the controversy, it's politically correct to settle out of court, or in many cases it's the cost.

That's why what we need in this country is a Loser Pays All law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the case, you are liable for all costs of the person you tried to sue. You are responsible for the lawyers costs, the court costs, any related costs such as loss of work, transportation to and from court, costs to obtain evidence for your defense, all costs.

Then we would see how fast these idiotic lawsuits stop. And if most of our politicians were not lawyers in the first place, we would have such a law.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong. Many people that face the threat of getting sued settle out of court. Settling out of court doesn't mean guilt, it means they either don't want the controversy, it's politically correct to settle out of court, or in many cases it's the cost.

Guy, somehow, I don't think it would have cost the city six million to litigate the case. The thing they were worried about is when a jury of normal people saw Officer McShooty BLOW AWAY A CHILD WITH A TOY they'd have probably had to sell what was left of the city to pay off the family.

That's why what we need in this country is a Loser Pays All law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the case, you are liable for all costs of the person you tried to sue. You are responsible for the lawyers costs, the court costs, any related costs such as loss of work, transportation to and from court, costs to obtain evidence for your defense, all costs.

Why is it every conservative solution always seems to benefit the wealthy over the rest of us. Yes, let's take away the right of people to sue when they suffer damages.

Because, hey, why not.

The sad thing is, you are so ******* poor you can't even get decent health insurance, and you just want the rich to **** you some more, because, hey, you are better off than the darkies, right?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. Many people that face the threat of getting sued settle out of court. Settling out of court doesn't mean guilt, it means they either don't want the controversy, it's politically correct to settle out of court, or in many cases it's the cost.

Guy, somehow, I don't think it would have cost the city six million to litigate the case. The thing they were worried about is when a jury of normal people saw Officer McShooty BLOW AWAY A CHILD WITH A TOY they'd have probably had to sell what was left of the city to pay off the family.

That's why what we need in this country is a Loser Pays All law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the case, you are liable for all costs of the person you tried to sue. You are responsible for the lawyers costs, the court costs, any related costs such as loss of work, transportation to and from court, costs to obtain evidence for your defense, all costs.

Why is it every conservative solution always seems to benefit the wealthy over the rest of us. Yes, let's take away the right of people to sue when they suffer damages.

Because, hey, why not.

The sad thing is, you are so ******* poor you can't even get decent health insurance, and you just want the rich to **** you some more, because, hey, you are better off than the darkies, right?

Why is it every conservative solution always seems to benefit the wealthy over the rest of us. Yes, let's take away the right of people to sue when they suffer damages.

Because, hey, why not.

The sad thing is, you are so ******* poor you can't even get decent health insurance, and you just want the rich to **** you some more, because, hey, you are better off than the darkies, right?

Who is talking about taking the right to sue away? Like I said, sue whoever you want. The problem is that pigs like this Rice woman get ambulance chasers pounding her door down. They won't charge her a dime unless they win something which of course they know they will. So why not sue?

We need a deterrent to these lawsuits and loser pays all is the only thing that would work. If you can sue somebody or some company with no risk to yourself, why not? It's not going to cost you anything. If you knew that it might cost you a fortune, then you will make sure you have a legitimate claim before leveling such a suit.

Guy, somehow, I don't think it would have cost the city six million to litigate the case. The thing they were worried about is when a jury of normal people saw Officer McShooty BLOW AWAY A CHILD WITH A TOY they'd have probably had to sell what was left of the city to pay off the family.

So what was the grand jury, not normal people?

Like I said, cost is the driving factor, but political expediency is another. Again, nearly the entire government of Cleveland is black. Any politician that challenged Rice would have faced political suicide. There is no possible way they would have gotten reelected. That's why they handed her all that money, and because of that, the rest of the city will have to suffer.

 

[JoeB131]

Who is talking about taking the right to sue away? Like I said, sue whoever you want. The problem is that pigs like this Rice woman get ambulance chasers pounding her door down. They won't charge her a dime unless they win something which of course they know they will. So why not sue?

Because suing costs money. It costs money to hire experts who will determine that the kid had his hands in his pockets and Officer McShooty made the decision to shoot in less than a second after leaving the car.

If they lose, they are out all the time they spent preparing a case.

We need a deterrent to these lawsuits and loser pays all is the only thing that would work. If you can sue somebody or some company with no risk to yourself, why not? It's not going to cost you anything. If you knew that it might cost you a fortune, then you will make sure you have a legitimate claim before leveling such a suit.

Well, except it usually would cost me a fortune, and most lawyers will tell you if they have a reasonable chance of winning.

More to the point, granting effective immunity to lawsuits is how you get companies like Ford making the Pinto decision... that it as cheaper to pay off the people killed in the Barbeque that seats four than it would be to do a total recall and replace an $11.00 part.

I want companies and governments thinking through the possible consequences before they do some combination of evil and stupid thinking they can make a profit off of it.

I want the City of Cleveland to actually READ officer McShooty's resume and call his old boss before they hire him.

So what was the grand jury, not normal people?

YOu can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. A line on just about every other episode of Law and Order. Grand Juries generally do what prosecutors tell them. So if they tell them, "Yup, Officer McShooty saw a gun, see, it's right here in this grainy still. Take our word for it." And they all wonder when the lunch bell is going to ring.

A civil trial, you have people arguing over the images, maybe analyzing them, maybe talking to witnesses like the kid's sister. Maybe we put Officer McShooty's old boss on the stand, and he can tell us how the guy was crying on the gun range.

 

[JoeB131]

Like I said, cost is the driving factor, but political expediency is another. Again, nearly the entire government of Cleveland is black. Any politician that challenged Rice would have faced political suicide. There is no possible way they would have gotten reelected. That's why they handed her all that money, and because of that, the rest of the city will have to suffer.

NO, the city will have to suffer because they had two cops who never should have been cops.

One was fired from a suburb because he hysterically cried on the gun range after his girlfriend dumped him.

The other choked a woman into unconsciousness and the city paid out a six figure settlement.

These are the guys you have protecting you in your city.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who is talking about taking the right to sue away? Like I said, sue whoever you want. The problem is that pigs like this Rice woman get ambulance chasers pounding her door down. They won't charge her a dime unless they win something which of course they know they will. So why not sue?

Because suing costs money. It costs money to hire experts who will determine that the kid had his hands in his pockets and Officer McShooty made the decision to shoot in less than a second after leaving the car.

If they lose, they are out all the time they spent preparing a case.

We need a deterrent to these lawsuits and loser pays all is the only thing that would work. If you can sue somebody or some company with no risk to yourself, why not? It's not going to cost you anything. If you knew that it might cost you a fortune, then you will make sure you have a legitimate claim before leveling such a suit.

Well, except it usually would cost me a fortune, and most lawyers will tell you if they have a reasonable chance of winning.

More to the point, granting effective immunity to lawsuits is how you get companies like Ford making the Pinto decision... that it as cheaper to pay off the people killed in the Barbeque that seats four than it would be to do a total recall and replace an $11.00 part.

I want companies and governments thinking through the possible consequences before they do some combination of evil and stupid thinking they can make a profit off of it.

I want the City of Cleveland to actually READ officer McShooty's resume and call his old boss before they hire him.

So what was the grand jury, not normal people?

YOu can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. A line on just about every other episode of Law and Order. Grand Juries generally do what prosecutors tell them. So if they tell them, "Yup, Officer McShooty saw a gun, see, it's right here in this grainy still. Take our word for it." And they all wonder when the lunch bell is going to ring.

A civil trial, you have people arguing over the images, maybe analyzing them, maybe talking to witnesses like the kid's sister. Maybe we put Officer McShooty's old boss on the stand, and he can tell us how the guy was crying on the gun range.

Because suing costs money. It costs money to hire experts who will determine that the kid had his hands in his pockets and Officer McShooty made the decision to shoot in less than a second after leaving the car.

If they lose, they are out all the time they spent preparing a case.

That's why they have to make sure they are going to get paid. The reason these people take cases like this is because they will get a cut of the settlement. If it's worth the time for the defendant to fight the case, then they know there is a chance they are not going to get paid and will likely not accept the job. That's the way it should be.

Well, except it usually would cost me a fortune, and most lawyers will tell you if they have a reasonable chance of winning.

More to the point, granting effective immunity to lawsuits is how you get companies like Ford making the Pinto decision... that it as cheaper to pay off the people killed in the Barbeque that seats four than it would be to do a total recall and replace an $11.00 part.

I want companies and governments thinking through the possible consequences before they do some combination of evil and stupid thinking they can make a profit off of it.

I want the City of Cleveland to actually READ officer McShooty's resume and call his old boss before they hire him.

His old boss had an ax to grind with him. He knew that he wanted to work for Cleveland. And if you worked at a place where a boss blackballed you because of some personal beef, you would be the first to complain.

Lawyers that work on contingency don't care if you have a reasonable case or not. It's a lottery ticket they decide to play because the payout is very high. Most times they lose, but when they win, they win big. It all works out at the end of the year.

YOu can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. A line on just about every other episode of Law and Order. Grand Juries generally do what prosecutors tell them. So if they tell them, "Yup, Officer McShooty saw a gun, see, it's right here in this grainy still. Take our word for it." And they all wonder when the lunch bell is going to ring.

A civil trial, you have people arguing over the images, maybe analyzing them, maybe talking to witnesses like the kid's sister. Maybe we put Officer McShooty's old boss on the stand, and he can tell us how the guy was crying on the gun range.

Yes, and then you can call in the instructors at the police academy that passed him with flying colors to be a police officer.

The prosecutor presents evidence, that's all he does. Then he leaves it up to the jury to decide on the evidence presented such as video tape experts showing exactly what happened in that video. The jury decided that the officer broke no laws of the city or state. If the kid didn't have a gun, then that officer would have faced a trial. Obviously, he did see the butt of that gun otherwise he wouldn't' have fired. No cop in his right mind is going to shoot somebody because they had their hands in their pocket.

 

[JoeB131]

His old boss had an ax to grind with him. He knew that he wanted to work for Cleveland. And if you worked at a place where a boss blackballed you because of some personal beef, you would be the first to complain.

If I had screwed up in my job so bad that I was a danger to the public, he'd have a right to.

So let's review. He worked for a small suburban PD. He showed a lack of ability and poor gun discipline. and not suprisingly, he ends up shooting a civilian.. because he didn't have the judgment required...

Cleveland police officer who shot Tamir Rice was unfit for duty years ago, records show

His supervisor said "

"He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal,” Polak said in a letter to human resources, dated November 29, 2012, found in Loehmann’s personnel file.

I should also point out that if this was a case of blackballing the guy, the thing is, Cops are members of unions. If his cheif was "out to get him", he could file a union grievence. He didn't. He resigned.

I would recommend you read the file in the link. It's enlightening.

 

[JoeB131]

The prosecutor presents evidence, that's all he does. Then he leaves it up to the jury to decide on the evidence presented such as video tape experts showing exactly what happened in that video. The jury decided that the officer broke no laws of the city or state. If the kid didn't have a gun, then that officer would have faced a trial. Obviously, he did see the butt of that gun otherwise he wouldn't' have fired. No cop in his right mind is going to shoot somebody because they had their hands in their pocket.

That's the point. Officer McShooty wasn't in his right might. He was fired for being emotionally immature and unstable.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

His old boss had an ax to grind with him. He knew that he wanted to work for Cleveland. And if you worked at a place where a boss blackballed you because of some personal beef, you would be the first to complain.

If I had screwed up in my job so bad that I was a danger to the public, he'd have a right to.

So let's review. He worked for a small suburban PD. He showed a lack of ability and poor gun discipline. and not suprisingly, he ends up shooting a civilian.. because he didn't have the judgment required...

Cleveland police officer who shot Tamir Rice was unfit for duty years ago, records show

His supervisor said "

"He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal,” Polak said in a letter to human resources, dated November 29, 2012, found in Loehmann’s personnel file.

I should also point out that if this was a case of blackballing the guy, the thing is, Cops are members of unions. If his cheif was "out to get him", he could file a union grievence. He didn't. He resigned.

I would recommend you read the file in the link. It's enlightening.

I know people that attended the police academy. They all told me that you don't pass unless you are near perfect when it comes to shooting. It's clear that this guy had it out for the officer to write such nonsense. That's besides the fact that in Independence, the only time cops pull out their gun is to clean them.

I don't know if he was in the union or not. Usually you have to get past the probation period before they allow you to join, but I don't know about that particular police force or their union. What I do know about unions is that seniority counts. They are not going to take the side of a new officer over a guy that's been with the union for many years.