Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[Fiye]

Within minutes, as captured on video, two Cleveland police officers, Timothy
Loehmann and Frank Garmback, drove their car at high speed into the park and pulled up within a few
feet of Tamir (who was standing by himself and was not even holding the toy gun). Within less than
one second, Officer Loehmann jumped out of the still-moving police car and fatally shot Tamir in the
abdomen. Tamir collapsed to the ground. At the time of their approach, the patrol-car windows were up
such that it would have been impossible for the police to issue any audible commands to Tamir.
Moreover, recently available expert and scientific analysis demonstrates that Loehmann’s gun had to
have been unholstered with his hand on the trigger as he exited the vehicle. This was an instantaneous
shooting that was plainly unjustified and unreasonable.

Approximately one minute after the fatal shots were fired, Tamir’s sister, T.R., ran
towards him crying and screaming “my baby brother, they killed my baby brother.” Officer Garmback
tackled her to the ground. When she tried to crawl away, Officer Loehmann dragged her back down.
The officers then put T.R.—who they knew was a child and the sister of the boy they had just shot—in
handcuffs in their police car, right next to where her brother lay injured and dying on the ground.

Oh my fucking god.

[kuronosan]

No you don't get it, he waved a gun around and his dad did some bad stuff.

[Fiye]

Apparently I'm too liberal and a cop hating scum to get it.

[Tyche]

Oh my fucking god.

The whole 28 page write up is fucking disgusting. How anyone could defend any authority associated with this case, I don't know.

[TheDirtyHobo]

You're looking through it with a lens of hindsight and wanting the man to seem like a monster. Try giving it a whirl as someone who isn't pre-assumed to be a heartless childkilling racist and is new to the situation. You roll up to a situation where you believe a suspect is armed, tell them to get down, they reach for the weapon. A police officer should have the self-discipline not to wontonly fire in that situation, but with nerves and adrenaline, mistakes can happen. That's a tragedy in and of itself, but it's not malicious or intentional. Shortly after, a woman runs towards him, in hysterics. There's no way you would let her actually get there, for plenty of reasons; primarily because distress and proximity to a firearm is a recipe for even more disaster.

[Karbuncle]

Spoke up on this when it first happened, I was leaning toward understanding the cop here as the "toy gun" he used looked very real and the officer was told the person was armed. Of course when I saw the video I couldn't imagine this cop not going to trial. I'm quite shocked this guy got off the hook, I understand the officers side, but I mean, Dude was like 1 second from it being a literal drive by with how fast he exited and fired.

I like to always try to give benefit of the doubt to cops, they have to often make split second choices that could mean life or death to them, its stressful and while trained, they're still humans in a very rough job with plenty of cop-bashing hate to go around... But in this instance, Its still a tough call for me, he opened fire really quickly, on a child. Can't side with the officers on this one and thats rare for me.

Can save the darwinism or the child being stupid arguments, I understand them full well and even made them back before the video was released if memory serves. But none of you were Plato when you were 12 and we all did some stupid stuff at that age. Also as for the (fake)sarcastic comment on people wouldnt call the cops on white kids... my 10-13 year old white ass had the cops called on me and my friends (Also all white) a few times, can remember at least 3... fortunately no guns were involved so when they showed up they usually just gave us a stern talking too and sent us away (I mean, two of the three we were just playing near some train tracks, dangerous spots, so mostly a danger to our self)

And for what its worth, Hobo, I get where you're coming from, I'm just having a hard time justifying myself him not at least going to trial for what was essentially a drive by.

[Tyche]

I don't care if it's an adult with a confirmed weapon on his person, unless you absolutely know that the man is violent and he has homicidal ideations with intent and a weapon, you don't jump out of a moving vehicle with your hand on the trigger and start firing. There is no defense for the officer. None. Absolutely none. You're wrong.

[TheDirtyHobo]

And for what its worth, Hobo, I get where you're coming from, I'm just having a hard time justifying myself him not at least going to trial for what was essentially a drive by.

I absolutely agree he should be on trial for police misconduct. I think that a homicide charge of any sort is completely out of the realm of plausibility, though. There's just far, FAR too many places to plant seeds of reasonable doubt in this one.

[Karbuncle]

I absolutely agree he should be on trial for police misconduct. I think that a homicide charge of any sort is completely out of the realm of plausibility, though. There's just far, FAR too many places to plant seeds of reasonable doubt in this one.

I can agree there.

[Tyche]

Hobo, can you tell me how you manage to tell someone to "get down" while jumping out of a car as it arrives on scene within about two seconds before you begin firing....

...with the windows up?

Dude, don't give me that bullshit that it was a "mistake" and done without intent when not a shred of fucking video evidence or expert testimony backs that up.

[Fiye]

Recognizing the particular vulnerability to young children, the Ohio legislature has
promulgated a specific provision in its criminal code that permits aggravated-murder charges when the
victim is under 13 years old. In relevant part, the statute provides: “No person shall purposely cause the
death of another who is under thirteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.” Ohio
R.C. 2903.01(C). Ohio’s aggravated-murder statute thus does not require any prior calculation and
design when the victim is under the age of 13. All that is required is the purpose to cause the death of
someone under the age of 13. It does not matter whether Officer Loehmann knew that Tamir was under
13. See State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14, 2006-Ohio-5084, 854 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 235.

This provision aside, the conduct by the offending officers here, at a minimum, meets the
criteria for reckless or negligent homicide. Ohio R.C. 2903.041 (“No person shall recklessly cause the
death of another.”); Ohio R.C. 2903.05 (“No person shall negligently cause the death of another.”)

Those are two of the charges they're looking for. This could easily be charged as manslaughter. But with their aggravated-murder statute it becomes murder. Just because the kid is under 13.

Doesn't matter if you know or didn't. By all means this person is should be charged and prosecuted. Unless you think they're above the law.

[Tyche]

The idea that police, who have voluntarily enlisted into a career that they knowingly put themselves at risk and in danger, are so god damned risk averse that they'll fire on an unarmed preteen and kill him before they make even the slightest attempt to deescalate a non-situation before they'll take the even the most minuscule chance of getting fired at is fucking

They're using absolutely terrible risk aversion analysis to send innocent people to graves.

I'm pretty sure, a cop will have to back me up, that you do not discharge a firearm without intent to kill. There was a big deal made years ago, and I think a bill was brought up and subsequently scoffed at, regarding shooting to injure or wound. So this officer consciously decided, within two seconds of arriving at the scene, that he was going to kill a 12 year old boy posing no legitimate threat. And before you ask "how did he know it wasn't legitimate", I'll respond by saying that he couldn't fucking decide that in the time that elapsed before he dropped a shot into a kids abdomen.

[TheDirtyHobo]

Hobo, can you tell me how you manage to tell someone to "get down" while jumping out of a car as it arrives on scene within about two seconds before you begin firing....

...with the windows up?

Dude, don't give me that bullshit that it was a "mistake" and done without intent when not a shred of fucking video evidence or expert testimony backs that up.

By saying "get down" once he's out of the car. Two seconds is enough to issue a command. It's not enough to reasonably expect someone startled by the situation to obey it, which is why he is absolutely, 100% in the wrong for shooting. But nerves plus the appearance of reaching for a firearm kicked in and he made an awful mistake.

@Fiye: Well, I stand corrected if that's their law. There's not much wiggle room in the aggravated-murder.

[Blubbartron]

The idea that police, who have voluntarily enlisted into a career that they knowingly put themselves at risk and in danger, are so god damned risk averse that they'll fire on an unarmed preteen and kill him before they make even the slightest attempt to deescalate a non-situation before they'll take the even the most minuscule chance of getting fired at is fucking

They're using absolutely terrible risk aversion analysis to send innocent people to graves.

You hit the nail on the head. Melena (I think), earlier in the thread, said something to the effect of "cops will choose to go home" and I'm definitely of the opinion that a cop who is unwilling to give peace a chance (lolcliches) is unfit for duty. The very nature of the job is to run headlong into danger, and if you're choosing to take a life to MAYBE, POTENTIALLY save your own life, then you're more of a danger to society than most criminals are.

[Tyche]

By saying "get down" once he's out of the car. Two seconds is enough to issue a command. It's not enough to reasonably expect someone startled by the situation to obey it, which is why he is absolutely, 100% in the wrong for shooting. But nerves plus the appearance of reaching for a firearm kicked in and he made an awful mistake.

@Fiye: Well, I stand corrected if that's their law. There's not much wiggle room in the aggravated-murder.

Dude he had his gun out while exiting the car. He stated he told the kid three times to get down. If that was true, he was firing shots while giving the suspect commands he couldn't obey. Or he's a fucking auctioneer. There was no mistake. The guy jumped out of the cruiser with intent to kill. The evidence supports that.

[Tyche]

The cop didn't wait to unholster his gun til he seen what may or may not have been a thwelve year old kid reaching at his shirt. The gun was already upholstered and ready to fire. That's premeditated. There's nothing mistake notable about that.

[TheDirtyHobo]

The guy jumped out of the cruiser with intent to kill. The evidence supports that.

Your interpretation of the evidence does, yes. My interpretation is that he probably wasn't determined to murder that child before he got out of the car. He wasn't fit to be an officer, and psyched himself out knowing he was going into (in his mind) a firearm situation. He didn't have the proper mental fortitude or training to reasonably deal with a situation like that, instinct took over, he saw what he perceived as a movement towards the gun, and shot.

[kuronosan]

Your interpretation of the evidence does, yes. My interpretation is that he probably wasn't determined to murder that child before he got out of the car. He wasn't fit to be an officer, and psyched himself out knowing he was going into (in his mind) a firearm situation. He didn't have the proper mental fortitude or training to reasonably deal with a situation like that, instinct took over, he saw what he perceived as a movement towards the gun, and shot.

Your interpretation is wrong. Your interpretation is akin to us dropping nukes on Japan and just before they hit the ground we yell really, really loud "STOP FIGHTING US OR WE'LL BOMB YOU".

Just stop. You may be correct about the officer's state of mind but there's no fucking way on the planet, or in the universe for that matter, that the officer was able to issue three warnings in two seconds while firing with the windows still rolled up. No fucking way.

[TheDirtyHobo]

I've never said he said it three times. I doubt he he did. But I don't think he silently walked up to the kid and shot him, because that's equally insane of a belief.

I would just like to believe that there aren't people in the world, let alone those that could make it onto the police force, that would ever go into a situation thinking "Aww yeah, I'm gonna shoot the fuck out of this little kid."

[Delayed]

Your interpretation is wrong. Your interpretation is akin to us dropping nukes on Japan and just before they hit the ground we yell really, really loud "STOP FIGHTING US OR WE'LL BOMB YOU".

Just stop. You may be correct about the officer's state of mind but there's no fucking way on the planet, or in the universe for that matter, that the officer was able to issue three warnings in two seconds while firing with the windows still rolled up. No fucking way.

Your interpretation is wrong. you're wrong for making this interpretation of an incorrect assumption of nothing more than your own opinion that you couldn't even work out right in your own head.
In reality, it was an individual with a firearm, with police responding because a call was made that there was a potentially dangerous situation that may occur because of an idiot with a weapon in a public park.
The fact that he turned out to be a child, and turned out to be a toy is irrelevant. The police officer may have been able to wait and better identify the situation, but that's hindsight, and not something you can expect any sane individual to make when a deadly weapon is involved.