Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[Quicklet]

Are you saying that the police did nothing wrong in this situation?

[vivbiibasjiu]

How would you feel if you were holding a black wii remote and some smartass shot you because he thought it was a gun? Would you still be licking their boots for "protecting" everyone's safety?

[NynJa]

Why are you walking around with a black wiimote in public though?

And a toy gun actually looks like a gun, whereas a wiimote looks more like a dildo than a gun.

[Fiye]

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.

Lets step through this in the attorney's words.

http://www.ecbalaw.com/wp-content/up...ice-Letter.pdf

The Fatal Shooting of Tamir Rice Captured on Video

Of the many police shootings that have occupied the national attention in recent years,
few are more tragic and disturbing than this one. Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old child. On Saturday,
November 22, 2014, he and his 14-year-old sister, T.R., were at the Cudell Recreation Center near their
home in Cleveland.

So we got kids playing at a park. Teenage sister with a little brother.

Around 3:30 p.m. that afternoon, Tamir was in an outdoor space in the park,
playing with an airsoft toy gun he had borrowed from a friend earlier that day. Someone saw him and
called 911, reporting that there was an individual, “probably a juvenile,” who had a gun, which was
probably a “fake.”

So someone made a call when they saw the younger boy playing with what looked to be a gun. They 9-1-1 caller reported the gun as fake, the fake part not making it to the police.

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.

Bolded for emphasis. Officer Garmback drove straight up to the gazebo. Officer Loehmann jumped out of the car and proceeded to fire shots.

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.

Neither of the officers ever gave Tamir any medical treatment or care—not even basic
first aid or CPR.

And now we reach the point where the salt gets poured onto the wound. After the shooting, neither officers decide to give basic medical assistance to Tamir. Instead officer Garmback took it upon himself to tackle Tamir Rice's sister and then officer Loehmann proceeded to drag her back. Tamir Rice is still unassisted after being shot.

When Tamir’s mother, Samaria Rice, heard about the shooting and rushed to the park, the
officers refused to release T.R. into her custody and told her she had to choose between going to the
hospital with her fatally wounded 12-year-old son and staying with her handcuffed 14-year-old
daughter, who was in the back of the car with the very same officers who had shot her son. When Ms.
Rice chose to go with Tamir, Cleveland police officers interrogated T.R. without any adult present.

And now you got contact with her mother. Her son is dying in the hospital from the untreated gunshot wound. Meanwhile her daughter is in police custody and being interrogated without any adult around.

You got their 4th amendment right whereas the reasonableness requirement was thrown out the fucking window with excessive force.

Then you have a whole page about how both officers got to have their cake and eat it as well with the 5th amendment.

In December, Mr. McGinty allowed Officers Loehmann and Garmback (i.e., the shooter and the driver of the vehicle) to read prepared, self-serving statements to the grand jury after taking the oath, and then invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer a single question. Prosecutor McGinty never went to the court to seek an order compelling the officers to answer questions or face the required sanction of contempt.

Under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, by testifying under oath about their
conduct toward 12-year-old Tamir, the officers waived their Fifth Amendment right to be silent in the
grand-jury proceeding on that subject because a witness can “not take the stand to testify in [his] own
behalf and also claim the right to be free from cross-examination on matters raised by [his] own
testimony on direct examination.” Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155–56 (1958) (emphasis
added). As the Supreme Court has explained, a witness “cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth
Amendment gives him not only this choice [to testify or not] but, if he elects to testify, an immunity
from cross-examination on the matters he has himself put in dispute. It would make of the Fifth
Amendment not only a humane safeguard against judicially coerced self-disclosure but a positive
invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell.” Id. Under this clearly established law, there is no
question that Officers Loehmann and Garmback waived their Fifth Amendment privilege by appearing
before the grand jury, taking the oath, and reading their own self-serving statements.

This whole thing is fucking disgusting and to sit there and think "Well they said he had a gun". Motherfucker try using that as a defense and see how fucking far you get.

[Delayed]

In your own response you answered every bit of information the police were required to make at the specific moment the incident occurred.
They received a call, person with a gun.
Age, race, gender, weight, height, sexual preference, religious orientation, it doesn't matter.
Person with a deadly weapon in a public place.
That's it. That's all they had to go on.
From that point on what occurred after the shooting is irrelevant to the first and is not what the point in question that is being brought up.
How they treated the sister, or tamir after the fact is an entirely different story. Trying to intertwine the two stating that tackling her or not giving basic medical treatment to a still armed person is not pertinent to the original call.
If you want to debate that, then you'll have my sympathy there.

[Quicklet]

Yeah, the prosecutor in charge of the grand jury really should be disbarred for that kind of conduct. Another paragraph about some expert testimony on behalf of the victim's family:

Although Mr. McGinty had promised to present any and all findings to the grand jury in a fair and impartial manner, nothing could have been further from the truth. Both Noble and Clark have testified hundreds of times in federal and state courts across the country, over many decades. When they left the grand jury in this case after testifying on Monday, December 7, 2015, both were shocked by the hostile, unprofessional, and unfair questioning visited upon them by the local prosecutors in this case. For hours, each was subjected to mocking and ridiculing questioning. Neither was given the opportunity to present his findings in a coherent manner. On numerous occasions, Mr. Noble was forced to admonish the prosecutors that their questions and behavior were unprofessional and unfair. At one point, one of the prosecutors, James Gutierrez, took a seat amongst the grand jurors and openly smirked at Mr. Noble’s responses to questions.

This whole process sounds like a shitshow and a complete farce designed to avoid prosecuting this officer.

Generally speaking, outside of cases involving corruption or large conspiracies with multiple potential indictments, it's hard to see the purpose of a grand jury when it can be so easily abused by the prosecutor in charge.

[Quicklet]

Person with a deadly weapon in a public place.
That's it. That's all they had to go on.

Ohio is an open carry state.

[Fiye]

Then why the fuck is the planned parenthood shooter still alive Delayed. Fucker shot at cops with an ACTUAL GUN. In a state that has open carry laws.

The police were pretty good at not shooting anyone there.

Edit: You know open carry has age restrictions.

Edit the second: On top of all that. How can you reasonably not question what the fuck was going on with the officer's when they shot first and asked questions later. Do you realize how wrong that could've gone if they had the wrong person? Imagine the story we'd have there.

By all accounts the police officers conducted improper actions by charging into an uncertain situation and firing onto a civilian within seconds of exciting the vehicle. Its not a matter of what they were told, you don't shoot first and then ask questions later.

Is there anyplace that teaches police to shoot within moments?

Edit 3: This is self defense

[Kaslo]

http://usuncut.com/news/cops-caught-...n-jared-lemay/

In other Police are Dicks news.

[Tyche]

In your own response you answered every bit of information the police were required to make at the specific moment the incident occurred.
They received a call, person with a gun.
Age, race, gender, weight, height, sexual preference, religious orientation, it doesn't matter.
Person with a deadly weapon in a public place.
That's it. That's all they had to go on.
From that point on what occurred after the shooting is irrelevant to the first and is not what the point in question that is being brought up.
How they treated the sister, or tamir after the fact is an entirely different story. Trying to intertwine the two stating that tackling her or not giving basic medical treatment to a still armed person is not pertinent to the original call.
If you want to debate that, then you'll have my sympathy there.

You're absolutely right, the fact it was a kid doesn't matter. If this was an adult, with an actual gun, the officer was still wrong. The video evidence shows the offcier made no attempt to deescalate the situation nor did he give the suspect any chance to obey commands. The officer assumed in about two seconds, that the suspect was a threat. He had absolutely zero reason to suspect that other than male, park, gun, which isn't an illegal scenario. He didn't determine if the suspect had any intent to do anything. He literally got out and started shooting. No matter the circumstances, adult, kid, real gun, fake gun, etc. The officer was in the wrong. You're wrong. There's zero justification for the officers actions. You don't shoot first and ask questions later, which is what you're suggesting be do.

[kuronosan]

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.

I'm sorry that your attempt to be awesome on the internet failed. I'll bake you a rum cake as a consolation prize.

Just don't have me shot for delivering it to your house in the middle of the night wearing a hoodie.

[archibaldcrane]

In reality it wasn't an individual with a firearm lol.

[dasva]

Reality doesn't matter when it's all in hindsight. We only have reasonable perceptions to go on

[archibaldcrane]

I'm simply correcting your mistake.

[Melena]

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.

You don't always get a chance to give peace a chance. You are trained from day one (it's pretty much POST required training) that if there is even the slightest possibility you are going to be attacked with something that can do lethal damage, you meet it with lethal force. Hell you just saw how quickly that cop was able to draw his gun and fire from getting out of a moving vehicle. A decent shooter can go from holstered to firing in less than 3 seconds.

Here's a decent link that goes over action versus reaction and the timing it takes the average person (or in this articles case officers) time to decide to fire.

http://www.povn.com/4n6/RctnTm.pdf

Also as for the announcing to get down, not justifying how quickly he jumped out and shot (though it was clear in the video the kid was a dumbshit who reached into his pants), is there any evidence that they used the speaker on the car to announce it? All patrol cars have a speaker so the officer can give instructions and can be heard clearly even at freeway speeds.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't think either officer has ever suggested they used the car speaker.

[Melena]

Then why the fuck is the planned parenthood shooter still alive Delayed. Fucker shot at cops with an ACTUAL GUN. In a state that has open carry laws.

The police were pretty good at not shooting anyone there.

I thought I already answered this. But for the third time, the planned parenthood shooter had hostages, with an unknown amount. Once it was determined he was not going to surrender peacefully they drove an armored vehicle with SWAT members inside into the building. Once the car drove in, he surrendered. If he did not have hostages and if a sniper had a clean shot, he'd be dead. This isn't the OK Corral where even with no hostages they are just going to go fully auto and spray and pray the entire building to take someone out. That's how you get a fucking ricochet and kill an innocent person. If there is no clear shot, it won't be taken.

But please, keep going on about how the only reason he's alive is that he's white and that it had absolutely nothing to do with having hostages. And if you want a good idea of why it's never smart to barge into an active shooter situation, please read this article of the 2009 Oakland PD shooting. Guy kills 2 cops during a traffic stop, they track him down, and the officer in command gave the order to rush the building, he was lying in wait and lit up two more cops before he was killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/24/...lice.shooting/

[Melena]

I don't think either officer has ever suggested they used the car speaker.

Ok, wasn't sure on it, which is why I mentioned it to see if it's been determined or not.

[archibaldcrane]

And if you want a good idea of why it's never smart to barge into an active shooter situation

to be fair, this would be an excellent example of why you shouldn't "barge into" a non-active shooter situation.

[Melena]

Yes, though again, I still believe if the dispatcher relayed all the information, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact the dispatcher knowingly withheld information should at a bare minimum cost him/her their job, and be included in any civil suits against the city/officers.