In the Case of Tamir Rice, the Twelve-Year-Old Boy Killed by a Policeman in Cleveland: The Officer Who Shot Him Was Found Unfit for Duty in 2012

By Elaine Magliaro

The Shooting of Tamir Rice by a Cleveland Police Officer

 

Taylor Berman (Gawker) reported this afternoon that Tim Loehmann, the Cleveland police officer who shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice last month, had resigned from a smaller Ohio police force in 2012 after he was found unfit for duty. Berman said, “Among other obviously disqualifying behavior, Loehmann was ‘distracted’ and ‘weepy’ during his firearm qualification session, according to just-released records from his brief tenure with the Independence police department.” Adam Ferrise (Cleveland.com) said that the officer also “had issues with handling guns…” while working for that suburban police department. According to a letter that was written by Deputy Chief Jim Polak of the Independence police, Lehmann “could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal.”

Polak’s letter recommended that the police department “part ways with Loehmann…” The Deputy Chief wrote, “I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct the deficiencies.” In addition, Polak wrote that he believed there would be certain situations during which Loehmann would “not react in the way instructed.”

Loehmann was allowed to resign from the Independence police. Ferrise said, “He tendered his resignation Dec. 4, 2012 after six months with the department. He was hired in March of this year by Cleveland police.”

Ferrise:

Loehmann’s troubles began in 2012 while he attended the Cleveland Heights Police Academy. An issue with an on-again, off-again girlfriend caused Loehmann distress and, in one case, he fell asleep during training, according to a written report from Independence Police Sgt. Greg Tinnirello.

Loehmann told Tinnirello that he cried often about his personal issue during training and Loehmann’s mother told Tinnierello that her son’s study papers “would be soaked in tears nightly for three months.”

On Nov. 26, 2012, Loehmann was ordered to stay in the Independence police dispatch center. Loehmann left without authorization and lied to Tinnierello that the dispatchers told him he could leave, the letter says.

Loehmann eventually admitted to lying.

Sadly, it appears that Loehmann may have some serious emotional problems.

Ferrise reported that Lehmann “is currently under investigation by the Cleveland police department’s use of deadly force investigation team, made up of homicide detectives, several internal units and city and Cuyahoga County prosecutors in the Nov. 22 shooting outside the Cudell Recreation Center.”

SOURCES

Cleveland Cop Who Killed 12-Year-Old Had ‘Dismal’ Handgun Performance (TPM)

Officer Who Killed Tamir Rice Found Unfit in Previous Police Job (NBC News)

The Cop Who Killed Tamir Rice Was Found Unfit for Police Duty in 2012 (Gawker)

Cleveland officer who shot Tamir Rice had ‘dismal’ handgun performance for Independence police (Cleveland.com)

 

This entry was posted in Society, United States and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to In the Case of Tamir Rice, the Twelve-Year-Old Boy Killed by a Policeman in Cleveland: The Officer Who Shot Him Was Found Unfit for Duty in 2012

  1. So the rookie wasn’t “really” a rookie; and the plots n ploys thickens even more

    as to the reasons why

  2. po says:

    And some wonder why we, the mob, are outraged!
    And we, the mob, are suspicious!

  3. People only tend to become mobs, when the above the law mentality beomes blatant and flagrant.

  4. Elaine M. says:

    Well, the anti mob/anti grievance syndicate is outraged when the mob gets outraged over outrageous miscarriages of justice. So it goes.

  5. Mike Spindell says:

    The kid was Black and had a bb gun, so he deserved to die, especially because he would have grown up to be a thug and a demon. As far as Officer Loehmann, goes he’s a police officer and so deserves special treatment because someday he might recover a grateful boys bicycle and that grateful boy could become a lawyer. Makes sense to me.

  6. Elaine M. says:

    Mike,

    Do I detect a touch of sarcasm in your comment?

  7. Bob Kauten says:

    There’s really no age limit on black males who scare police officers. Any black male will do. He would’ve probably wound up stealing cigars, or selling individual cigarettes, anyway. Pre-emptive strike. Intervention to prevent juvenile delinquency.
    Insurgents, and future insurgents, must be dealt with.

  8. eniobob says:

    FYI:

    “Court records show that within the past two years, three men sued Daniel Pantaleo — the officer seen wrapping his arm around Garner’s neck — over allegedly unlawful, racially motivated arrests. Garner was black.

    In the first lawsuit, settled by the city in January, two black men accused Pantaleo and other officers of arresting them without cause and subjecting them to a “humiliating and unlawful strip search” on the street in which they were ordered to “pull their pants and underwear down, squat and cough.” The men said they were held overnight on charges that were ultimately dismissed.

    In a second lawsuit, a man accused Pantaleo and other officers of misrepresenting facts in a police report and other documents to substantiate charges that also were dismissed.

    The president of the city’s largest police union called Pantaleo’s reassignment an unwarranted, knee-jerk decision.

    In addition to Pantaleo, an eight-year NYPD veteran, a second officer who has been with the department for four years was taken off the street but retained his gun and badge. The reassignments will remain in effect while prosecutors and internal affairs detectives probe Garner’s death, police said.”

  9. swarthmoremom says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/criming-while-white-hashtag_n_6265480.html “The grand jury decision not to bring charges in the chokehold death of Eric Garner, announced Wednesday, was followed with public demonstrations in cities across the nation — and the Internet.

    Thousands of tweeters are up in arms against racial profiling and police brutality in America, issues that have been hard to ignore amid recent protests over the police killings of Michael Brown, Ezell Ford, Akai Gurley and others. #BlackLivesMatter and #HandsUpDontShoot have played a large role in addressing these issues on social media, but there’s a new hashtag in town: #CrimingWhileWhite.

    Instead of highlighting incidents of prejudice against people of color, #CrimingWhileWhite quickly zeroed in on white privilege, straight from the mouths of those who know it best.

    The hashtag shines a bright light on an ugly truth — see for yourself in the examples below.” Click on to see examples of white privilege

  10. swarthmoremom says:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/12/03/justice_to_launch_civil_rights_investigation_into_eric_garner_choking_death.html?wpsrc=fol_tw

    “President Obama addressed the grand jury decision on Wednesday, saying: “When anybody in America is not being treated equally under the law, that’s a problem, and it’s my job to solve it.” “[A] Justice Department official told CBS that the investigation into Garner’s death is the same sort of investigation opened into the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri,” CBS News reports. “It is also the same kind of investigation opened into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, which remains ‘ongoing’ nearly three years later.” ”

    Attorney General Eric Holder officially announced the civil rights probe on Wednesday evening.

  11. pete says:

    as Chris Rock says “when your white, it’s all right”.

  12. Elaine M. says:

    Off topic–but regarding the behavior of some law enforcement officers in the state of Ohio:

    ‘I hate n*ggers. That is all’: 5 Ohio deputies probed for years of racist text messages
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/i-hate-nggers-that-is-all-5-ohio-deputies-probed-for-years-of-racist-text-messages/

    Excerpt:
    The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department revealed this week that five deputies were under investigation for allegedly sending racist text messages while on duty.

    In a statement on Tuesday, Sheriff Phil Plummer said that two of the five deputies — Sheriff’s Capt. Thomas J. Flanders and Detective Michael J. Sollenberger — had been placed on indefinite paid administrative leave starting on Dec. 1.

    According to WDTN, Flanders is in charge of the Montgomery County Jail, and Sollenberger works with the internal affairs unit and is a member of the SWAT team. The three other deputies had not been identified by name, and had not been suspended.

  13. eniobob says:

    Thursday, Dec 4, 2014 11:00 AM EST
    St. Louis County Police’s strange response to Tamir Rice death: “Kids will be kids?”
    A message posted to the police department’s Facebook page was quickly deleted
    Joanna Rothkopf

    http://www.salon.com/2014/12/04/st_louis_county_polices_strange_response_to_tamir_rice_death_kids_will_be_kids/

  14. Inga says:

    Just like they black man in Walmart was gunned down for carrying a BB gun he was going to buy, while rednecks at Walmart open carry their AR15s across their backs, unmolested by police. The crime? Having dark skin in America.

  15. michaelbeaton says:

    Where in the heck is BobS? Surely this is another example of justice done. But it is hard to see it without that clear eye reading he brings to the table….Standing by…

  16. Elaine M. says:

    Michaelbeaton,

    Bob is busy defending Darren Wilson from the grievance syndicate. It’s a fulltime job. We mob members are keeping him busy. But Bob is the energizer bunny of the truth and justice squad…so this could go on ad infinitum.

  17. bettykath says:

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/us/cleveland-justice-department-police-excessive-force/

    Justice dept just released results of investigation into Cleveland police abuse.

  18. NBC says:

    Elaine: Bob is busy defending Darren Wilson from the grievance syndicate.

    I believe that Bob is doing a good job at pointing out some relevant issues and concerns. Understanding him could benefit the relevance of your responses.

  19. Elaine M. says:

    NBC,

    I believe that the grievance syndicate/mob has done an excellent job of pointing out relevant issues and concerns to Bob. Calling people who disagree with his perspective on the Michael Brown killing a grievance syndicate and mob shows he doesn’t care to hear our concerns and opinions…and that he disrespects us.

  20. NBC says:

    Elaine: I believe that the grievance syndicate/mob has done an excellent job of pointing out relevant issues and concerns to Bob.

    I am not that convinced that it has or that it has fully understood Bob’s argument.

    I am for example still struggling with the objection to Bob’s use of the term ‘unconditional love’ as showing bias on his part. I noticed how Bob accepts that if and when the data show that Wilson violated the law, he should be punished.

    Hint:

    “They have him traumatized, fearing for his life and genuinely terrified that they’ll convince a grand jury to offer him up as some sort of sacrifice. So I tell the mob that if my dog attacked and killed a man without legal justification, then my dog should be held accountable. But if it turns out that my dog attacked and killed because he was justified in doing so—i.e., he did what he was trained to do—then you’ll have to pack up your torches and pitchforks and apologize to my dog.”

    He makes a powerful and yes, rhetorical argument that resonates with me.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “He makes a powerful and yes, rhetorical argument that resonates with me.”

      NBC,

      I’m sure it does, yet from my perspective you both miss the forest from the trees…..to wax “cliche-ish”.

      • NBC says:

        Mike: Perhaps you are right but I still do not understand your ‘obedience’ objection which you claim shows Bob to be biased. Just a simple example.

        So far, it seems more probable that you have misconstrued the crux of Bob’s argument. Can you help me understand?

  21. Elaine M. says:

    NBC,

    Oh, we understand Bob’s argument just fine. You may not feel convinced that we have made a good argument because you disagree with us.

    So…a police officer feared for his life. Michael Brown doesn’t have to fear for his life any longer because he’s DEAD!

  22. NBC says:

    Elaine: Oh, we understand Bob’s argument just fine. You may not feel convinced that we have made a good argument because you disagree with us.

    Possible and then again that may motivate you as well in your evaluations?

    Elaine: So…a police officer feared for his life. Michael Brown doesn’t have to fear for his life any longer because he’s DEAD!

    That’s meaningless rhetoric that avoids looking at the legal aspects. Yes, a person is dead, unfortunately. The question is not however, is he dead, but rather is his death caused by actions which were unlawful. As Bob points out, if it can be shown that Wilson acted lawfully, the mob owes his dog some apologies.

    Or more exactly

    So I tell the mob that if my dog attacked and killed a man without legal justification, then my dog should be held accountable. But if it turns out that my dog attacked and killed because he was justified in doing so—i.e., he did what he was trained to do—then you’ll have to pack up your torches and pitchforks and apologize to my dog.

  23. Elaine M. says:

    NBC,

    It seems quite possible that you and Bob have misconstrued the crux of the mob’s argument. Can you explain what you find wrong with the issues and concerns that the grievance syndicate has raised with regard to the Michael Brown case and the Ferguson grand jury?

  24. NBC says:

    At the moment I am more focused on the claim that Bob’s obedience statement support his bias, especially in light of his statement that Bob would accept the possibility that Wilson could be shown to have violated the law and thus deserved punishment.

    Was the mob trying to argue something else than that? Hard to tell, so perhaps you could point me to some specifics.

    Could you perhaps address my concerns about people linking Bob’s reference to a dog’s unconditional obedience to a bias on his part?

  25. I read a bit more about the Rice case tonight and I must say that this smells a lot like the CPD getting taken to the woodshed in civil court regardless of how the criminal side pans out. What a startling lack of good sense in management and supervision. I think I’m going to call the CPD the “N” word.

    Negligent.

  26. blouise17 says:

    Gene,

    And the DOJ results were announced today. Some of the boys are full of angst.

  27. Elaine M. says:

    NBC,

    You said: “Could you perhaps address my concerns about people linking Bob’s reference to a dog’s unconditional obedience to a bias on his part?”

    We’ve gone over this case for many weeks. You’ll have to read through the comments on all the posts relating to the subject of dogs and bias. I haven’t made any such links. You’ll have to ask someone else to address your concerns. I speak for no one but myself.

  28. blouise17 says:

    NBC,

    And just to save you time, don’t ask me for I never made any links either. Truth be told, I never really got the whole dog analogy thing anyway. Or was it a metaphor?

  29. Bob Kauten says:

    NBC,
    To follow the ridiculous dog metaphor a little further:
    If your dog kills someone without justification, we put the dog down and prosecute the owner who allowed his dog to terrorize the humans.
    Works for me.
    But then, this isn’t about dogs, is it? It’s about cops killing unarmed citizens, and facing zero consequences.
    The vast majority of police officers never fire their weapons while on duty, during their entire career (not counting the firing range as on duty).
    When a cop kills an unarmed citizen, there should be a mandatory trial. Note the period at the end of my last sentence.
    If that’s interference with police work, then the police are killing too damned many unarmed citizens. You know, like is happening now.

  30. NBC says:

    Bob: If your dog kills someone without justification, we put the dog down and prosecute the owner who allowed his dog to terrorize the humans.

    Ridiculous, perhaps, but they were rhetorical tools to make a point. Drawing conclusions that extend beyond the applicability, can lead, as you have shown, to some foolish conclusions.

    Bob: When a cop kills an unarmed citizen, there should be a mandatory trial. Note the period at the end of my last sentence.

    I strongly object to this based on principles of justice. We cannot bypass the probable cause step just because it interferes with our need to bring some people to justice and expose them to a trial. That is just not reconcilable with my sense of justice.

    It’s already troublesome that most officer involved shootings get referred to a grand jury rather than have the prosecutor decide, and I can partially understand why this is the case but to now argue that we should do away with that fifth amendment right or that we should forego a probable cause hearing/Grand Jury proceeding because it does not suit us, requires a bit more explanation as to why such if legally and morally just.

  31. At least in the Cleveland case, the DOJ is crying foul.

    Meanwhile, the standard is going more and more towards the fascist precipice that

    Woe to any citizen who doesnt immediately drop prone to the ground – spread eagle – when a badge with a gun comes thy way.

    Or, to put it in the mortal fixing words of Fullerton officer to homeless man Kelly Thomas (as the assassin put his latex gloves on and said as he turned to face the sitting down soon to b beaten dead victim)

    “I’m going to fuck you up—”

    Which did quickly occur when Kelly Thomas got up.

    And that officer had a history problematic too.

    Here’s your sign!

  32. blouise17 says:

    Laser,

    Everybody here, I live in the Cleveland area, is wondering how they’re going to pay for the body cameras all the officers will be required to wear.

    Yep, that’s what’s worrying them. Is it any wonder that the police got away with so much for so long?

  33. NBC says:

    Laser: Meanwhile, the standard is going more and more towards the fascist precipice that

    The officers were found not guilty in a trial with a jury of their peers.

  34. Ha ha…what a cracker remark that is.

    Jury of their peers…

    REALLY!

    12 offic,pissers as a jury….Eaaannnttt!

    12 legal eagles (not so either)

    Prosecuted by impartials… Eant there too.

    Never gonna %#@?¥ ..happen

    Contrarians delighted in perverted justice

    As always……

  35. NBC says:

    Laser: Ha ha…what a cracker remark that is.

    So your argument is that even a jury cannot reach a verdict that you believe to be correct? So let me understand: the prosecutor got them indicted, and prosecuted and a jury found them not guilty. How do you know that this was ‘perverted justice’? Just because is hurts your sensibilities?

    If we cannot even accept the findings of a jury, then we have truly abandoned our legal system, for no good reason. I guess even the people are in on what you call a fascist precipe.

    In Ferguson, the argument was that justice was perverted because the case did not make it to a petit jury, now you seem to suggest that a ruling which disagrees with Laser, is somehow perverted?

    Sorry my friend but this world does not center around what Laser wants. Once you realize this, it may be easier to accept when things do not go exactly your way.

  36. Nice try, non truth guy

    What I desire, and most other Socratic,s too…is that the scales of justice be as Aristotle,s model.

    Blind to who the parties are and adjudication upon the merits by tge scales of the evidence.

    You argue the law and evidence and GJ process was 100% pure; and the fact if the matter is…It Was Tainted by a visibly biased prosecutor in both Ferguson and Staten Island.

    Even the National Bar Association clamored for McCullough to recuse himself.

  37. Here’s how justice would really be served….

    McCullough loses hus reelection in a race based on this case and the successor does a new GJ

    Then contrarian crows woukd sigh

  38. eniobob says:

    Bob Kauten:

    “When a cop kills an unarmed citizen, there should be a mandatory trial. Note the period at the end of my last sentence.”

    We will see if they agree with you in Brooklyn New York in the next few days.

    “NEW YORK – A man leaving his girlfriend’s apartment was shot and killed in a darkened stairwell of a public housing complex after a rookie cop on patrol fired his weapon, likely accidentally, officials said Friday.”

    http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/new-york/2014/11/21/nypd-man-shot-police/19330741/

    What do you folks think about this ?

    “EXCLUSIVE: Rookie NYPD officer who shot Akai Gurley in Brooklyn stairwell was texting union rep as victim lay dying”

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/exclusive-texted-union-rep-akai-gurley-lay-dying-article-1.2034219

  39. Elaine M. says:

    Eniobob,

    Are you kidding?????

    How about the president of the NYC police union? According to him, Daniel Panteleo is an altar boy.

  40. NBC says:

    Eniobob: “EXCLUSIVE: Rookie NYPD officer who shot Akai Gurley in Brooklyn stairwell was texting union rep as victim lay dying”

    That’s the procedure yes. In it’s proper context, quite understandable.

    As to the accident/incident, we need to look at the details.

    Morally speaking, I find the incident a good indicator of what is wrong with our law enforcement protocols.

  41. eniobob says:

    Elaine :

    Patrick Lynch is quite the spokesman.

    “Lynch then called the medical examiner’s report, which determined Garner’s death was a homicide, “political,” alleging an absence of medical facts and promising to bring in experts to dispute the report.

    “We will defend these police officers,” Lynch said. “This was not a chokehold. We will get medical examiners to go over this autopsy when it is finally released.”

    http://www.amny.com/news/pba-president-patrick-lynch-rips-al-sharpton-says-there-was-no-chokehold-on-eric-garner-1.8969606

  42. eniobob says:

    NBC:
    According to the article it’s not what they should have been doing.

    “In the critical moments after the Nov. 20 shooting, the cops’ commanding officer and an emergency operator — responding to a 911 call from a neighbor and knowing the duo was in the area — tried to reach them in vain, sources said. “That’s showing negligence,” said a law enforcement source of the pair’s decision to text their union rep before making a radio call for help.

    “The guy is dying and you still haven’t called it in?”

    To make things even worse, the officers were uncertain of the exact address of the building in the Pink Houses they were in, according to their text messages, the sources said.”

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/exclusive-texted-union-rep-akai-gurley-lay-dying-article-1.2034219

  43. NBC says:

    Eniobob: “That’s showing negligence,” said a law enforcement source of the pair’s decision to text their union rep before making a radio call for help.

    With that background, their actions appear cold and negligent.

  44. eniobob says:

    Some background on the Brooklyn District Attorneys office and I believe the first African American District Attorney to handle one of these unarmed black male shootings.Should be interesting to say the least.

    CLINTON HILL — Kenneth Thompson toppled 20-year incumbent Charles Hynes in the hotly contested race for Brooklyn District Attorney Tuesday night, becoming the borough’s first black DA.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/ken-thompson-charles-hynes-brooklyn-da_n_4224920.html

  45. eniobob says:

    NBC:

    “With that background, their actions appear cold and negligent.”
    TOUCHE !

  46. NBC says:

    Eniobob: TOUCHE !

    I am not here the excuse the behaviors of the police officers and I have more than once expressed my disgust at the ease with which police applies (deadly) force in a reckless manner. My goal is to understand the circumstances, actions and whether or not legally speaking they should be indicted.

  47. Elaine M. says:

    New lie in the shooting death of Tamir Rice discovered: Police never saw the tip of the gun at all
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349386/-New-lie-in-the-shooting-death-of-Tamir-Rice-discovered-Police-never-saw-the-tip-of-the-gun-at-all

    Excerpt:
    When Officer Timothy Loehmann shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice on November 22, an immediate coverup of his misconduct began. At least five lies have already been uncovered, but the latest suggests the entire Cleveland Police Department is in on it.

    The Sunday after Tamir Rice was killed, Cleveland Police held a press conference in which they displayed the toy air pistol they say was possessed by Tamir Rice. In this press conference, Detective Jennifer Ciaccia, who also serves as a spokesperson for the department, emphasized that the “orange tip” of the gun was missing and that the “the police learned the gun was fake after the shooting.”

    The thing, is, though, the police never even saw Tamir Rice brandish or point the pistol at them to determine if the orange cap was actually missing or not. When Detective Ciaccia made the repeated statements that the orange cap was missing, she did so in an effort to bolster the claim that the police had no choice but to fire because they saw the weapon, couldn’t determine with their eyes that it was a fake, and acted on instincts to protect themselves. This simply is not true.

    As you will see from the video below the fold, when the police pulled up on Tamir Rice, they shoot him in less than two seconds. In that encounter, the gun is never drawn for them to see the missing cap one way or the other.

  48. eniobob says:

    BTW:

    I caught on the radio yesterday afternoon the radio hostess was talking to a person who was from Ferguson,MO and who was active in the community.Said he drove 9 hours to get to Tamir Rices funeral and he was talking to the host while at Tamir Rice repass and told the host that Tamir had to be cremated for the mother had no money to bury him.

  49. eniobob says:

    NBC:

    “I am not here the excuse the behaviors of the police officers”
    Never said you were,but when you make a statement which is true I can only agree.

    “With that background, their actions appear cold and negligent.”

  50. Elaine M. says:

    Eniobob,

    Who cares? Tamir was just another black kid who would have grown up to be a thug…and maybe even a demon like Michael Brown

  51. NBC says:

    Elaine: As you will see from the video below the fold, when the police pulled up on Tamir Rice, they shoot him in less than two seconds. In that encounter, the gun is never drawn for them to see the missing cap one way or the other.

    It’s best to present the complete evidence rather than trying to put a spin on it, and I do not care about what the police department is saying, or that you consider this to be a lie. The orange cap was missing and the police did not know that the gun was a fake.

    So what would a police officer do who tells the suspect to drop the firearm and the suspect reaches for his waist? Would that justify the police officer’s actions?

    In this case, the circumstance, however sad, do not seem to support an indictment. Having that said, I would have to look deeper into the circumstances.

    Instead of calling them lies, why not accept the possibility that you misunderstood what was being said, or that they made a mistake? And finally, who cares what the police PR has to say when it comes to determining the culpability of the officer involved?

    PR people often respond to probing questions even when all evidence has not yet been collected.

  52. NBC says:

    Elaine: Who cares? Tamir was just another black kid who would have grown up to be a thug…and maybe even a demon like Michael Brown

    At best we can conclude the cold facts that sitting in a park and playing with a device that looks like a real gun is not the best way to reach grown up age. In this case, even though the gun was ‘fake’, its presence would likely justify the police officer’s actions.

    And it was not really a ‘fake’ either but rather a air gun if I recall correctly. They are not totally harmless either.

  53. NBC says:

    Correction: Police say Tamir was told to raise his hands three times, then reached into his waistband for what appeared to be a firearm. Police later determined it was an airsoft gun, which shoots small plastic pellets.

    It was an airsoft gun shooting plastic pellets.

  54. Elaine M. says:

    Eniobob,

    Grand Jury To Consider Charges In Akai Gurley Death
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/05/akai-gurley_n_6277484.html

    Excerpt:
    NEW YORK — The parents of Akai Gurley said Friday that their son was murdered by NYPD Officer Peter Liang, and that they feel Liang should be charged with homicide.

    Their statement came hours after a damning report from The New York Daily News stating that Liang texted his police union representative while Gurley lay dying.

    It also came just hours before Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson confirmed that he will impanel a grand jury to consider charges against Liang.

    Gurley’s mother, Sylvia Palmer, broke down in tears while talking to reporters Friday in Brooklyn inside the Brown Memorial Baptist Church, where Gurley’s funeral service will be held Saturday morning.

  55. NBC says:

    http://gawker.com/nypd-cop-who-killed-gurley-texted-union-instead-of-seek-1667183543

    The Daily News story about the officer texting a union delegate does not appear to be true. We have over 400 delegates but the ones that serve the area he was working in did not receive any texts from him.

    Let’s perhaps wait until we get to see all the evidence?

  56. Elaine M. says:

    The police’s story about the shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice doesn’t match the video
    http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7326243/tamir-rice-police-contradictions

    Excerpt:
    Cleveland Police officials told a different story about what happened to Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old shot and killed by a Cleveland Police officer over the weekend of November 22, than what’s visible in the available video footage of the shooting.

    MSNBC’s Chris Hayes broke down some the discrepancies between the police’s side of the story and what actually happened, and what can be seen in the video surveillance footage released by police a couple days after the shooting.

    Police said, according to the Plain Dealer, that Rice was sitting under a pavilion in the park with a few people, suggesting that the boy could have been a threat to others. But the video footage shows Rice was sitting alone as police pulled up.

  57. NBC says:

    Elaine: Police said, according to the Plain Dealer, that Rice was sitting under a pavilion in the park with a few people, suggesting that the boy could have been a threat to others. But the video footage shows Rice was sitting alone as police pulled up.

    So the police story is wrong. So what? The relevant facts are there:

    1. Tamir Rice was waving what appeared to be a firearm
    2. Police was informed that a suspect was waving a firearm, the details were not fully transmitted

    The operator describes the incident as “a black male sitting on the swings, keeps pulling a gun out of his pants and pointing it at people”.

    3. Police pulled up
    4. Tamir Rice moved towards his waist
    5. And was shot

  58. Elaine M. says:

    So the police lied? So what? So the officer who shot and killed Tamir Rice was deemed unfit for police duty by the police department that her worked for previously? So what? Nothing to see here…or think about. Just another black kid dead.

  59. NBC says:

    Elaine: So the police lied?

    Has it occurred to you that the police was mistaken?

    Elaine: Just another black kid dead.

    Waving what looks like a gun in public is not a very smart idea. Moving towards your waist when police tells you otherwise, also not too smart.
    Did he deserve to die? No. Was the police justified in their actions? Looks like it. And unlike in some of the other incidents, I do not see this as morally unjustifiable. The circumstances had prepared the police officer to an armed encounter and when the suspect moved towards his waist, where the ‘gun’ was located, the response would appear quite defensible to me.

    Did the police lie? That requires you to show that they knowingly said something they knew was wrong. There are more plausible scenarios I believe.
    Does it matter what the police says? Not that much.

  60. Elaine M. says:

    Lots of white people walk around with guns without getting shot. Just to bring up one example: A number of white men and women who supported Cliven Bundy aimed their guns at police and federal officers. Nothing happened to them. I wonder why???

  61. Elaine M. says:

    Cleveland Editorial Board Blasts Police in Tamir Rice Shooting: ‘They Have a Lot of Explaining to Do’
    11.28/14
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/cleveland-editorial-board-blast-police-in-tamir-rice-shooting-they-have-a-lot-of-explaining-to-do/

    Excerpt:
    …the Cleveland Plain Dealer today also published an editorial accusing police of lying about the circumstances surrounding his death.

    Initially, the Cleveland police reported that Rice, playing with a group of friends, had brandished a toy gun at two policemen, forcing them to shoot him twice, killing him. But surveillance footage of Rice’s death released on Wednesday told a radically different story, prompting the Plain Dealer to call out multiple contradictions:

    The police said two officers, responding to a 9-1-1 call, went to the park and saw Tamir take what they thought was a pistol from a table under a gazebo in the park and stuff it in his waistband. Police said that the boy was sitting with a group at the time.

    Police also said that the officers told Tamir three times to raise his hands, and that when he reached for what they thought was a real pistol, he was shot.

    The video, however, shows officers in a cruiser pull up within several feet of Rice, who was not with a group, but by himself underneath a gazebo. Immediately, even before the car stops rolling, the cruiser’s passenger side door opens, an officer emerges and fires at Tamir, who drops to the ground.

  62. Elaine M. says:

    Mike,

    Heavily Armed Right Wing Terrorist Stalks Tennessee School
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/20/heavily-armed-right-wing-terrorist-stalks-tennessee-school/

    Excerpt:
    Police and school officials received an influx of calls from parents and concerned citizens, after an armed man, wearing a bullet proof vest, was spotted by dozens of witnesses, pacing back and forth on the sidewalk in front of Nashville’s Hillsboro High School, on September 17, 2014.

    The gunman, Leonard Embody, has been previously arrested in Tennessee, for similar behavior. Embody is a firearms dealer and open carry nut job, who had his firearms license revoked by the Tennessee Department of Safety, in 2010.

    Embody’s license was revoked based on multiple incidents which took place over a two year period, in which authorities say that he presented a serious threat to public health and safety.

  63. NBC says:

    I am personally not a fan of open-carry, because it increases the risks to society. I still am not sure why this case has any relevance to the issue of whether or not the police was justified in using deadly force against Tamir Rice. Is it because he was black and these are white as Mike seems to suggest? I find the race factor to be somewhat self serving and irrelevant, unless one believes that race itself plays a role in these interactions.
    Sure, there may be instances where race is an issue, and such has to be determined on a case by case basis, not based on the flawed ‘statistics’ that I have seen do its rounds here. If race really were a bias, how come that black officers tend to be involved in more justifiable shootings of blacks for instance, and white officers more in justifiable shootings of whites? Statistically speaking… I am just not convinced that race invariably plays a role in these incidents. Would it surprise anyone that in areas of high crime, people are more likely to be arrested and/or shot at or killed in ‘justifiable’ homicides? Is anyone surprised that areas of high crime often correlate with higher poverty levels?

    Police responded to an urgent message that a person was pointing a firearm in a park and when they approached, the person, when confronted appears to grab for his waist. From a police officer’s perspective, what is one to do?

    Under these circumstances, I believe that the police officer was legally and morally justified in the force used.

  64. NBC says:

    Mike: The kid was black, but what if it were a real gun and the person was White?

    Apples and oranges my friend. Why do people insist on bringing in race?

  65. NBC says:

    As to his previous incident, the details which emerge are a little more informative than initially portrayed by the media:

    “The Independence police memo describes an episode in which a supervising officer suspended gun training with Loehmann after Loehmann had an emotional breakdown about a girlfriend.”

    “In recommending Loehmann’s dismissal, Polak listed what he said were other performance shortcomings, including Loehmann’s having left his gun unlocked, lied to supervisors and failed to follow orders.”

    So my question is: Was Loehmann still ‘unfit’ 2 years later?

  66. Elaine M. says:

    About the strange behavior of officers after they killed Akai Gurley, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/05/1349673/-About-the-strange-behavior-of-officers-after-they-killed-Akai-Gurley-Tamir-Rice-and-Eric-Garner#

    Excerpt:
    How Tamir Rice Died

    Twelve years old and only in the sixth grade, Tamir Rice was shot and killed on November 22 by Cleveland Police Officer Timothy Loehman while playing in a local park near his home. After a local resident called 911 to report that someone who appeared to be a child was playing with what was likely a toy gun (both accurate), the police dispatch failed to relay crucial details to police officers—leaving out that Tamir was young and that his gun was likely a toy. With that in mind, police arrived on the scene and shot Tamir within two seconds of seeing him.

    At least six lies the police have told about this case can be studied here and here, including the reality that Tamir never actually pointed or brandished the gun at them as they initially described. Likely unaware that a local security camera filmed the entire ordeal, the officers not only contrived key details on why and how the shooting occurred, but were unaware that they were filmed willfully neglecting a mortally wounded Tamir Rice in the crucial minutes following the shooting.

    The Tragic Aftermath in the Shooting Death of Tamir Rice

    It wasn’t until an FBI agent, who was in the area with a detective, arrived on the scene that Tamir was given any first aid whatsoever. It must be noted that Tamir Rice fought to live all the way until the following morning, nearly 24 hours later. When asked why footage was not released showing exactly how officers performed after the shooting and why the officers on the scene refused Tamir any first aid, a spokesperson for the mayorjust communicated that the entire ordeal was under investigation.

  67. NBC says:

    Elaine: After a local resident called 911 to report that someone who appeared to be a child was playing with what was likely a toy gun (both accurate), the police dispatch failed to relay crucial details to police officers—leaving out that Tamir was young and that his gun was likely a toy. With that in mind, police arrived on the scene and shot Tamir within two seconds of seeing him.

    The “with that in mind” is contradicted by the evidence that the officers were never informed that the suspect was you and the firearm to be a toy.

    Was this an oversight when ‘reporting’ this? Is it a lie? Or just a mistake? Can you help me understand your standard to determine the difference of a lie and a mistake?

    Do you have access to the testimony and interviews of the two officers? Have you compared said testimony against the physical evidence?

    Or are you indicting the officers based on hearsay?

  68. NBC says:

    For example; Police also claimed, according to the Associated Press, that the officer who opened fire on Rice asked the boy to put his hands up three times, suggesting that Rice was given ample warning before he was shot. The video footage doesn’t disprove this, but it suggests the officer who shot Rice, Timothy Loehmann, would have given the commands fairly quickly — Loehmann shot Rice within two seconds of his squad car pulling up to the park pavilion.

    And yet, as I understand the circumstances, he was giving commands from the window of the car while approaching so the two seconds may likely have been longer.

    The statement by the police that Tamir was there with other people is irrelevant to the officer in question who were only informed about the presence of a person with a gun, making threatening motions. (paraphrasing)

    While the car was was pulling up, Loehmann yelled through his open door three times, telling the boy to raise his hands, but Rice did not follow the order, Deputy Chief Tomba said. The footage has no audio.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2854617/Cops-shot-12-year-old-Tamir-Rice-dead-holding-BB-gun-did-not-aid-watched-lie-agony-died-just-hours-later.html#ixzz3L9sXXPNg

  69. NBC says:

    Radio: ‘Shots fired,’ one of the officers tells the dispatcher on another call. ‘Male down, black male, maybe 20, black hand gun.’

    So black gun. They did observe the gun.

  70. NBC says:

    Also: “With Tamir on the ground, Loehmann kicks away the replica gun, which was dropped on the floor as the boy fell.”

    the more we learn, the more we learn, don’t we? So Elaine, what do you think?

  71. po says:

    NBC
    I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the previous thread that your defense of Wilson was a defense of the ideals of system, of the law and therefore of justice, just detached from the realities on the ground, the realities of circumstances. In other words, I called you naive for that was the most charitable option.
    Now that it spread into a defense of the system against Gardner, and now against Tamir Rice, what is apparent is that you are either a contrarian or emotionally biased in favor of the police, or the system, and just unwilling to take the crap that goes with being open about it (unlike Bob, who is taking it with nary a blink).
    The Brown case was ambiguous either way, legally, while the Gardner case and the Rice case definitely not so, both being as close to clear cut, legally, as one may ask for.
    Yet…yet…in each you find some benefit of the doubt to give, and each you give to the police. That is a peculiar way of viewing the world because, traditionally, morally and individually, humanity has always sided with the murdered, the killed, the hurt, the oppressed…
    We were always willing to take a chance punishing the killer than we are letting the murdered remain unavenged, and we still are (as evidenced by the willingness of the right to fry their death row prisoners as quickly as their constitutional rights can be undermined to permit it) unless that is, the killer is a cop.

  72. NBC says:

    Based on what I know so far, I have no doubt that police officer was correct in his actions. He was faced with a person who was going for a gun, and the lack of information about the age and/or the nature of the weapon, other than it being a firearm gave him no choice.

    Having said that, it was the driver’s actions that placed his fellow police officer in a do or die position by driving up too aggressively and too closely to the suspect. His fellow police officer was placed in a situation that had but one possible outcome.

    A sad situation and poor judgement but no cause for an indictment or charges. So unless other information becomes available I conclude that this was a justifiable homicide of an unarmed 12 year old.

    As to his fellow officer, I am not sure what possible charges, if any could be brought. Poor judgment is not necessarily a crime.

    Po: We were always willing to take a chance punishing the killer than we are letting the murdered remain unavenged,

    I find that unacceptable. We have outgrown the an eye for an eye mentality.

    Now that it spread into a defense of the system against Gardner, and now against Tamir Rice,

    Contrary to your claims, I have not argued that Gardner should be ‘defended’. In fact I see nothing in the video that would support me not indicting Gardner for excessive use of force. Note that without the video, Gardner would likely not have been indicted.

    Tarmir Rice is the easiest case of the three. Poor judgment of the driver, forced the police officer to make a split second decision when the suspect went for his gun.

  73. NBC says:

    Po: The Brown case was ambiguous either way, legally, while the Gardner case and the Rice case definitely not so, both being as close to clear cut, legally, as one may ask for.

    Please explain because the video shows clear evidence of self defense. No way around it. The Gardner case is not that ambiguous. The standard for lawful self defense is not that high, and a reasonable person would have a hard time not concluding that the police officer felt an immediate threat.

    So please help me understand your reasoning here. What am I missing?

    That the suspect was a 12 year old? That was not communicated
    That the suspect was playing with a toy firearm that looked real enough?
    That the police officer had been informed about a suspect waving a firearm?

    If there ever was a case for self defense, then this one, unfortunately is amongst the least ambiguous ones and yet at the same time, one of the most regrettable ones.

  74. po says:

    NBC says:
    December 8, 2014 at 8:05 pm
    Based on what I know so far, I have no doubt that police officer was correct in his actions. He was faced with a person who was going for a gun, and the lack of information about the age and/or the nature of the weapon, other than it being a firearm gave him no choice.
    ——————————————————————–
    Again, benefit of the doubt to the police officer! If the officer was correct in his actions, how come he lied about the timeline of the event? Should we discount that? Or should, we again, give him the benefit of the doubt…because…?

    NBC:Having said that, it was the driver’s actions that placed his fellow police officer in a do or die position by driving up too aggressively and too closely to the suspect. His fellow police officer was placed in a situation that had but one possible outcome.
    _________________________
    Again, benefit of the doubt to the police officer! This time, you are willing to sacrifice the driver to save the shooter. Shooting a suspect is never the only possible outcome, that’s bullshit if ever there was. The call did not say that there was a gunman shooting at people, it said there was a man with a gun, which is not illegal per se. Furthermore, considering how quickly the shooting happened, it was apparent that the cop’s gun was drawn before the car stopped, and possibly pointed at the kid.

    NBC: A sad situation and poor judgement but no cause for an indictment or charges. So unless other information becomes available I conclude that this was a justifiable homicide of an unarmed 12 year old.
    ——————————————————–
    My God! Are you serious? Poor judgement is not necessarily a crime, but when it causes the loss of life, limb or property, it is sure a crime. Poor judgement is at the core of why anyone is blamed for anything. Stealing is due to poor judgement, so is murder, so is rape, and so is shooting a 12 years old and lying about it. What are the standards by which you think a cop should be indicted?
    Why is it a sad situation? Because the cop used bad judgement and took an action that resulted in the death of a child! Were it a gunman who shot a couple of people already, and the cop shot and killed him, it would not have been a sad situation, at least the shooting and killing of the gunman wouldnt! Come, on, man!

    NBC:
    Po: We were always willing to take a chance punishing the killer than we are letting the murdered remain unavenged,

    I find that unacceptable. We have outgrown the an eye for an eye mentality.
    ———————————————-
    Really?
    WHen?
    Where?
    The whole idea of justice as applied in most societies, especially here, and especially in the south, is eye for an eye! Hell, what is 3 strikes law and mandatory punishment but an eye for an eyelash?
    What is the death penalty by eye for an eye?

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “A sad situation and poor judgement but no cause for an indictment or charges.”

      NBC, that is nonsense. Someone who is drinking and driving, hits and kills a pedestrian is using poor judgment and yet will be indicted. Poor judgment that leads to a death is known as negligent homicide. But my friend, in this case with the videotape and the facts against him, you side with the policeman. You are indeed merely a contrarian enjoying the battle, much smoke and mirrors, little of substance, but presented in a supercilious manner. Well if that’s what floats your boat.

  75. No winning with this guy/gal .. A super contrarian who feeds off being center of attention. Best accomplished by alwsys irking the facts with fallacy.

    Ignoring is now the solution!

  76. NBC says:

    Mike: perhaps,poor judgment could be used against the driver. In this case the video tape shows that he was placed in a situation that left him with no other option.

    What facts were against the shooter? That his partner approached fast and stopped close to the suspect? That the child drew or went to draw a gun in his belt which looked quite real? Please help me understand why this is not a case of self defense.

    So yes, poor judgement on the part of the driver. However your driving drunk is not quite comparable as it involves a crime that results in a death. Drunk driving. In this case, the situation is slightly and importantly different. In their poor execution of their task to investigate a man waving a gun, the driver in his haste or enthusiasm, or just out of poor judgment, approaches the suspect at high speed and stops close to the suspect, who in response, reaches for his gun. His partner was exposed on the passenger seat, opened the door, and was faced with the impossible decision: to ignore someone going for what appeared to be a gun, or to be shot? Split second decisions. Classic case of self defense.

    I understand that people are upset by the outcome which is a dead unarmed 12 year old who had the stupid idea to sit and walk in a park and play with the gun and pointing it around, resulting in a phone call which content was poorly transmitted to the police officers who responded to the situation resulting in the death.

    Perhaps if we were to ask a police officer what he would do in a similar circumstance, or what their training tells them to do?

    Is that so contrarian? Perhaps, but is it so unreasonable to argue that the police officer was legally justified?

    I understand your anger, an innocent life was lost and it should never have happened. However it did happen so under these circumstances what would you suggest the facts show us and then explain why you believe the police officer should be indicted?

    Is it because the laws of self defense are different in the state? I admit, I have not checked them yet.

  77. NBC says:

    More about self defense and Ohio. It seems that Ohio is more complicated as self defense is based on common law and precedent, not explicit rules

    The Ohio Revised Code does not have an explicit definition of the legitimate use of deadly force in all situations.

    Instead, much of the legal concept of self-defense in Ohio is based on common law and past court rulings, according to local criminal defense attorney Jeff Jakmides.

    In general, Ohio law allows people to use deadly force against another person if they have a reasonable belief, even if mistaken, that the person poses an imminent “danger of death or great bodily harm,” and the people can’t exercise their “duty to retreat” or escape from the situation.

    A self-defense claim is invalid if the person doing the killing did anything to cause the situation that resulted in them being in danger or failed to take an opportunity to safely leave the scene.

    Read more: http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20120401/News/304019936

  78. NBC says:

    Po Again, benefit of the doubt to the police officer! If the officer was correct in his actions, how come he lied about the timeline of the event?

    This goes beyond the benefit of the doubt, this goes towards what the video shows. Did he lie about the timeline of events? How did you establish that he lied versus being mistaken, confused etc? Does the benefit of the doubt go against the police officer that easily? Or are you confusing this with accusations that the police lied when they made specific statements about the events?

    What timeline and lies are we talking about here?

  79. NBC says:

    Po: Furthermore, considering how quickly the shooting happened, it was apparent that the cop’s gun was drawn before the car stopped, and possibly pointed at the kid.

    Most likely. Your point is what? Police is dispatched to investigate a report that

    Radio call

    Supposed to be a male sitting on a swing pointing a gun at people
    Pulling it out of his pants and pointing it at people.

  80. Pingback: The Death of Twelve-Year-Old Tamir Rice Has Been Declared a Homicide | Flowers For Socrates

  81. buckaroo says:

    A very informative examination of the facts – Question: The officer under suspicion, I think, thought the 12yr old was a 20yr old. Which brings up his appearance – how tall was this lad, and how much was his weight ? Do we have a current picture of the lad ?

  82. The 4 mother,s,
    ….including Trayvon,s. … were on Anderson Cooper. . Together.

    Did anyone catch the show.

Comments are closed.