Plan B Forum

CLEVELAND (AP) -- A grand jury declined to indict a white rookie police officer in the killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, a black youngster who was shot to death while playing with what turned out to be a pellet gun, a prosecutor said Monday.

Cuyahoga County prosecutor Tim McGinty said it was "indisputable" that the boy was drawing the pistol from his waistband when he was gunned down - either to hand it over to police or to show them that it wasn't real. But McGinty said there was no way for the officers on the scene to know that.

When I first heard this story and saw the brief video of the shooting, I was horrified that a 12-year old with a toy gun could be shot.

Today, I watched the entire press conference. Now I am saddened but not horrified. The child was 5' 7" - taller than me. He weighed in at 175lbs. The officer who called EMS (after kicking away the fallen pistol) reported him as "20s".

Rice's friend who gave him the gun had removed the orange safety tip that shows it's a toy. He warned Rice not to go around waving it. Oh, he's 12 - of course he's going to wave around a toy gun. Other people in the park warned him - "not in this day. Put it up".

The 911 caller who was "scared" told the call-taker that it might be a toy and he seemed like a juvenile. But what the despatcher told the cops was "black male with a gun" along with the description of the clothes and that he was pulling the gun from under his jacket at the waist.

It really looks as if the cop car did slide on the wet grass and that the young cop stepped out way too close. It looks like the kid (who knew it was a toy) had no intention of threatening the cop and probably was pulling the damn thing out to give it to them. He saw the car coming and moved to it - not away. He wasn't afraid. I think the young cop was afraid. He steps out expecting a black male with a gun and what did he see but this "adult" pulling a pistol from his waistband. He let off two shots - not a fusillade - and one shot hit Tamir, doing devastating damage to him. The other cop, the trainer, didn't shoot at all but they both took up defensive positions, sheltering behind the police car before the older cop moved over, kicked the gun away, called for EMS and then had to deal with Tamir's sister.

Despite efforts of an FBI guy (a trained army medic) and the other officer, who both started to give Tamir attention within three minutes of the incident, he died either in the ambulance or in the hospital. Cleveland cops then had no first aid training and not one first aid kit in their cars. It wouldn't have made any difference.

It's tragic all the way round. If the car had stopped sooner; if the despatcher had passed on two vital bits of info; if, if, if.... tragic waste of a life.

I wonder how long before criminals start painting orange tips on *REAL* guns.

"Don't shoot!!  Toy gun!!"

blam
blam
blam

"I lied."

-"BB"-

BB--I recall that being a concern voiced when they first started coloring toy guns orange, but this has not been a problem SFAIK.

Jeez. Twelve years old. Killed with less than 2 seconds forethought. With no legal consequences.

The prosecutor said (and the Grand Jury agreed), "It would be unreasonable for Officers Loehmann and Garmback to have waited to see if Tamir Rice's gun was real." (And yes, open carry is legal in Ohio.) So essentially what the Grand Jury is saying here is, "If you're open carrying a gun* in the state of Ohio, it would be UNREASONABLE for the police NOT to immediately shoot you."




* insert "while black" here. Because, of course.

Which are real and which are toys? And if one is pointed at you how long should you take to assess and react?
https://www.google.com/search?q=real+gu ... gC&dpr=0.9

One of these is a real semi-automatic pistol.
The other is the gun Tamir Rice was carrying the night he was shot.
Someone has one of these in his waistband and is reaching for it.  Quick — which is which?

-"BB"-

Econoline wrote:Jeez. Twelve years old. Killed with less than 2 seconds forethought. With no legal consequences.

The prosecutor said (and the Grand Jury agreed), "It would be unreasonable for Officers Loehmann and Garmback to have waited to see if Tamir Rice's gun was real." (And yes, open carry is legal in Ohio.) So essentially what the Grand Jury is saying here is, "If you're open carrying a gun* in the state of Ohio, it would be UNREASONABLE for the police NOT to immediately shoot you."

Utter falsehoods. "Forethought"? They were called to take care of an adult male pulling a pistol from his waistband and pointing it at people's heads, including children. They thought about a man with a gun and how they would put themselves at risk in removing the danger. They thought about how to approach the park by the best way, closest to the swings where this man had been reported by a 911 caller who properly identified his/her self. As they arrived they thought enough to look at the swings and then saw the male as described further on in the gazebo. They continued thinking as they braked the car and it slid too far across the grass, depositing them within feet of the threat. The young guy jumping from the passenger side came out of the car in front of a black male pulling a gun from his waistband and he shot him. Two shots. One hit.

Garmback never fired. The issue wasn't that a black child (5' 7" tall and 175lbs) was openly carrying a gun when a random police guy decided to shoot him. He was carrying concealed. Then he was pointing the gun at people - being a gangsta - and concealing the weapon again. He started to pull it on the cops as they halted. Probably he thought it was all a laugh and he wanted to show that it was a toy.

Yes and if it hadn't been a toy, which the officers had no idea might be the case because that suspicion wasn't passed on to them (listen to the dispatch call), they did the right thing when confronted by a threat. If the kid had been white, the same thing would have happened. If only he'd just sat quietly instead of stepping toward the cops - if only he'd put his hands up in the air instead of reaching for the gun - if only the cop had time and distance.... What legal consequences do you want for a man who did what he's trained to do (which isn't to shoot black people) and what any reasonable person in that position would have done?

Not all police shootings are as evil as you seem to imagine. Some really are just tragedies and not malice.

Well Meade, you could be right, but then why was the 911 operator so remiss in conveying the details of the incident to the police? Why didn't (s)he say that the witness thought it was a juvenile and that the gun might be a toy? Why was the fact that he was a juvenile apparent to the witness but not the cop? And once they saw what they had done, why did the cops not even try to administer first aid? I understand that they were not trained in first aid, but it doesn't take much training to know that you might try direct pressure to stem the bleeding or keep the victim warm; somehow I doubt they would leave a fellow officer lying there.

I agree that the Grand Jury heard the entire story and made their decision, but I don't see it as open and shut based on the information that was made public.

I don't know why there was information left out between the 911 call information and the dispatch caller's message out. The caller was sitting in the gazebo for part of the time and had a long period of observing the wannabe-thug. He/she could see the boy with other children, interacting and pointing his gun at heads etc. Even the caller wasn't sure but thought it might be a youngster and maybe it was a toy.

The officers expected a black male, armed - they didn't have even seconds to decide that a 5' 7", 175lb male in bulky clothes coming at them pulling a pistol was 12 years old - and even if they did, what country do you live in that doesn't have 12 year olds and younger shooting other people?

The 911 call has the possible young info toward the front and then as it goes on for greater length it comes down to discussing the description and the caller's whereabouts (and identity, which is omitted from the playbacks of course) in which the maybe fake remark is lost, along with youth. Probably, even the famous missing orange tip couldn't have helped given the speed at which things developed - and that the cops were NOT in the position they intended to be, further away from the danger.

"The cops" (obviously you didn't read my first post) did respond with attempted pressure within 3-4 minutes of the shooting itself. The two first responders took shelter behind the car, not knowing if the "shooter" was able to pick the gun up again and shoot them. Then Garmback, cautiously approaches from the left (camera view point), kicks the gun away, and only then feels safe enough to do anything else. He immediately calls for EMS within 30 seconds of the shooting, which is exactly right, then as two other law enforcement guys arrive (the one an ex-army medic), he and the medic try to apply pressure while awaiting EMS.

You tell me - what did they actually do wrong? My view - driving too fast on grass. They didn't give themselves enough time and space to figure out what was really happening. If they stopped by the swings, they'd have been out of the car barking orders and maybe the kid wouldn't have made the mistake of pulling the damn toy out of his pants. They might have realized he wasn't the danger that he appeared to be.

Meade--what the officers did wrong? I'm not making accusations, I'm asking the questions that I have; they may have done nothing wrong, they may have done something. I honestly cannot tell from the information I've seen--obviously the Grand Jury thought it could.

as for first aid--you stated he kicked the gun away in 30 seconds; then he was not under any immediate threat from the "weapon". However, over two minutes elapsed between the time he was clear and called for EMS and the time when other cops came to render first aid. I cannot think that's appropriate procedure for the cops on the scene to wait that long (and if it is, IMHO, it should not be) , even if only to place coats or blankets on the victim to keep him warm and to try and stop the bleeding, and I doubt they would have waited that time if it were a fellow officer. I honestly don't know why they waited, which is why I asked.

You ask if a 12 year old could shoot people, and of course they can. But even you seem to think this might have been different if they knew he was 12, if only because they may have tried to assess the situation a bit longer.

Look, being a cop is a hard job and it is easy to be the arm chair quarterback and second guess what they should have done, but it also is important to be certain those acting in our collective name act properly. And while I see no reason to say they acted improperly, I raised some questions I would like answered before I can conclude they acted properly.

Bicycle Bill wrote:I wonder how long before criminals start painting orange tips on *REAL* guns.
... "

I made that point a while ago. The "orange safety tip" was just a bad idea.

yrs,
rubato

Excellent analysis Gen'l...

They didn't give themselves enough time and space to figure out what was really happening.

I also agree that's the crux of any "wrong doing" on the part of the police here. Perhaps that's grounds for some sort of administrative discipline, up to even possibly dismissal; that would depend of course on the Cleveland PD protocols for situations like this, and whether or not they were violated.

It could also serve as the basis for a civil suit, though the liability of the officers would depend on whether they had violated police procedures. If this police procedures allowed for this kind of immediate close quarters approach in this kind of situation, (ie, where you have a report of someone with a gun, allegedly waving it it around and pointing it, but not firing it, where there's no one in immediate danger, and where there's plenty of space available for you to verbally engage the suspect from a distance.) then maybe the city could be sued for having inadequate procedures, but the cops can't be blamed for following the rules.

But given all the known facts of this case, even if there are administrative penalties or civil remedies that might be appropriate, I don't see how the police conduct rises to the level of criminality...

There is a faction, both in the public and in the press, that clearly wants to just lump all of the cases of white cops shooting black suspects into one huge narrative about a "national epidemic of racist cops executing African Americans", the facts of the individual cases be damned.

But justice isn't about serving an ideological agenda. Each of these cases are different, with their own set of facts and need to be judged accordingly. That is what all of the parties involved deserve and are entitled to.

At one end of the spectrum you have an instance like the Michael Brown case, where once all the facts are known, it is clear that the officer involved engaged in no wrong doing whatsoever. At the other end you have a case like the one in South Carolina, where a cop carries out the blatant murder of an unarmed suspect, shooting him multiple times in the back.

And in between those two, you have cases like this one; where optimally the officers on the scene could have done something differently, but didn't act in a way that violated the law.

Of course it's always a lot easier just to yell "racist cops!" every time something like this happens, but justice demands a different approach.

rubato wrote:

Bicycle Bill wrote:I wonder how long before criminals start painting orange tips on *REAL* guns.
... "

I made that point a while ago. The "orange safety tip" was just a bad idea.

yrs,
rubato

Now this demands a graph or chart showing the scientific number of incidents of criminals painting orange tips on their guns over the past twenty years.

Further analysis would be needed to determine if the orange tip fooled a peace officer into holding back and thereby endangering or costing his or her life or that of innocent bystanders.

A concerted demand for a ban on orange paint should be implemented at once since paint is not constitutionally protected. Or is this just orange paintism gone wild? Should police pain their gun muzzles blue so criminals know they are not toys?

Enquiring minds want to nous

MajGenl.Meade wrote:

rubato wrote:

Bicycle Bill wrote:I wonder how long before criminals start painting orange tips on *REAL* guns.
... "

I made that point a while ago. The "orange safety tip" was just a bad idea.

yrs,
rubato

Now this demands a graph or chart showing the scientific number of incidents of criminals painting orange tips on their guns over the past twenty years.

Further analysis would be needed to determine if the orange tip fooled a peace officer into holding back and thereby endangering or costing his or her life or that of innocent bystanders.

A concerted demand for a ban on orange paint should be implemented at once since paint is not constitutionally protected. Or is this just orange paintism gone wild? Should police pain their gun muzzles blue so criminals know they are not toys?

Enquiring minds want to nous

Holy fuck, you are stupid.

yrs,
rubato

MajGenl.Meade wrote:You tell me - what did they actually do wrong?

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ...the cops were NOT in the position they intended to be, further away from the danger

MajGenl.Meade wrote:They didn't give themselves enough time and space to figure out what was really happening.

Lord Jim wrote:...you have a report of someone with a gun, allegedly waving it it around and pointing it, but not firing it, where there's no one in immediate danger, and where there's plenty of space available for you to verbally engage the suspect from a distance.

Bingo.

And just WHOSE responsibility was it to assess the threat and take appropriate action? Was this a self-driving Google car over which the occupants had no control? Was it a defective vehicle which could not be shifted into reverse or driven further forward to get out of the danger they had just put themselves in? Or perhaps the defect was that the passenger-side door immediately popped open whenever the brakes were applied?

The (perceived, but not real) danger Loehmann and Garmback felt was the result of their own stupidity and incompetence...and rather than take any other action to compensate for this, the *ONLY* thing either of them could think of was to kill the suspect as quickly as possible?????

Sorry, but even if they were just stupid and/or incompetent*, when someone's stupidity or incompetence leads directly to the death of an innocent party they ought to be held morally and legally responsible.


* Timothy Loehman, in particular, had to resign from the Independence, Ohio PD after only 5 months on the job due to a poor performance review; he then tried and failed to get hired by police departments in Akron, Euclid and Parma Heights, and the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department.

rubato wrote:

Bicycle Bill wrote:I wonder how long before criminals start painting orange tips on *REAL* guns.
... "

I made that point a while ago. The "orange safety tip" was just a bad idea.

yrs,
rubato

You claim to have pointed out that criminals would paint their guns orange. Give some data to show how many times that has happened

Or just shut up

I agree with the thread title, facetious as it is.

Guns are very serious tools used for the purpose of killing or target shooting, nothing more. What is the purpose of toy guns that don't shoot, other than to facilitate the exact gun handling behavior that should never be in any way encouraged - pointing at and 'shooting' people with the (toy) gun?

Get rid of toy guns altogether. People who want their kids to learn about guns, target shooting and hunting can make that happen with real guns at the age the parents deem appropriate - so long as it's also the lawful age for such activity.

yeah! if you give a boy a decent Barlow knife he can carve his own toy gun out of wood.....

...if he doesn t cut himself he (or she) s ready for a BB gun...

seriously, gun education begins with toy guns.

in my son s case, he was allowed to play guns with his friends as he wished, but once he came out of the play area, he was expected to treat his toy gun as a real one. never pointing at me or any other adult, always being aware of where his barrel was pointed. always handling a gun as if it is loaded and dangerous becomes habit if ingrained early.

to be honest, all of the people buying guns now, who have had no early training in respect for them, scares me too. might as well give them to a gang banger... thanks Obama!

Actually it wasn't so facetious, @w. I was thinking maybe it's time for a change of mind

Yeah, lets ban anything that can be mistaken for something else.
How about the fact that a 12yo can't buy a bb-gun. Where did he get this bb-gun? Where are the parents in this?
Maybe we should close the bb-gun show loophole.


ETA
A bb-gun is not a "toy"