Police Abuse

Cop Who Killed Tamir Rice Claims Toy Pistol Was 'in His Hands'

Video of the shooting does not seem to support Timothy Loehmann's account.


Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office

In my column today about the November 2014 shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice at a Cleveland park, I note that it's unclear in the surveillance video of the incident whether the boy's hand moved toward his waistband before Officer Timothy Loehmann fired two rounds at him. But I say "it is indisputable that [Tamir] never produced a weapon." Apparently I spoke too soon, because Loehmann is now disputing that very point, saying in a statement released yesterday that Tamir was "reaching into his waistband" and "pulling the gun out."

That gun, you may recall, was a nonlethal, pellet-firing Airsoft pistol that had alarmed a bystander who called 911. Because the replica bore a strong resemblance to a real gun, whether Tamir was holding it when he was shot is obviously relevant in evaluating Loehmann's reaction. The problem for Loehmann is that his statement, while helpful in justifying his actions, seems inconsistent with what he said before and with what five use-of-force experts gleaned from the video.

As detailed by former Irvine, California, Deputy Police Chief Jeffrey Noble in an expert report released on Saturday by lawyers for Tamir's family, two other Cleveland officers and an FBI agent who arrived at the scene soon after the shooting said Loehmann told them Tamir "reached for" or "went for" the replica firearm, not that he was holding it. Ed Tomba, deputy chief of the Cleveland Police Department, did claim Tamir "went into his waistband and pulled out the weapon," but that was before police released the video, which does not seem to show him holding the toy gun as he is shot. Noble notes that two use-of-force experts consulted by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty thought Tamir seemed to be lifting his jacket and reaching for his waist, while a third conceded "the video is grainy and it is unclear—from the video—whether Rice reaches for his gun." Noble adds that "none of the prosecutor's experts claim that Tamir displayed the replica handgun, or that he made any threats toward anyone."

Another expert who prepared a report at the behest of the Rice family, Roger Clark, a former lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, notes that all three of McGinty's experts "appear to blame Tamir by emphasizing how real the toy gun looked without its orange tip." But Clark adds that "since Tamir wasn't holding the gun when the officers pulled up and when Officer Loehmann shot him, how realistic the gun may have looked is irrelevant because Officers Loehmann and Garmback did not assess the gun's appearance at all before Officer Loehmann fired" (emphasis added).

Contrary to all of these accounts (except for Tomba's), Loehmann's statement claims Tamir was holding the toy gun when he was shot. "I saw the weapon in his hands coming out of his waistband," he says. Loehmann also claims Tamir disregarded repeated orders from Loehmann and his partner, Frank Garmback, to put up his hands. As their patrol car pulled up to the gazebo where Tamir was standing, Loehmann says, "I started to open the door and yelled continuously 'show me your hands' as loud as I could. Officer Garmback was also yelling 'show me your hands.'"

As Noble observes, however, "the video revealed there was not sufficient time for Officer Loehmann to have given Tamir any commands, combined with any opportunity to comply with those commands, before the shooting." The windows of the patrol car were rolled up as Garmback drove it into the park, meaning Tamir would not have heard anything Loehmann might have said while still in the vehicle, and Loehmann fired his gun less than two seconds after getting out of the car. Clark concludes "there was no time in those 1.7 seconds for Officers Loehmann or Garmback to have issued any intelligible commands to Tamir, much less for Tamir to respond to any commands."

Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association, said Loehmann read his statement to the grand jury considering charges against him and Garmback but did not take questions. Garmback also read a statement to the grand jury, agreeing that "both Ptl. Loehmann and I directed the male to show his hands" and that "the male was pulling" what looked like a real gun "from the right front area of his waistband." Aside from their comments to other officers at the scene, these are the first public statements that Loehmann and Garmback have made about the shooting. Neither officer spoke to internal investigators last year or made statements last June, when McGinty released the evidence that the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department had collected.

NEXT: For Your Own Safety

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Has any thought been put toward charging the driver with manslaughter?

    “I’ll drive right up and put you 5 feet away from him. Nothing bad can possibly happen from that.”

    1. The driver’s a cop. Twisting logic in order to fabricate or enhance charges is not used against cops.

      1. Twisting logic?

        One person escalated the situation to one requiring split second decisions: the driver.

        1. Obviously the manufacturer and seller of the Airsoft pistol are also culpable.

          1. And Rice’s parents/guardians for letting him out of the house with it. Maybe the city is to blame for building the park where this took place (public spaces increase interactions between people). The guy who called the cops about the pistol is also clearly responsible for escalating the situation, so long as we’re using ignorance as an excuse. Maybe we can also blame the caller’s carrier and phone manufacturer.

    2. This is a major problem. You see it frequently in cases where use of deadly force is deemed justified because the police had a split second to make a decision. In a lot of the cases where a mentally ill guy is armed with a knife or screwdriver you see the cops close the distance unnecessarily and then fire when the victim takes a step toward them or flinches in their direction or makes a “furtive movement”.

      What you don’t see is the police acting this way when they have an actual known threat. When they have an active shooter you don’t see Rambo pulling up 10 feet from the guy and jumping out of the car, guns a-blazin’. They maintain distance and cover and approach with caution. There’s no reason you couldn’t seek cover when addressing an unknown threat carrying a weapon. The Chicago shooting was one such case. The shooter opened up pretty much immediately on arrival. He could have maintained a safe distance and taken a cautious approach, but he didn’t. He jumped right in front of the other officers on the scene and went to deadly force in seconds.

      This shows terrible training. If you watch videos of searches from Iraq you’ll notice that things are much more organized, the communication is much clearer, despite the language barrier, and the threshold for violence is much higher, despite the much greater threat and the youth of the soldiers. Training makes all the difference.

      1. It is not just training – it is a mindset too. I have met a couple of soldiers who wanted to shoot ’em up – but almost all of us were wary about starting something with people not in an enemy uniform… these cops are not doing anything other than what they had in mind, before they got there – “I am going to take that sucker out!”
        Training can help people at the margins, but someone who has made up their mind, before they arrive, that they are going to just shoot whomever is there….can’t train that away.

        1. This is true. Perception is everything, and if you are imagining a dangerous, deadeye shot with a hair trigger as you drive up to the scene, you are probably much more likely to see “pulling out a weapon” instead of “turning around and looking confused at all the commotion”.

          We have seen a couple of instances of police officers talking about shooting someone shortly before actually doing so. Probably not a coincidence.

        2. Exactly what Swiss said. Even the gung-ho shoot-em-all types were kept in check by the fact that there were serious consequences for fucking up and shooting someone you shouldn’t. But as we’ve seen time and time again (with calluses on our nutsacks to prove it), cops don’t face any consequences for acting like Rambo. And so it goes.

        3. Also true from your anecdotes: the differences in consequences alter the mindset. A soldier in Iraq who shoots a couple of kids in the park has a huge chance of facing criminal charges. A cop who does the same thing? Not nearly so much. The expectations from the chain of command are vastly different, despite the much more dangerous situation in Iraq. There aren’t magic words that can be uttered to wave away culpability.

          I don’t know what the rate of “unarmed people killed in shootings by soldiers” was in the Iraq occupation, but it would have to have been lower than the close-to-500 per year we have killed by police here in the US, despite the large number of raids and house-to-house searches.

          1. War – safer than America’s streets!

        4. ^ This. This has nothing to do with training. This has to do with a pants wetting coward wearing a badge.

          Just like this dumb fuck. No amount of training would fix this.


          1. Surely some of those soldiers at least started out as pants wetting cowards.

          2. The officer was at the doorway when a dog charged at him, Alex-Bouzounis said.

            The officer fired once, missing the animal but striking the [4-yr.-old] girl in the right leg.

            The officer was not injured.

            Agreed. 110% fuck up. With training, you might be able to get as low as 98% fuck up.

            ‘Officer involved’ my ass.

            1. True. But he has been trained that it is acceptable, even desirable to shoot the dog in this situation. This did not exist when I was a kid. Nobody would shoot a dog under such circumstances. Not even a cop. Even if the dog was going to bite you, you wouldn’t shoot it. Even if you actually got a bite on the leg, you wouldn’t shoot it. That would come way, way down the list of responses. You wouldn’t even kick the dog unless you either had no choice (i.e. after getting bitten) or you were a grade-A dick.

              Then enter SWAT training. The tactical training given to SWAT officers says that in a firefight if there is a dog in the mix, you shoot the dog. Otherwise it can become a distraction that gets you killed. That makes sense in a classic SWAT tactical situation where you have a number of gunman holed up in a house and the SWAT team is going to take the house by force. You know, that scenario that almost never happens.

              But we have generalized this tactic to be “police can shoot the dog if he moves aggressively toward them”. Which of course has a wide leeway for interpretation by the individual officer. Which ends up with “it is OK to kill the dog. Unless it ends up on the news and too many people get upset and the politicians start coming down on us.”

              1. You and I were raised in very different cultures with regard to dogs. People didn’t generally walk around kicking dogs, but nobody shed a tear if a dog got kicked. IMO, this makes it a little like a #doglivesmatter issue when I think the shittier and more wrongly embedded notion is that handguns are the CQB weapon of choice *every* time.

                The fact that questions about ‘Discharging a gun with a dog on top of me?’, ‘Discharging a gun with civilians in close proximity?’, ‘Discharging a gun in a private residence and/or closed space?’, ‘Does a gun intrinsically solve either the dog-on-top-of-me or girl-with-a-cutl problem?’, etc. didn’t seem to occur to the officer are far worse/more vital than beating, tazing, and/or shooting a dog.

  2. …the video revealed there was not sufficient time for Officer Loehmann to have given Tamir any commands, combined with any opportunity to comply with those commands, before the shooting.

    Just as in the NHL where the intent to blow the whistle to stop play is the same as actually blowing it, when a law enforcement professional minds to give a command, in the eyes of courts and prosecutors the command has been deemed given. I imagine this crook in the story will be enough for those who want this go to away to hang their hat on.

    1. Attempting to establish dialogue/lawful command with a child (before killing them) is a taxing, inconvenient pain in the ass.. corners can be cut to streamline the process..

    2. ‘Spot a nigger, shoot him up, fret you not, we’ll pass the buck’ Seems to be modus operandi in such cases. They’ll walk.

      1. ‘Spot a nigger, shoot him up, fret you not, we’ll pass the buck’

        Burma Shave.

    3. This is actually the ‘punchline’ at the end of The Mikado:

      ‘When your Majesty says, “Let a thing be done,” it’s as good as done ? practically, it is done ? because your Majesty’s will is law. Your Majesty says, “Kill a gentleman,” and a gentleman is told off to be killed. Consequently, that gentleman is as good as dead ? practically, he is dead ? and if he is dead, why not say so?’

      1. Or the classic Pharaoh line from the Ten Commandments — “So let it be written. So let it be done.”

  3. Loehmann says, “I started to open the door and yelled continuously ‘show me your hands’ as loud as I could. Officer Garmback was also yelling ‘show me your hands.'”


    1. I have no doubt they were yelling something. This is part of the problem with training. There is never any clear line of control at a scene of police action, so everybody starts yelling commands at the same time. From watching videos of these interactions that go badly, you would often have a hard time arguing that anyone could have complied with commands from the police.

      Combine their training to “issue commands in a loud authoritative voice” in a way designed to intimidate and cow the subject into submission with training to shoot first so that “the officers can go home at night” and you get a certain number of “tragic accidents”.

      And it isn’t just shootings. You see guys getting beaten by one guy and trying to protect himself from the blows while the other guy keeps trying to get him into handcuffs. Both cops screaming incoherent commands the whole time. Nobody could possibly “comply” under these circumstances.

      The problem with the police training is that nobody is trying to see things from the point of view of the suspect. Everyone along the chain of command is looking at it from the point of view of the cops. If they just bothered to examine the other point of view, they’d modify their training to ensure better command and control and better communication tactics. And they certainly would quit closing the distance on people who are a minimal threat and “armed” with a screwdriver or knife so that they are then forced to shoot because of proximity.

      1. Nicely put. This is exactly what happens.

      2. Again, this has nothing to do with training and everything to do with the monster wearing the uniform.

      3. Both cops screaming incoherent commands the whole time. Nobody could possibly “comply” under these circumstances.

        A cynic might suspect that this is by design:

        1. Approach suspect to such a close distance that any “furtive movement” could be construed as threatening.
        2. Issue incoherent conflicting commands (Officer Fatbody yells “Hands up!” while Officer McDonuts shouts “Get down!” while Officer Doughboy yells “Don’t move!”)
        3. After suspect “fails to comply” with one or more orders, open fire emptying the magazine
        4. “Good shoot.”

        1. Yeah, it isn’t by design. It is by lack of design.

          It gets the boys in blue hurt all too often as well. We just don’t see it on TV very often. We had an incident in Miami not too long ago where a long chase ended in a shooting. The police surrounded the carjacked vehicle on all sides. There was very little coordination, lots of shouting … and…. very nearly a circular firing squad. I don’t remember if any police got hit, but it was dangerous as hell.

          We also had the “black spring break” shooting at South Beach a few years back. Some guy in a car went through a roadblock and down a closed street – maybe by mistake. The police opened fire and mass confusion ensued. They ended up shooting 4 innocent bystanders, if I remember correctly.

          The “by design” part is the collusion by all involved in the chain of command to protect their own. From the police, to the prosecutors, to the judges to the politicians. They all fall all over themselves to make sure that nobody is held accountable when police do something horribly wrong.

          That’s why I don’t focus on the frontline guy. He may be evil (see the fat guy who threatened to fuck up Kelly Thomas) or incompetent (see any number of examples), it matters not. What matters is that his superiors put him in that position. The leeway they are given, the protection, the orders to raid houses in the middle of the night for trivial drug offenses…. this is the problem. If it was just the bad seed, we’d be fine.

  4. Has Ted Cruz weighed in on whether or not either of the cops is a tranny?

        1. It’s not known as the Stupid Party for nothing.

          1. Read the whole of the comments….Nick left a bit out.

            1. Thanks, Swiss. It seems Ted was, um, inartful.

              1. Seems to me that Nick was, well, beating up somebody for doing exactly what Nick said they should be doing, and agreeing with Nick’s point.

                Why Nick would do that is an exercise for the reader.

    1. Don’t look at me… I voted against Cruz and the other looter both.

  5. Is it me or are these accounts of what amounts to fricken murder just about getting more and patently ridiculous and absurd?

    I mentioned this a while ago but this past summer I was doing yard work outside as were a few of my neighbors. At one point, a couple of kids walked down my street with bibi gun rifles. NOT ONE neighbor panicked or batted an eye. We just went along with out thing. Guess what? No cops came blam, blam, blamming and nothing happened.

    Yet, in the U.S. cops and people are over reacting to kids with toy guns in parks. I understand the overall tension regarding mass shootings but how is it remotely helpful to be killing people like this? Cops should be LEADING communities out of this problem. Instead, they seem to be escalating it; worse with terrible justifications.


    1. They didn’t have to justify them at all for hundreds of years. It takes time to get a good narrative going.

    2. bibi gun

      Bibi *Netanyahu*?

    3. Most people are still way, way on the other side of this issue. People I talk to routinely say things like “why would you have a realistic replica weapon in a public park? What were they thinking?”

      Most people also imagine themselves as the police, not the “criminal”. They empathise with the officer who “has to go home safe at night”, not with some kid playing cops and robbers in the park. In this case I’ve had people I respect ask “What do you want him to do, wait until he gets shot before he shoots? If you pull a gun on a cop, you are gonna die. It is that simple.”

      It is a long, hard argument to get them to understand the chain of stupid decisions that leads to that final moment where a cop jumps out of the car and is faced with a potentially armed and deadly criminal. Sure, at 10 feet away with no cover and a guy possibly pulling out a gun you’ve got a split second to make a decision. At that point mistakes are going to be made and you can’t really expect that nobody is ever going to make a mistake in identifying a toy gun.

      But what about the decision to pull up that close? Or jump out from cover? Or move in so quickly? Or not to pass along the report that it is probably a toy gun? It took a lot of bad choices to put the cop within a few feet of a kid with a toy gun with only 2 seconds to make what he perceived as a life or death decision. But nobody is wasting any brain power on avoiding that chain of stupid.

      1. And you laid out well the sadness of it all – that people take that position.

        It doesn’t register with me how one can accept such incidences with such depressing logic.

        THESE ARE KIDS and kids will always do something “stupid”.

        It’s baffling.

        1. And by ‘always so something stupid’ I mean kids sometimes are thoughtless or do things for “fun” and aren’t endowed with our developed minds. Where they don’t, it’s up to adults to explain to them why certain actions aren’t appropriate and so on. But I’ll be damned if one of those people you mentioned ever told me to my face a child deserves to be shot down for being a fucken kid. The temptation to slap the person would be too great.

          1. The problem is getting them to turn it around in their mind and imagine what they would experience as the kid. If you can get them to imagine playing army with their friends in the park and having a great time and then suddenly a cop car pulls up and a guy jumps out and opens fire in less than 2 seconds…. well, then maybe they can understand that there is more than one perspective.

            When Jose Guerrena got killed, people were saying the same thing. Don’t answer the police at your door with an assault rifle in your hand! Getting them to imagine themselves laying asleep in bed when suddenly there is a loud banging and your wife is yelling that a bunch of men with guns are banging on the door is the trick. What would you do in that moment? Could you understand 5 guys all yelling at the same time outside your door? Would you be able to figure out that it was police with a search warrant in the 8 seconds they gave you from the moment they approached the door until they kicked it in? Most people can’t empathize.

            In fairness, you go to cop block, etc and most people can’t imagine being the guy who opens his car door and has a potential deadly threat 10 feet away and walking toward him, gun in waistband. How often would you screw up the threat assessment if that was you? (That’s why I keep harping on better training and tactics. Nobody is going to be perfect, so you plan in order to minimize mistakes)

            1. Well put and can’t disagree. Some of these shootings seem they could have easily been avoided. The kicking and screaming thing seems like a perfect storm. Also, I find it amazing people don’t naturally go back to when they were kids in the example you used. MOST OF US all played with guns growing up. I think it does point to we’ve become a tad irrational when it comes to this sort of thing.

      2. Most people also imagine themselves as the police, not the “criminal”.

        ^This^, on all kinds of levels and in all kinds of contexts.

        If you walked into a building where two *armed* guards manned every door, employing double-layer security with teams patrolling the perimeter it would freak you the fuck out and make you think you were a prisoner and/or in an actual war zone… unless the building happened to contain two teams playing sports or the perimeter surrounded a farmer’s market and art fair, then it’s a Thursday and the armed guards are somehow obligatory.

        I can see the need for being able to control large numbers of people (sorta. In times of emergency, maybe.) but teams of 30+ armed individuals to “control” a non-violent crowd, as a norm, seems laughably ridiculous.

    4. A State policeman’s job today is to corral assets liable to forfeiture, just as in the Soviet Union and East Germany not so long ago. Grownups should already know what to expect, right?

    5. Where in the US you are is going to matter a lot. Outside of certain leftist enclaves, it’s still pretty normal to see people with guns.

  6. Marshal Dillon!

    The officer who shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland last year, said he “knew it was a gun and it was coming out” before he opened fire and repeatedly warned the boy to put his hands up, according to newly released statements from the cop and his partner.

    The unsworn statements given Monday to the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department and released today by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, mark the first time that officer Timothy Loehmann and his partner’s versions of events has been made public.

    Rice had been holding a toy gun when officer Timothy Loehmann allegedly shot him in November 2014 and claimed in his statement that he was aiming for the 12-year-old’s weapon.

    “I was trying to shoot the gun out of his hand. Unfortunately, the gun was directly in front of his liver.”

    1. “knew it was a gun and it was coming out”

      But was it coming out as a *woman*?

    2. So Officer Jean Grey knew Rice was the suspect mentioned in the 911 call, knew he had a gun, knew it was coming out of his waistband, somehow withheld the temptation to fire immediately* so he could shout commands… all within 1.7 seconds.

      Oh, yeah, there’s some totally credible testimony.

      *mostly because he was still inside the car

    3. So the toy had a bullet hole through it?

  7. The problem with the police training is that nobody is trying to see things from the point of view of the suspect

    How would that enhance OFFICER SAFETY?

    More seriously, the cops have adopted this bullshit “21 foot” rule, or whatever it is, based on the conclusion tat Usain Bolt (or some similarly feet-footed member of the social underclass) could cover that distance in less time than you could draw, aim and fire. Therefore, any suspect that close is, by definition, a lethal threat and should be dealt with accordingly. It never seems to occur to them to assess the situation from afar.

    1. More seriously, the cops have adopted this bullshit “21 foot” rule,

      And, to no one’s surprise, have botched and perverted it.

      The 21 foot rule basically says that, if your gun is holstered, someone with a knife can get to you before you can get a shot off if they are within 21 feet.

      However, the cops use it when they are actually pointing their guns at the corpse-to-be, when it doesn’t apply.

      And, this is the really funny part, what the rule tells you is that you shouldn’t try to pull your gun on someone if they are coming at you within 21 feet. IOW, its a rule on when not to try and shoot, not when to try and shoot. But the cops use it to justify shooting.

      1. The 21 foot rule basically says that, if your gun is holstered, someone with a knife can get to you before you can get a shot off if they are within 21 feet.

        Correct, kind of. Notice in the clip that Adam has to draw and click the safety off, while cops usually carry their guns with the safety off yet he was still able to get a shot off at 20 feet (although he would still get stabbed as well). Also, I suspect cops use 21 feet to give themselves a little “breathing room”. Officer safety and all that.

        1. It also assumes that no retreat is possible. If you can retreat backward you have more time. If you have 5 other armed guys with you, you have even more time and more reason to defer firing in favor of retreat.

          Yet retreat is not anywhere in the police lexicon. Most of the shootings we are seeing lately in the news – the ones that are controversial and not obviously 100% bad for the police – seem to have a universal thread of police closing the distance to danger instead of maintaining cover, pursuing assailants rather than waiting for support. Then the follow the protocol for use of force. In the end they are exonerated.

          Why? Because, to borrow a Dunphy-ism, nobody looks at the “totality of circumstances”. They look at the last 1.5 seconds and say “he had to decide in a split second if the gun was a threat or a toy”. Nobody looks at the decisions and actions up to that point that put him standing feet away from an unknown threat with a “shoot at the first notion of a threat or you will be killed” training background. Of course a certain number of people would pull the trigger in error under those conditions. So let’s try to prevent those conditions from occurring. And no, more gun control is not the best way to make that happen.

        2. The original drill associated publications required two shots, center mass (no specifics are/were orginally given but presuming a standard-issue double-action .38, with the safety off is not unreasonable) and was deliberately informal. The FBI later produced more rigorous internal standards.

          However the details miss the point that the idea, as the article states, is once the 21 ft. ‘Danger Zone’ has been breached (by the suspect/perp), the first decision is to either engage hand-to-hand or retreat to cover with emphasis given to ‘tactical awareness’ as well as training disengaging and drawing the weapon.

          More importantly, subsequent actual studies and data show that ready officers, under pressure, hit within the 9 and 10 rings on an oncoming target at 10 ft. with ~15% accuracy while assailants at the same distance and stress land with ~68% success. The handgun is a poor CQB weapon, at best;

          Let’s make this clear: there’s a huge difference between being (i.e. caught) in a fight and going to a fight. If you knew in advance that you had to shoot a Bad Guy (i.e. going to a fight), you wouldn’t pick a handgun, would you? No you’d take a rifle.

          A handgun is merely a weapon used to fight your way back to your rifle – which you shouldn’t have left behind…

          -Boston T. Party

  8. In the case of this abortion clinic berserker and the plane crashed into the French Alps it was clear enough to bet money on the conclusion that the Dear Christian berserker in Colorado was an antiabortion fanatic and the kamikaze at the helm of the passenger jet was mohammedan. If I were to claim that “all men are mortal” most would find this uncontroversial but Christians would rule it a fallacy since they “know” Jesus raised a rotting corpse from the dead. The technique is a variation on the expected value of a nonrandom variable (nonrandom because values are involved). I am persuaded that Ayn was correct in concluding that mystical altruists value death, and my observations of plane exploders and abortion clinic attackers agree that with no exceptions the former were all devout mohammedans and the latter all faithful christians, hence the objective expectation. Similar observations suggest the Dear Christian will be found not guilty by reason of insanity. But a hippie with a fistful of seeds in Texas, on the other hand, would be branded a felon for life, and thus prevented from interfering with berserkers on a Mission from God.

    1. Looks like someone opened their Christmas presents early and found a copy of Atlas Shrugged under the tree. Did you get to the part where she explains it’s only rational to want to rough sex?

      Maybe you consider why the actions of a lone wacko should be applied to an entire group. After all, the attackers were men, and you are a man. Men have been fighting, raping, and pillaging for time immemorial. Men predominately are fans of violent sports like MMA. Therefore I am persuaded that Ayn was correct in concluding that true men value death, and theses murderers were really just men living out their full and true manliness. Similar observations suggest that Dear Man will be found not guilty by reason of insanity – probably by a judge and jury made up mostly of men. And being a man, you would of course vote along with them.

      1. Don’t you know? The consistent Libertarian position is to see every person as an individual , except religious people. They don’t count.

      2. Looks like someone opened their Christmas presents early and found a copy of Atlas Shrugged under the tree. Did you get to the part where she explains it’s only rational to want to rough sex?

        Yeah, I used to think a story about a woman who makes brilliant professional decisions and thinks that everyone who works around or with her is a moron (except the men she sleeps with) was creative and unique.

        Then I spent some time around women with jobs.

        At this point, I think an ‘Atlas Shrugged’ DVD/CD/Audiobook is slightly more ironic than a Che-Guevara T-shirt because the t-shirt objectively keeps me warm. If you set a coffee mug on the DVD, I think then, objectively, they become equally ironic.

  9. Cops cannot be trusted. Cops lie all the time and everywhere. They lie for no reason other than that they can get away with it. They lie, lie, lie, and lie again. They lie on their arrest reports, they lie in court, they lie to get a brother cop out of a jam. They lie with abandon. They lie with aplomb. They lie with sincerity. It’s the first lesson in police academy: “How to lie sincerely.” This is the reason you never, never trust a cop. Every word out of their mouths is a lie.

  10. Hey,both cops went home that night. The frist rule was folowed to a T.

  11. “Officer Garmback was also yelling ‘show me your hands”

    But the video shows that Garmback didn’t get out of the car until several seconds after the shooting happened, so whatever he was yelling is entirely irrelevant.

  12. Were those Tamir Rice videos initially interpreted by solicitor Chrissy Adams? the Seneca Prosecutor who declared the car obviously moving AWAY from the murdering Trooper Tiller on the video was, in looter government reality, “veering toward him”. It would be worth a shot, so to speak, to bring her from S. Carolina to Cleveland to exonerate another killer cop. Maybe like OJ Simpson he’ll lose in a civil action–in some reversed-color-negative alternate reality.
    Betting on these kinds of outcomes could provide an alternative source of State revenue to replace asset forfeiture and lotteries. Such a facility would also educate citizens about the workings of a mixed-economy police state committed to the initiation of force as the proper vehicle for putting altruism and faith into practice.

  13. This is a great line too: “We are trained to get out of the cruiser because ‘the cruiser is a coffin.'” What kind of retarded logic is that? If it’s a coffin, it’s a coffin that has wheels and you can use it to get away from the supposedly scary kid with a toy gun (or not drive right up next to him in the first place)!

    1. It’s also a 5,000 pound coffin with a shit ton of horsepower under the hood and a battering ram on the front.

  14. I know this is a different era and I grew up in a small town, but be played shoot’em up all the time with toy guns in the park when I was a kid. I don’t want to side with the racialists who want to exploit every tragedy like this for their race based agenda, but I wonder what would have happened if it were a white twelve year old with an air soft gun.

    1. Me too.

      1. Yeah, my neighborhood and nearby parks were basically a battlefield for the mob of kids I grew up with. There could be as many as a dozen of us running around waving toy guns.

        Astonishingly, we never had a single cop even slow down or bat an eye, much less start gunning us down.

        1. Indeed, activity such as kids playing was taken as helping keep the parks safe, & encouraged.

  15. Neither officer spoke to internal investigators last year

    I’m sure if I shot and killed a 12 year old kid I could get away with not talking to investigators. You know, since there’s no double standard and all…

  16. He also claimed the kid “looked 18”. Looked 18 is a matter of judgment, but if he can’t distinguish between a 12 year old and an 18 year old, I’d hate to see who he’s hitting on at the local shopping mall.

    Any explanation as to why they didn’t administer first aid?

    1. Any explanation as to why they didn’t administer first aid?

      Dead people can’t tesify against you.

      1. This is also a disturbingly common thread. The most horrific is the guys stepping over the maimed body of a slowly dying Kelly Thomas to get paramedics to document scraped elbows before administering aid to the critically injured homeless guy.

        But it is hardly isolated. Holding back aid to Jose Guerrena while his wife is on the phone begging for help as he bleeds out is another. The list goes on and on. You almost never see them jumping to do CPR. It must be a part of their training, because there cannot possibly be that many sociopaths running loose.

    2. Well, I’ve met 18 year olds who look 12. Therefore, all 12 year olds look 18. See?

  17. The shooting or more accurately stated, THE MURDER of Tamir Rice, a 12 year old child -and let me repeat that- A 12 YEAR OLD CHILD is beyond tragic!! It is criminal, disgusting and dispicable- we should all be deeply saddened and ENRAGED!!! Tamir was a mother’s son and little boy who’s only crime was carrying a toy gun.
    But this young boy ,Tamir Rice, was viciously gunned down/murdered and for what? – having a toy gun!? HIS MOTHER WILL NEVER GET TO HOLD HIM AGAIN. ALL BECAUSE TWO GUNG HO,OVERZEALOUS, TESTOSTERONE FILLED COPS WERE JUST LOOKING FOR A REASON TO USE THEIR GUNS.

    Over the past 20 years this country has morphed into a culture of over criminalizing it’s citizens ( YOU and ME) due to fanatical zelouts like MADD and other influential special interest groups who think that everybody is a criminal or potential criminal first and a citizen with rights second. We’ve let them void our constitutional rights, our right to due process and equal protection.
    The product of this overcriminalization culture is law enforcement agencies filled with cops that scurry around desperately looking for somebody..ANYBODY..they can arrest for something. Instead of how it used to be when their sworn duty was to serve and protect us, police have become arrogant egotistical hunters looking to arrest as many people as they can to make a name for themseves. In their testosterone twisted pea brains, they’re real heroes. How sad is that?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.