Police Abuse

No Justice for Tamir Rice: Jury Will Not Indict Cops Who Killed Him

'It would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was real'

|

Tamir Rice
Tamir Rice

The officers who shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice in a Cleveland-area park will not be charged in his death, Prosecutor Timothy McGinty announced at a press conference Monday afternoon.

"The grand jury declined to bring criminal charges against Cleveland police officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback," said McGinty.

The prosecutor stressed that this course of action matched his own recommendation. He said that a recent enhancement of the surveillance footage suggested that Rice had tried to remove the fake gun from his waistband, prompting Loehmann to fire on him. McGinty surmised that Rice was probably just trying to show the officers that the gun wasn't real, but said the officers are not required to take that chance.

"[Loehmann] had reason to fear for his life," said McGinty. "It would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was real."

Never mind that Loehmann was previously fired from a police department for incompetence with firearms. Never mind that he shot Rice the very second his car arrived at the teen's location. Never mind that the officers prevented Rice's sister from assisting him as he lay dying of a gunshot wound. Never mind that they did absolutely nothing to help him until an FBI agent happened upon the scene.

The only thing that matters is whether Loehmann thought he was justified in killing Rice, and the law is such that no one is qualified to second-guess Loehmann's decision except Loehmann himself. This is the level of deference we extend to police decision-making, and it is the reason the quest for justice in Rice's unconscionable murder was doomed from the start. [Related: We Live in a World Where Experts Say the Shooting of Tamir Rice Was 'Reasonable']

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.

416 responses to “No Justice for Tamir Rice: Jury Will Not Indict Cops Who Killed Him

  1. …but said the officers are not required to take that chance.

    BECAUSE BEING A HERO MEANS GOING HOME SAFE.

    1. BECAUSE BEING A CITY EMPLOYEE MEANS FUCK A 12 YEAR OLD AND ANY SENSE OF JUSTICE.

      1. If you are one mouse-click away from death, what would you do?

        1. Notice no one shot you?

    2. Whereas private citizens who carry guns had damn well better take that chance. Or Else.

      If it had been an ordinary joe with a CCW that had shot Tamir Rice, the Usual Suspects would be wetting themselves with delight at being handed such a wonderful piece of propaganda, and it would be the #1 story for weeks. Months. But because it was a police shooting, condemning it doesn’t fit the narratives of either liberals or conservatives. The conservatives are knee-jerk in support of the police, and the liberals consider “he had a gun!” (even if it’s just a toy) to be the one legitimate excuse for police to run riot as trigger-happy cowboys.

      1. I agree with the trigger happy thing. But, this little boy should not have been so influenced by thugs that he thought it would make him look tough, to take the orange end off of the gun! It was reckless! It cost this little kid and his family, dearly. He might have been a “good boy”. But, in the end, it cost him his life. I worry about our country.

        1. You are full-on tarded if you think Orange tips had anything to do with this shooting. The tip never came into view. There are many legitimate viewpoints on this shooting, but Orange tips ain’t in the casual chain.

          …..Or did I miss some deeper sarcasm?

          1. Cyto,

            At risk of falling afoul of your ‘Tard toss, its true that the deceased 12 y/o was reasonably tall, 170 lbs, hooded, approaching the car while pulling on the handle of a pistol in the waist of his pants. The cops only error-stopping the car so near the person he was approaching that it became a zero time interval in which to have some interaction. Even so, the kids refusal to respond obediently, the reaching for the gun, and the dispatch call identifying only “guy with gun” gave the cop legal innocence.

            It wasn’t running riot. The kid was poorly trained for someone in a poor neighborhood, where most know that arguing with cops is wrong. All to many, as can be seen on the news these days, have changed from years ago where you got automatically some obedience. Now its cool to argue. That attitude, which this young kid was showing, is what got him killed, not how close the cop parked.

            However, the cops there will probably fire one or both of the cops involved, since street riots are now going on in Cleavland.

        2. Not a fan of cops, but, this “little boy” weighed 175#. If you’re the cop approaching a 175# man with a gun, you might be quick on the draw when he makes a move to raise his gun

    3. At this point, what difference does it make? Tamir isn’t dead.

      1. Tamir IS dead [fucking squirrels fucking up my comment!]

  2. Burn the fucking system to the ground.

    1. It does seem to be getting closer and closer to that, doesn’t it?

      Except for that out of the ashes, we’ll probably get something shittier.

      1. Except for that out of the ashes, we’ll probably get something shittier.

        Yeah, that’s what I’m afraid too many people don’t get. We got really fucking lucky in the U.S. with just the right alignment of factors to create a kinda, sorta, free country for a couple of hundred years. If it happened today, you could almost certainly kiss the Bill of Rights goodby. And just about any limits on the power of the state.

        1. Depends…

          …on who the winner is.

          1. It won’t be us.

          2. I have to agree with LynchPin here. What gives you the least reason to believe that libertarians would come out on top of such an arrangement?

            Look at the current presidential elections. The three most popular contenders are an unadulterated socialist, a woman so corrupt she doesn’t even bother to hide it in any but the most perfunctory manner, and a deranged carnival barker. All of whom are calling for ever more powerful and intrusive government.

            Look at our colleges and universities. You have students protesting, not for more open and free discourse, but to force anyone who disagrees with them to shut the hell up.

            Look all around you. Despite what Nick and a lot of the other writers here want to suggest, the “libertarian moment” is really nothing more than a brief flash of lucidity from a relatively narrow segment of conservatives as they realize just how out of control things are getting.

            1. If there were a civil war between political factions in this nation, you can rest assured that it will not be won by the progressives. They have no guns. And you can bet the winners won’t be inviting the losers to the next constitutional convention.

              Such a conflict would likely originate, and end, with the military fulfilling their oaths of office. So it’s likely, what comes after, will be based upon the document they were sworn to defend.

              If the current Constitution were the starting point, it stands a fair chance of being very libertarian, as our Constitution, as written, is very libertarian. It’s simply not followed. Improvements would revolve around enforcing compliance, I suspect.

              So, as I said before it depends on who the winners are and the circumstances of the uprising, but I can imagine several scenarios where we end up with more liberty rather than less. But, to your point, it may or may not unfold that way.

              1. A slight disagreement with your analysis: Every progressive/Liberal I know have guns and plenty of them. They just don’t want us, the opposition, to have them.

                1. Dr. Sidney Schaefer: These guns. Karate. Why?
                  Wynn Quantrill: The right wing extremists. Disarm them and us liberals will disarm.

              2. The Constitution does not mean much by itself. It is powerless. What matters are the values held by the people interpreting the laws. Values cannot be imparted by laws or conventions.

                1. ^^ This

                2. I’d be willing to bet that we could come up with a system that would punish noncompliance.

            2. Trump is nowhere near as popular as he seems. He has 30% of the vote in a field of ten other candidates. Which means that a solid 70% of the republican electorate are supporting someone else, they just haven’t all agreed on who yet.

              As the primaries begin and candidates drop out, their votes will necessarily coalesce among a smaller number of candidates. Trump will need to pull at least an additional 25% from republican voters who are currently supporting someone else right now.

              And therein lies the problem — everyone who’s on board for Trump is already all-in. And really, there aren’t many people who see Trump as their second choice. His support with his current base may be unshakable, but I don’t see him peeling off the votes of people who haven’t decided to support him thus far.

              The media loves to focus on Trump — and why wouldn’t they? He’s nonstop outrage, and they get to write a bunch of stories about how panicked the republican party is (or should be) over the prospect of his nomination. But the math just isn’t there.

              If the field dropped to three or four candidates and he was polling above 50%, then I’d say it was time to panic. But I just don’t see it yet.

              1. TRUMP’S POLL NUMBERS ARE NONSENSE.

                When I saw the most recent GOP debate a few days after it aired, I heard Wolf start off the questions quoting 41% for Trump in the polls. I was really ticked. I though someone had did a really skewed poll, it just couldn’t be true. So, I knew one of 2 things were true. 1. It was complete balderdash or 2. I have completely lost touch with the Republican Party.

                Several days later I finally had some time to figure out. I spent a few hours searching and discovered that I was right about the polls being crap and that the media was driving Trumps high poll numbers, though not to the extent that I had thought.

                I am still incensed that some allegedly conservative talk shows are not challenging Trump as much as they should. Number one, he is not a conservative by any measure. Two, he isn’t even a Republican in what he believes. Last, some conservatives are failing to effectively challenge him on his Baraq Obama look-alike campaign; aka; the world will bow before me because I am Trump.

                Trump is a Democratic version of a Republican running as Baraq Obama. He will issue exec orders in the same way and to the same extent as Obama.

                See the following post on one of the more revealing stories (primarily from non-conservative sources) on false poll results.

              2. Trump Boom Or Trump Bubble?
                By NATE SILVER DEC 15, 2015
                fivethirtyeight.com
                (excerpts)
                The data I’ll cite in this article comes from searches of NewsLibrary.com, an online archive of American newspapers from the 1980s onward. For each competitive primary since 1984, I’ve counted the number of articles about each candidate in the last six months of the pre-primary year

                Historically there has been nearly a one-to-one correspondence between a candidate’s share of media coverage and his share of the vote in the polls. That is, other things held equal, a candidate earning 30% in national polls tends to get about 30% of the media coverage, while one polling at 10% will get 10% of it instead. It’s just that simple.

                HOWEVER:
                Trump, for example, has received an average of 28% of the REPUBLICAN VOTE in national polls since July, according to HuffPost Pollster. Prorate that number upward to exclude undecided voters and candidates who have exited the race, and you get him up to 32%. By comparison, since July, Trump has received 54% of the MEDIA COVERAGE of the GOP primary (about 6 times more than Jeb Bush, who’s in second place with just 8% of coverage)- so his media coverage has exceeded his share in the polls by 22 percentage points.

                Trump isn’t the only candidate to receive such a large fraction of coverage in his primary ? Hillary Clinton is getting 77% of the media coverage in hers, far exceeding Bernie Sanders’s 20%.

        2. I believe there are more “kinda, sorta free” countries out there these days; I mean, there just has to be.

          There is A LOT of mundane “who exactly does this harm?” shit in this country that will land you in prison for years, despite the supposed protections our Constitution provides. And let’s not even start on the War on Drugs…

          Increasingly, running a business here is near-impossible. Forget Obamacare or unions or environmental regulations. Most states don’t even let you operate a crazy huge multitude of businesses before getting a license to do so (on penalty of jailtime), a license that could literally take months or years to obtain (what are you supposed to do with your business in the meantime exactly?).

          1. It’s nice to think that but there really aren’t. Not overall.

          2. And yet there are lots of businesses.

      2. Which may be the endgame already in place?inflame racist sentiments AND escalate public unrest to the point where the public demands order at any cost, and anyone calling for policing reform of any kind is a n!66er loving, pro-crime, pacifist jerkoff.

    2. Hear, hear!

    3. When you burn it to the ground, take the advice of law enforcement officers everywhere: use flash-bang. It works every time.

    4. Just,

      Yes, your voice is heard regularly since the ’60’s. “Burn, baby, burn” was the popular phrase back in those G rated days of yore, and now we have your more earthy version. Great idea! Chaos! That usually helps the poorest and weakest among us. Good one!

  3. Dear Cleveland,

    Fuck you.

    1. Like your precious town would be any different. (Although, yes, eff Cleveland.)

      1. FUCK BALTIMORE

        1. At least they beat the Steelers.

          1. Yeah. That was good of them.

          2. I try to be reasonable, but I honestly hope you get cancer now.

          3. don’t fucking go there!

            at least we get the shit stains next week

      2. That’s a fair cop. But, Bal’mer is already thoroughly fucked.

    2. have you ever been to Cleveland/ I think you got your wish, they are already fucked.

  4. Motherfuckers. There had better not be riots while I’m up here visiting.

    1. Be the change you want to see in the world, Warty. Burn it down.

    2. I think today’s weather might seriously reduce that possibility.

    3. This is so egregious that Cleveland would actually be justified in rioting. First, for the shooting itself. Secondly, because the corrupt prosecutor deliberately threw the GJ presentation.

      1. Al,

        Any justification will do. Many are willing to riot. The key is controlling, containing, and suppressing rioting. Starting one off is relatively easy. But the shoot was justified – fairly large man, hooded, identified on radio only as “guy with gun.” Guy refuses orders to stop and put up hands, continues toward cops reaching for, and grabbing the handle of the pistol at his waistband. Thats what made it a justified shoot, not corruption.

        In a civil suit, the family may be able to bring in general police recommendations on approaching from some distance to somewhat defuse a confrontation, and that the shooter was fired from a prior cop job partly due to doubts about his composure in shooting situations. Also, the Feds have announced intent to investigate. Sadly for anyone who thinks the cop will get slammed by the Feds, they sided with Big Mikes shooter at Ferguson. So judge as you will. The street justice idea is as old as history can show us, and our more modern kind still has a few turns of the wheel to go; Fed and civil.

  5. No surprise there. Still outrage, just no surprise.

    1. Exactly. We know how shit works by now.

  6. McGinty surmised that Rice was probably just trying to show the officers that the gun wasn’t real, but said the officers are not required to take that chance.

    Pathetic. Just pathetic.

    1. I’m not sure how he could surmise that. Given the amount of time he had to react, I find it far more likely he was just reflexively reacting to almost getting run down by a car. And that’s assuming he really made a move toward his waist, anyway.

    2. How is it that a prosecutor is allowed to tank the process?

      Either decline to take the case to a grand jury and take the heat, or go balls out in prosecuting. But don’t rig the ducking process so that it looks like you did something.

  7. “The grand jury declined to bring criminal charges against Cleveland police officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback,” said McGinty. The prosecutor stressed that this course of action matched his own recommendation.

    This is proof that the prosecutor’s case to the grand jury was a political sham. The only reason to bring a case to a grand jury is to secure an indictment. McGinty is a coward.

    1. This can’t be emphasized enough. A prosecutor who tells a grand jury that they shouldn’t indict, won’t get an indictment, every time.

      1. I hope if I ever commit a crime the prosecution will be nice enough to advocate on my behalf to the jury. Such protection must be really nice.

    2. Well, sometimes the reason for a grand jury is just to show that you went through the motions. But one rule that does always apply: Don’t go to a grand jury unless you’re sure of the outcome. And they were sure about this one.

    3. No, that’s not true. Grand juries have enormous investigative & reporting powers that they hardly ever get to use. A grand jury that began by investigating this case could return a report far more significant & broad-ranging than an indictment.

      1. That is not what this grand jury was commissioned for, and you know it.

        1. Yeah, but if they weren’t shitstains, they could have done it anyway.

          For all that the prosecutor is corrupt and made it his mission to let a murderer go free, for all that he was pressuring them, the members of that grand jury saw the video and voted not to indict. They’re either scum or too stupid to dress themselves.

      2. As the old saying goes, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor recommends it.

  8. Never mind that Loehmann was previously fired from a police department for incompetence with firearms. Never mind that he shot Rice the very second his car arrived at the teen’s location. Never mind that the officers prevented Rice’s sister was from assisting him as he lay dying of a gunshot wound. Never mind that they did absolutely nothing to help him until an FBI agent happened upon the scene.

    Don’t forget the part where they sped up to within five feet of him in a police car without making any attempt to assess the situation or the presence, let alone nature, of a possible threat.

    Just drop the pretense and officially give cops carte blanch licenses to kill, a la James Bond. At least then we’ll all know what the real deal is.

    1. Also don’t forget the part where the dispatcher didn’t mention the person making the original 911 call suspected the gun was fake.

      I’d like to have sees murder charges for the dispatcher at least as much as I would have for the shooter himself.

      1. At this point just seeing someone get fired for gross on-the-job incompetence would be an improvement.

    2. Was there ever a difference?

      1. Shit. This was supposed to be a reply to kibolino.

        1. If Peel’s principles ever carried any weight, then yes there was a difference. I wasn’t alive then, so I don’t know how well or commonly they were followed. But I can look at some evidence and see differences between then and now. I can’t see police even going on strike–why bother, just call up your favorite politician and get what you want–and I certainly couldn’t see the authorities breaking the strike, but both of those things happened in the (somewhat distant) past.

  9. So what is the difference, practically speaking, between a modern-day police officer and a feudal era knight of the realm?

    1. The costume. That’s about it.

      1. more efficient weapons and fatter.

        1. Worse aim.

    2. Knights at least pretended to have a code of chivalry and honor.

      1. Wasn’t most of that a later invention? Serious question.

        1. Don’t know, but I’d suspect it was highly embellished and propagandized while nonetheless having some roots in reality.

        2. Pretty much.

        3. No. It was a real thing. When the word “honor” had some meaning. It arises almost spontaneously out of the nature of combat by the participants (with some feudal douchebag telling the knights they have to kill some other feudal douchebag’s knights over a piece of dirt). The knights eventually figured out they should at least try to treat each other humanely while they were at the act of hacking each other to bits on someone else’s behalf. Not to say it was universal, but breaches tend to lead to being on the receiving end of it at some point, so it was generally honored.

          1. Sure, knights generally treated each other pretty well. Peasant levies and archers were basically always in for some slaughtering, though. So… familiar, actually.

            1. Yes. You are correct. That is a historical fact. Over time the idea that it wouldn’t be so cool to slaughter innocent villagers only caught on in pockets – it was by no means universal, so yes, “…same as the old boss.”

              1. Knights wouldn’t usually slaughter ALL the inhabitants of captured villages. They’d just rape the women and girls.

    3. A feudal era knight of the realm might possibly be punished if he diminished the name of the King in the eyes of the nobles.

      1. Which is why cops leave members of the political class alone. Nothing has changed.

    4. The Shinsengumi would be a better comparison.

    5. more donuts

  10. We should just have the cops shoot everyone. We could all be guns and not even know it.

    1. I think you’re onto something.

    2. I disagree; we can’t survive in a world without you.

      1. You can you just won’t want to.

  11. Now the prosecutor can go home and pat himself on the back for successfully representing his clients and making sure they went home safely.

    1. He already has.

    2. Just under the wire for the year end honorarium! Woohoo!

  12. “[Loehmann] had reason to fear for his life,” said McGinty. “It would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was real.”

    I’m sure that I, not one of the King’s men, would be granted similar leniency had I shot a 12yo with a toy gun.

    1. Better yet, you can shoot a cop, because he was armed, and nobody can second guess you if you said he was reaching for his sidearm. It would be unreasonable for you to wait for him to draw his gun if you felt threatened.

      1. Certainly, anybody who sees Timothy Loehmann carrying a gun should be legally allowed to shoot him on sight now out of fear for their own life.

      2. except for rule number one: anything a cop does to you is right, and rule number one-A: anything you do to a cop is wrong.

  13. The prosecutor stressed that this course of action matched his own recommendation

    Something about wood-chippers and special circles in hell seem to spring to mind.

    Fuck you, Mr. Prosecutor, for not doing your job.

    1. Vote Woodchipper 2016

  14. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. Nikki already said it, but it bears repeating:

    BURN THE FUCKING SYSTEM TO THE GROUND.

    1. This is his job. He properly protected his client. After all, if he punished a cop, he might not be endorsed by the FOP next election. And then how is he supposed to springboard from his big-city DA position to state AG and then governor?

      1. The fucking system? Burn it to the ground.

      2. End elections of prosecutors.

        1. And begin election by mortal combat.

          It’ll weed out the field in the process, at least.

          1. But then only the physically strongest will remain, and this country will be ruled by Wartyocracy. Is that what you really want?

              1. PROTEIN FOR THE PROTEIN GOD

                1. SQUATS FOR THE SQUAT THRONE

              2. Gluteous Maximus, the First of His Name

                1. King of the Deadlifts, Lord of Squats, and Protector of Those Free Weights Over in the Corner There.

            1. There can be only one.

    2. Nikki is the hero Cleveland deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

  15. I should be frothing with anger, but I’m not. I’m not surprised at all. It’s exactly what I expected, and absolutely nothing is going to change.

    1. I said this back in January when the video was first released.

      I’d say there’s a decent chance he’ll be indicted.

      I wouldn’t lay odds on a conviction though.

      I was more innocent and optimistic back then, I guess.

      1. My immediate take was that this would be a good shoot. The reason was basically the same as the prosecutor gave:

        They never look at the whole incident in these cases…. They always dissect it to the benefit of the police. If you only look at the instant he fired, you could easily find that he acted within his training. He has an armed suspect less than ten feet away reaching toward his waist. He is trained to shoot at that time.

        The real decisions that got Rice killed were all in advance of that moment. From driving right up to him, to jumping out of the car, to the training on when to shoot,…. Everything the police did guaranteed that this fuckup would have an opportunity to make a fatal mistake.

        And nobody is busily examining all of those flaws. We just stop with “good shoot, tragic mistake”…. or if you are on the other side, bad cop or racist police.

  16. TAMIR RICE INVADED THEIR SAFE SPACE.

  17. The prosecutor also said Rice should have known better than to play in the park, because he “looked older”.

    1. He looked old enough to know better!

  18. From the press conference: “Prosecutor McGinty says Rice should have known better before playing in the park, because he ‘looked older.'”

    1. Okay, I’d like to amend my “I’m not angry” statement I just made. Now I am angry.

      1. Yeah, that one got me angry again too.

    2. Yeah, “older” people need to learn their place, and play in the places designated for them.

      Seriously fuck this guy.

      1. And by “older people,” we of course mean “black children.”

    3. Seriously?

      I wouldn’t waste any spittle on that human shitpile, if he were on fire.

    4. The new “she had it coming, with that dress she was wearing”.

    5. Fuck McGinty, yo.

    6. Fuck McGinty, yo.

    7. Translation: He looked like he had already entered the superhuman strength and aggression phase of black teenhood.

    8. how exactly is this guy “prosecuting” this GJ case again? His quotes are exactly what you’d expect from a defense lawyer at trial.

    9. And if he looked younger, they would have arrested his parents for letting him play in the park.

      Best to just avoid parks.

    10. It’s really going to take a star chamber and covert assassination squads, isn’t it?

      There’s no way to stop short of that, is there?

      1. Could be?that they want it to escalate until something happens that will cause the public to demand a full-on police state. I would not be a bit surprised.

  19. I wonder if there was any dashcam audio of the cops talking with one another as they drove to the scene. If there was then I’m sure it was “lost,” because this always looked like premeditated murder to me. They decided they were going to kill someone long before they got there. And now they’re the envy of the department because they got away with murder.

    1. They are the envy of their brethren in the department whereas they are the pride of the department.

    2. I doubt it. I would be more inclined to believe the audio contains the police freaking out and/or saying disparaging things about Rice.

      I think they are more afraid of “new professionalism” being revealed to the upper courts as a complete and total farce than they are afraid of a cop getting the occasional watered-down criminal charge from a lower court that is unlikely to survive appeal.

    3. I’m quite sure his first words were either “hands up” or “drop your gun”.

      HE WAS REACHING!

      1. I would be surprised if the stupid son of a bitch didn’t have his finger on the trigger in his frantic hurry to point it at the “perp”.

    4. I didn’t know we were allowed to kill people for shits and giggles. Now i feel cheated.

    5. Yeah, were is the dashcam video?

  20. reason to fear for his life

    Like “Abracadabra” or “Ablanathanalba” a magical incantation that has the power to reweave the fabric of reality.

    1. He thought Tamir was going to say “Avada Kadavra”, the killing curse. Justifiable shot! The cop shouldn’t have to wait until the young wizard pulls out his wand!

    2. He was coming right at them with a Killing Word on his lips!

    3. He was coming right at them with a Killing Word on his lips!

        1. Fuck a squirrel, yo.

  21. So, at what point does civil disobedience become justified? Here we have a clear cut case of wrongful death (please forgive the term, I’m not a lawyer, and murder seemed a bit strong) where every lawful avenue of obtaining justice has been exhausted and those in power have proven himself to be completely corrupt, putting their interests above the citizenry.

    At what point does it become okay to fight back?

    Not advocating, just asking.

    1. This is murder. By any definition. The only problem is that we now have a class of people to whom the laws do not apply.

      I’d say the time is here for civil disobedience. I’m starting a GoFundMe. The more we raise, the more industrial-size woodchippers we can rent.

      1. It’s at least negligent homicide. Even stipulating that the cop’s heart was in the right place, and that he was indeed afraid for his life, the only reaction Tamir could’ve had that would have saved his life would be to immediately cease all movement and throw his hands up. Except the cops startled the crap out of him by flying thru the trees in their car, to within 5 feet of him, and didn’t even give him about half a second to demonstrate he wasn’t a threat. He was effectively shot for flinching.

    2. At what point does it become okay to fight back?

      Twenty or thirty years ago.

    3. I suspect most folks would wait until even shams like this “grand jury” decision aren’t even sought. If it got to cops just mowing down people, and nobody even pretended to say “boo”…then you might start seeing squad cars and their occupants go missing and such.

      1. If it got to cops just mowing down people, and nobody even pretended to say “boo”

        Say, those cops who shot up the pickup with the Asian ladies while looking for a completely different pickup with a black guy never got prosecuted, did they?

        1. Come to think of it, neither did those NYPD cops who shot up a street in Manhattan.

          1. They found someone else to prosecute for that one.

          2. When cops spray and pray, their target is legally responsible for any errant rounds.

            1. yes, so if the cops intended to shoot the drug dealer but instead shot the guy at the house across the street, the drug dealer would be charged with murder for making the cops want to shoot someone

    4. Honestly, I don’t think there is a “right time”. It’s an individual choice and individuals have to live with the consequences. Practically speaking, we don’t have anywhere near enough people willing to fight to actually win and then write the history books, so most civil disobedience is likely to be remembered as a bunch of “punks breaking the law”.

      1. This.

    5. The system needs to be reminded that it’s supposed to fear us.

      That point has long passed and it never will be, so meet the new boss.

    6. The only thing stopping me is:

      “Vengeance belongs to Me; I will repay. In time their foot will slip, for their day of disaster is near, and their doom is coming quickly.”

    7. “It would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was real.”

      This is an amazing sentence. Because the officer was not, in fact, in danger of his life, HIs mere belief is sufficient to kill another human being.

      There is no legal recourse against this individual. Let me say that again, in America, there is no legal recourse against an iagent of the state who commits an unjustifiable homocide. Pigs have a defacto license to kill. If there is a civil case, he still won’t personally cough up a dime. The city, or, more likely, the insurance company will have to pay for it (of course I’ve made my position clear I’m ok with the electorate getting raped). If there is no legal recourse for a complaint of this species, you don’t have a republic of laws.

      So, at what point is civil disobedience is justified? There is no doubt that giving pigs a license to kill is worthy not only civil disobedience, but violent civil disobedience, I would bet that history has shown that heads have rolled for less. If agents of the state are acting with complete malice and unlawfullness, an appeal for me acting in accordance with the law doesn’t carry very much water

    8. So, at what point does civil disobedience become justified?

      When Kevlar clothing is available at the grocer.

      I’m sorry, I thought you said “inevitable.”

    9. “At what point does it become okay to fight back?”

      If not Now, When?
      Vote Woodchipper 2016

  22. Piss on you, Timothy McGinty.

    Bask in the warm glow of police union approval – because anyone with a soul should shun you.

  23. The obvious solution is immediate and comprehensive toy gun confiscation.

    1. Funny how infrequently cops shot kids with toy guns when we were kids.

    2. New York is right on top of that.

      http://criminal.lawyers.com/cr…..-guns.html

      Not actually confiscation, yet, but you can bet if that you live in New York and a cop shoots your kid, they’ll lead with the “he had it coming, running around with a toy gun like that” defense. So, they’ll just confiscate by murdering all the kids who dare to show their faces in public with one.

  24. It could be argued that the 1st American Revolution began the popular anger over the killing of a boy around Rice’s age at the hands of a government officer, the protest over the death of Seider, and the Colonial authorities’ reaction to it would eventually be known as “the Boston Massacre”.

  25. More choice McGinty quotes:

    Prosecutor says straight up: “We don’t second guess police officers.” “It’s clear the officers were not criminal.”

      1. C’mon HM, the obvious victims here are the poor, put-upon police officers who were thrust into this horrid situation by…

        wait, I’m thinkin’…

        Nope, got nothin’.

        Wood-chippers for three.

  26. Well, the system is rigged. There’s no way any city is going to let people get on a jury who would vote to convict a cop. That’s just all there is to it.

    1. I recently got excused from jury duty because I admitted that I didn’t trust cops to clearly assess a violent situation, or clearly recall one under oath.

  27. The only thing that matters is whether Loehmann thought he was justified in killing Rice,

    Well, I’d like to think that the only thing that matters is whether Loehmann reasonably feared for his life or the life of others. Its the reasonable bit that makes this indefensible, but that doesn’t apply to cops, who have a bulletproof defense of “I felt threatened”, reasonableness be damned.

    And McGinty is wrong when he says this:

    “[Loehmann] had reason to fear for his life,” said McGinty. “It would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was real.”

    Its not unreasonable for the law to require that a gun actually be in someone’s hand (at a minimum) before they can be shot. That’s pretty much the way it is for everybody else, after all. At that point, you have a necessary but not sufficient condition for assuming a threat.

    1. This should be the case the #blacklivesmatter people use to highlight injustice, but instead they will burn an already dilapidated block or shut down an airport, and somehow the police and prosecutor will end up being viewed positively.

      1. I did not mean to respond to RC there.

    2. That’s the prosecutor flat-out stating that police are held to much lower standards. Lower than the standard for a dog even.

      1. I mean, i’d always suspected that the enforcers of the state’s monopoly on violence were held to a lower standard than everyone else, but it’s nice to have it out in the open, i guess.

    3. Also Ohio is an unlicensed open carry state! It’s perfectly legal for any non felon to carry any type of firearm.

  28. Juan M. Thompson ?@JuanMThompson 44m44 minutes ago
    Prosecutor says straight up: “We don’t second guess police officers.” “It’s clear the officers were not criminal.”

    Fucking hell.

  29. Now the Browns really do owe the police an apology.

  30. How dare you speak of justice in this situation? You seek not justice but revenge for the police officer’s killing of an apparently armed young man that was viewed as a threat. You don’t speak to that decision but bring out irrelevent ‘facts’ and suppositions in support of your desire to see the policeman jailed or worse. Sorry the child is dead, but there is nothing in the situation that the child didn’t cause. The gun totin’, authority insulting and defying, thug mentatlity is what brought this death, not the cop’s reaction to a perceived threat.
    As the DA said, there is nothing in the rules nor the law that require a cop to be shot before defending himself. And as to your ridiculous statement that “…such that no one is qualified to second-guess Loehmann’s decision…” That is apparently what you have done, isn’t it? Not only that but you have apparently decided you are qualified to second-guess the entire judicial system and all of the people there in.

    1. Ohhhh I wish I wrote this. Good job.

    2. this is good, i give it a B-. No A because we didn’t slip in totallity of circs and the police are loved lines.

    3. This is not the fucking time, Tulpa.

    4. Fuck off Tulpa. You’ve gotten predictable and boring.

    5. Not only that but you have apparently decided you are qualified to second-guess the entire judicial system and all of the people there in.

      Everyone is qualified to second-guess those things. In fact it is everyone’s moral duty to do so.

    6. The gun totin’, authority insulting and defying, thug mentatlity

      It was a toy gun, and he was shot dead too quickly to get any insulting or authority-defying comments or actions off.

      not the cop’s reaction to a perceived threat

      No, let me explain how causality works. Guns and bullets don’t have agencies. Cops that point their guns at unarmed kids and then pull the trigger do have agency, and that makes them responsible, full stop.

      there is nothing in the rules nor the law that require a cop to be shot before defending himself

      But there should be laws requiring cops to actually determine if a threat even exists before using deadly force. And laws are not morals. The law in this case is blatantly immoral.

      you have apparently decided you are qualified to second-guess the entire judicial system and all of the people there in

      Yes, yes I have absolutely decided that. Because 1) the judicial system is supposed to work for me my fellow citizens and 2) I am a reasoning person capable of rationally judging the actions of others.

      1. “It was a toy gun, and he was shot dead too quickly to get any insulting or authority-defying comments or actions off.”

        This sounds like hindsight being 20/20. No one told the officers that the gun might not be real. The footage shows Rice slowly walking towards the car as it approached him. Meaning the officers had a good look at the guy as he was pulling out his toy gun – if it indeed that is what happened. At that point, they had no time to assess the validity of the threat.

        Of course, they could have just ordered him to get on the ground from a distance. And barring specific policy, there should be no reason why they delaying calling for an ambulance.

        1. there should be no reason why they delaying calling for an ambulance.

          Getting their stories straight isn’t a reason?

        2. No one told the officers that the gun might not be real

          That is, the 911 dispatcher was negligent in not passing along the description given by the caller as the gun being “probably fake”.

        3. The footage shows Rice slowly walking towards the car as it approached him.

          Funny. I saw a car pulling up too close and too fast for anyone to walk slowly toward it, especially in the less than two seconds of life that Rice had left.

          1. But he was walking towards the car.

    7. authority insulting and defying, thug mentatlity [sic]

      He sure said a lot in 2 seconds.

      1. All that crap was just code for “black kid”

        1. The entire comment was code for “I wish I could kill niggers, but I’m too much of a pussy to state it that plainly so I’ll anonymously cheerlead any death of a black through preztel-logic apologia of any one who did what I wish I could do.”

    8. If the “enhancement” of the footage shows (there should no doubt on this) that Tamir was pulling out toy his gun as the police car approached, then I would agree with the DA.

      But then the question is, why did they not call for medical help immediately? Why did they arrest the sister?

      1. why did they not call for medical help immediately?

        Why would they try to help a thug who just pulled a gun on a cop and got what he deserved?

        Why did they arrest the sister?

        The sister of a thug who just pulled a gun on a cop and got what he deserved, and who is also most likely a little, thug whore?

      2. WRONG. A thousand times wrong.

        God all fucking mighty – these two fucksticks could have pulled up in their car, which has a goddamned megaphone/siren embedded in it, as well as fucking long guns in the back. They could have called to the kid from outside of his weapons range and ascertained just what the fuck was happening. If these were military guys in a war zone they would be fucking court-martialed for this. But because it’s the “heroes in blue” the prosecutors now say that they get to cause the circumstances that took away their reaction time and then rely upon those self-inflicted causes as a defense. This is so fucking stupid, wrong, immoral, illegal and fucking horrible I hope the families lie in wait and kill these motherfuckers. All three – including the DA.

        1. The conduct before and after the shooting is damning even if you accept the shooting itself as justified. In a sane world, even with the grand jury declining to indict, the officers would be personally and severally liable for negligence and recklessness.

          1. Exactly. I can’t believe that no one thought about how irresponsible it was for Starsky and Hutch to go screeching up to the kid, thus taking away all of their possible options, EXCEPT for shooting. When there was absolutely no fucking reason to do so. The kid was playing in the fucking park.

            God, this one makes me so fucking angry I can’t think straight. This is the worst nutpunch of them all.

        2. But then they would’ve lost the element of surprise.

    9. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. It is a dead letter if you can be shot on sight for exercising it.

      But perhaps the worst aspect of your attitude is that it will never be applied to the cops. They can walk up to a car with their gun drawn, reflexively shoot a “pit bull” (read: any dog larger than a squirrel), execute a paramilitary raid against a private residence in the wee hours of the night (with no real concern for getting the address right), throw a flashbang grenade blindly into bedrooms, and a host of other things that any reasonable person would call “threatening”, “dangerous”, “reckless”, etc. If anybody dared to shoot them, people like you would be writing long diatribes about “war on cops”, “no respect for the law”, “failed to obey”, “thug culture”, etc.

      There is no equality before the law, and things will get worse as long as that remains the case.

    10. Why do you bother with the fake handle when you spew this bullshit? It’s not like it wasn’t obvious within three lines.

      1. Stupid people gonna behave stupidly.

      2. I don’t know, “SimpleFacts” doesn’t quite have that “too clever by half” feeling of Tulpa’s usual sockpuppet handles. Plus, it’s been 30 minutes and there have been no follow-up comments; Tulpa not getting the last word in would be unthinkable. It’s probably just a drive-by.

        1. Ugh, i HATE drive-by derpings.

          1. He pulled up to the thread and shot before he was even completely out of the vehicle.

            1. We’re all too old to be playing in this park, Crusty. It was a good derp, case closed.

            2. He was just toying with us.

        2. Tulpa would normally have another sock drop in to defend his first statement, but they probably let made him go home early today.

          1. Come on now, Tulpa’s not employed.

            1. I didn’t say anything about work… They were closing the library early.

        3. “Tulpa not getting the last word in would be unthinkable. It’s probably just a drive-by.”

          Dunno, man. Maybe this is just my experience, but here’s Tulpa’s modus operandi as I typically see it: he makes some inflammatory comment with a few ad hominem and strawman arguments, waits for a few replies, then he accuses the commenters of supporting BOOOOSH or evil corporations, then he disappears. I’ve never seen Tulpa get the last word in. He seems to bounce out of here as soon as it becomes apparent that nobody is falling for his absolutely wacktarded, wonkdonkulous “logic”.

    11. 0.4 Blighters. Though I invoke Poe’s law if this is genuine.

  31. Looks like McGinty is a genuine libertarian hero. “Straight Release: Justice Delayed, Justice Denied” – protesters should adopt this slogan.

    http://prosecutor.cuyahogacoun…..cutor.aspx

    1. In 2011, Mr. McGinty left the bench to run for Cuyahoga County Prosecutor. He did so because he believes that public safety and honest, effective government are the building blocks of prosperity. Without them, families, individuals and businesses will not invest in Cuyahoga County.

      As a libertarian, I believe that families, individuals and businesses are the building blocks of prosperity and not government. I also believe that effectiveness in government means having all politicians and bureaucrats stranded in a deserted island.

  32. “[Loehmann] had reason to fear for his life,” said McGinty. “It would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was real.”

    I suppose it would also be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was actually pointed at him, too. Goddamned gutless wonders.

    1. The desire to enter elected government office shows a mental deficiency that makes one unsuited for government office.

  33. McGinty surmised that Rice was probably just trying to show the officers that the gun wasn’t real, but said the officers are not required to take that chance. […]

    Never mind that he shot Rice the very second his car arrived at the teen’s location.

    Indeed, I was listening to the press conference in Fox and I had to push the rewind button in the DVR to hear that again because I though I heard it wrong: McGinty assumes we’re going to believe the child had ample time to surmise the situation and make an attempt to clarify it, in ONE SECOND (because he was shot just two seconds after the two police officers stopped the car and opened the doors.)

  34. Don’t forget the part where they sped up to within five feet of him in a police car without making any attempt to assess the situation or the presence, let alone nature, of a possible threat.

    I still find it surprising they actually managed to find and execute the “right” kid.based on a sketchy dispatch call.

    1. I’m betting the toy gun was a plant.

    2. Are we sure it was the right kid?

      1. I’m not.

      2. Close enough for government work.

      3. “They all look alike to me.”

        -Cleveland Police Department

  35. Perhaps someday one of Rice’s loved ones will find out he has a terminal disease, and will track down and visit the officers to administer the justice denied in this case? Of course, that would be wrong, right?

  36. From one of Robby’s linked articles, which bears repeating:

    Officer Timothy Loehmann, who killed Tamir Rice on 22 November, was specifically faulted for breaking down emotionally while handling a live gun. During a training episode at a firing range, Loehmann was reported to be “distracted and weepy” and incommunicative. “His handgun performance was dismal,” deputy chief Jim Polak of the Independence, Ohio, police department wrote in an internal memo

    1. Did this happen before or after he shot Rice?

      1. Before, and with a different PD, from which he was fired. That’s a quote from the memo recommending his termination.

      2. That happened at the police department he was employed at before he was hired in Cleveland. My quote was from Robby’s story, that he liked, almost a year ago.

      3. Before. It’s one of the reasons he ended up in Cleveland, which is a whole other type of shitty.

        1. I like to emphasize it because it just makes the entire situation shittier than it already is.

    2. was specifically faulted for breaking down emotionally while handling a live gun. During a training episode at a firing range, Loehmann was reported to be “distracted and weepy” and incommunicative. “His handgun performance was dismal,”

      Sounds like he had a few mental problems. Do they let just any nut case become a cop these days?

      1. Do they let just any nut case become a cop these days?

        Since the job was invented.

  37. “It would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was real.”

    It would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a crime was being committed.

    1. Totality of the motherfuckin’ circs, homes.

  38. The attitude of “prosecutors” in these kinds of cases plays a major role in the police license to commit murder. Government will subsume rights and privileges that the people don’t jealously guard. The only shot at resolving the enserfed unter-status of those unconnected to government is unleashing a torrent of candid rhetoric. Any man that will not give a 12 year old boy a full 3 seconds to put down a gun is a cowardly pariah that decent society will shun at a minimum. If he ends up dangling from a lampost somewhere it would lend a scrap of creedence to the chant “justice for all.” Media, unfortunately is in league with the cops. Crimes like this are never described in news reports in graphic grisly detail. Police have proven over and over again to be gutless creeps that refuse to stick their necks out like Joe Six-pack would in a perilous situations. They deal with the public the way game wardens deal with potentially rabid animals. If violence against the system gathers steam in the near future the blame lies squarely at the feet of law enforcement, prosecutors and media. When that prosecutor got shot in Texas it didn’t bother me one bit. If they care nothing for private citizens lives there is no reason to lift a finger for their defense either.

  39. The attitude of “prosecutors” in these kinds of cases plays a major role in the police license to commit murder. Government will subsume rights and privileges that the people don’t jealously guard. The only shot at resolving the enserfed unter-status of those unconnected to government is unleashing a torrent of candid rhetoric. Any man that will not give a 12 year old boy a full 3 seconds to put down a gun is a cowardly pariah that decent society will shun at a minimum. If he ends up dangling from a lampost somewhere it would lend a scrap of creedence to the chant “justice for all.” Media, unfortunately is in league with the cops. Crimes like this are never described in news reports in graphic grisly detail. Police have proven over and over again to be gutless creeps that refuse to stick their necks out like Joe Six-pack would in a perilous situations. They deal with the public the way game wardens deal with potentially rabid animals. If violence against the system gathers steam in the near future the blame lies squarely at the feet of law enforcement, prosecutors and media. When that prosecutor got shot in Texas it didn’t bother me one bit. If they care nothing for private citizens lives there is no reason to lift a finger for their defense either.

  40. I’m always amazed-but-not-really that liberals hate gun nuts for not trusting the State’s monopoly on violence. This is what that monopoly looks like, after all.

    1. The easiest argument to make toward liberals who want to control guns is “so, you are okay with the police being the only people who are allowed to have guns?”

      1. Their minds might explode when confronted with this paradox or they will say that no one should have guns. Either way, it’s always fun to see their justification for government being the only entity to have guns.

      2. I’ve posed that question many times. You might be surprised at how many will immediately respond “Of course!”.

  41. Whatever you do, do not read the comments on PoliceOne’s FB page. It’s amazing and depressing.

  42. I disagree with the decision. He should have been indicted.

    That being said, this article and these comments are typical of reason hypocrisy.

    Due process matters when it’s a (noncop) criminal suspect. When it’s a criminal suspect, and a jury OF CITIZENS (not TOP MEN) renders a decision you don’t like – BURN THE SYSTEM DOWN POWER TO THE PEOPLE. you sound like leftists after the Zimmerman decision

    Article is flat out lying. It is not the case that all that matters is the officer was in fear.What matters is the fear was OBJEcTIVELY REASONABLE (see: 4th amendment and about 15 court cases). the GRAND JURY made the decision it was. it’s THEIR decision that matters, NOT his. if they decided there was reasonable cause to believe he was not objectively reasonable THEY WOULD HAVE INDICTED.

    rule of law is awesome when it protects (noncop) criminal suspects but it’s horrible when it respects cops

    some should be more equal than others in the eyes of reasonoids. fuck due process. fuck innocent until proven guilty. fuck jury of peers (and this wasn’t a jury of cops. this wasn’t IIU (cops investigating cops)). It was citizens

    1. Somebody punish Dunphy by making him move to Cleveland.

      1. Punish? He’d get to realize his dream of killing a black person. He’d be ecstatic.

    2. Fuck off, troll. We have enough of you already.

    3. What matters when a cop or other public employee is under threat of indictment is that the grand jury is composed of citizens handpicked by the prosecutor. Little better than a fucking star chamber.

    4. Due process matters when it’s a (noncop) criminal suspect. When it’s a criminal suspect, and a jury OF CITIZENS (not TOP MEN) renders a decision you don’t like – BURN THE SYSTEM DOWN POWER TO THE PEOPLE

      That’s because in this case, like so, so many when it comes to cops, due process is nothing more than pageantry designed to appease people like you.

      Again, ask yourself what would have happened if the situation played out in exactly the same way, except it was two private citizens that did the killing and not two cops. That’s your hypocrisy right there.

    5. I disagree with the decision. He should have been indicted.

      So you’re just an insufferable douchebag, attempting to defend the indefensible.

      The system is rigged in your favor and you fucking like it that way. There is no fucking way, under any fucking circumstance, a non-cop could have done what that disgusting weasel pig did and not be indicted for it. Bottom line. You and your fucking oinker buddies believe you are better than those you’re sworn to protect. PERIOD!

    6. ” the GRAND JURY made the decision it was. it’s THEIR decision that matters, NOT his.”

      Well, look at the article:

      “The prosecutor stressed that [the grand jury’s] course of action matched his own recommendation.”

      In other words, the prosecutor could have dropped the case on his own authority, without getting the grand jury involved, but he’s a coward so he insists on hiding behind the grand jury’s skirts.

      According to this: “On rare occasions, the prosecution may use the grand jury process to investigate a particular crime and make the determination on a case where the prosecuting attorney either is not certain what it wants to do, or, for political reasons, wants to leave such a decision to a grand jury.”

      Hmmm…I wonder which of those two possibilities is what happened here?

      1. To repeat, a prosecutor doesn’t need a grand jury to *drop* a case, unless he doesn’t know what he wants to do, or has political motives. We can rule out the first option since he recommended no charges, indicating that the prosecutor knew what he wanted done, he just wanted someone else to do it, to spare him the political fallout.

  43. I saw this video, the cops just tired up and shot the black boy wearing a doo rag.

    A black person called the cops on this black kid and told 911 that the kid had a toy gun.

    Dispatcher failed to tell the patrolmen that the gun is a toy.

    I think the primary person at fault is the black person calling the cops on as black kid.

    Just like yesterday’s shooting in Chicago in which a black father called the cops on his black son. Once the cops showed up, not only was the black kid dead, the neighbor died too.

    In both cases, the persons calling the cops on a black person ate responsible.

    Cops recklessly shooting someone is post for the course in America.

    1. Can’t tell if sarcasm.

  44. reason commenters are so frequently wrong on criminal procedure, const. law, etc.

    commenter claimed since prosecutor believed cop should not be indicted that’s unethical and it’s his job to try to convict.

    absolutely flat out wrong.

    Study the law. The job of the prosecutor is to PRESENT EVIDENCE to a grand jury. it is NOT to “try to get an indictment”. It is to be objective and present ADMISSIBLE evidence (darn that pesky 4th amendment).

    Also, yes the cop was previously fired. Should the jury have been advised? Do you advise a GJ in a burglary case that the suspect had a previous arrest for burglary? no! (except in rare circs when it’s MO relevant etc.) but the point is we can be privy to the that info but the GJ must rule on case facts, not prejudicial prior bad acts (assuming his previous firing was even based on bad acts and I haven’t seen that established.)

    DESPITE the fact the prosecutor believed there was no sufficient evidence to true bill (which is not the same as believing the guy is innocent) he DID THE RIGHT thing – which is to present the evidence to the GJ. They are the deciders – not a bunch of cops in IIU – a jury of citizens

    1. I don’t know if the cop testified before GJ but i do know criminal suspects ALMOST never do and if you are guilty it’s very risky and often a bad idea. there is no defense attorney to reign in questions and object, and anything you say can later be used against you in court. Yet cops frequently DO. And they are entitled to (like everybody else) and thus the jury will get both sides of the story unlike in cases where the suspect doesn’t testify. It often makes a difference.EVERY suspect generally has that right but cops much more often do it. they waive their right to remain silent and tell their story. as in Ferguson iirc.

      1. The cop did testify before the grand jury.

        More accurately, he was allowed to make a statement to the grand jury without cross-examination. That is a privilege given only to cops.

      2. Uh, quite frankly ‘Dunphy’ I can tell you that the reason most defendents don’t testify is that they DON’T KNOW THEY’RE ABOUT TO BE INDICTED.

        I sure wouldn’t have if Reason hadn’t slipped me a copy of their subpoena before the gag order was signed.

        But police officers sure do.

        You know why? Because for regular criminal defendants the process is to either move straight to trial, the prosecutor choosing to bypass the GJ or its kept as quiet as possible so that the defendant doesn’t know what’s going on unless he’s already suspicious and has hired a lawyer to poll the court every day.

        Except for police officers who pretty much never get to miss their Grand Jury proceedings. The system keeps *them* up-to-date as to what is happening so they can take advantage of those ‘rights’ we all have. How often do you see a prosecutor skip getting a GJ indictment for a cop – almost never because a GJ returning a ‘No Bill’ gets them off the hook without having to take any personal career risks.

    2. So how many times have you jacked off to the video? Don’t worry, scum. I’m sure you’ll get your chance to murder a child soon enough.

      1. I’m almost positive he’s come close. Dunphy, how many times a week do you cruise past the elementary school in your van before you get cold feet and go home to jerk off and cry? Two? Twelve?

    3. The comments were about the prosecutor’s statements if favor of the police that he was allegedly prosecuting. It was evidence that the DA was not presenting evidence, but presenting a justification for the killing.

    4. They claimed it’s unethical for a prosecutor to take the case to a grand jury in the first place if he doesn’t believe that a person should be indicted. And that is absolutely true.

      1. I actually disagree with that. A prosecutor could think a person shouldn’t be indicted but might also want that to be decided in a somewhat more democratic fashion, rather than wielding all that power oneself. In that circumstance, though, the prosecutor should present the facts as dispassionately as possible.

        The existence of such a prosecutor is highly unlikely, of course.

    5. They can also leave OUT evidence.

  45. Reasonoids: Due Process, innocent until proven guilty, jury of peers, suspect’s rights
    Reasonoids (cop suspect): BURN THE SYSTEM DOWN, THE JURY WAS TAINTED, NO JUSTICE NO PEACE, THE SYSTEM SUCKS, THE SYSTEM PROTECTS THE GUILTY

    Reasonoids: Justice is process not results based. THe system is predicated on the believe it is better that 10 guilty men go free than an innocent is convicted
    Reasonoids (cop suspect): HE’S GUILTY. FUCK THE JURY. THEY JUST SIDE WITH COPS. JUSTICE IS A RESULT NOT A PROCESS. RULE OF LAW SUCKS ASS!

    1. Hear hear, Dunphy. I so often see videos here of drive-by shootings committed by civilians that are captured on video and the Reasonoids here clamoring for the shooters to go free, but when the drive-by shooters happen to have on a police uniform ALL THAT TOTALLY CHANGES, HURR DUURR!

  46. So this means the cop goes back on the beat, right? How that isn’t a win for everyone, I don’t know.

  47. Baltimore… in the months following the Gray indictment cops PULLED back and depoliced out of fear they would be thrown under the bus at any opportunity.

    As happened in Cleveland everytime cops depolice (Heather McDonald documented the Cleveland depolicing years ago) HOMICIDES AND CRIME SOARED

    Homicides spiked 50% in the month following the freddie gray indictment.

    Cops said every time after freddie gray, they got out of their car for a call, they were surrounded by hostile crowds of people holding cell phone cameras and saying they were murderers etc.

    Cops depolice.

    SCORES of innocents are killed in the 50% spike in homicides as happens in every high crime city when cops depolice.

    Does Reason report on the aftermath?

    Nope. Justice for Freddie Gray? important (justice being a results analysis- if cops get convicted its justice)

    Justice for the scores of (mostly black) men slain who would be alive but for cops depolicing?

    crickets…

    because it upsets Reason’s metanarrative that cops are an invading army that doesn’t help but hurts these communities

    the depolicing results prove that cops prevent TONS of homicides by policing in those neighborhoods because when they depolice violent crimes and homicides soar.

    but those lives don’t matter.

    many articles interviewing citizens BEGGING for the cops to come back and be a presence on the street corners etc.admitting they were wrong about the police.

    Reason reporting on this? Crickets…

    1. Oh, do fuck off you mendacious piece of shit.

      And Reason has reported on that stuff. They’ve reported, accurately, that it’s complete and total bullshit that doesn’t have any resemblance to actual facts.

    2. They “de-police”? Well then they should be fired for not doing their jobs. Cops in this country have brought much of the public’s hostility toward them upon themselves; if they can’t take the heat, they should stay out of the fucking kitchen.

    3. As happened in Cleveland everytime cops depolice (Heather McDonald documented the Cleveland depolicing years ago) HOMICIDES AND CRIME SOARED

      Homicides spiked 50% in the month following the Freddie gray indictment.

      No they didn’t.

    4. “Baltimore… in the months following the Gray indictment cops PULLED back and depoliced out of fear they would be thrown under the bus at any opportunity.”

      The terror they must feel while collecting their paychecks but refusing to do their jobs fills me with an ocean of sympathy for them.

  48. Once again the victim is responsible for his own death. Shoot first especially if they are african american and the police unions and the prosecutors will protect you and even pay you to kill as many black faces as possible. Even with video of the crime. “Qualified Immunity”.

  49. You either respect rule of law and suspect rights FOR EVERYBODY or you are a fucking hypocrite.

    and clearly many here selectively respect those principles. If it’s a cop- fuck civil rights, fuck rule of law, fuck innocent until proven guilty.

    Again, I think he should have been indicted. And of course i know way the fuck more about deadly force law than 99.9% of people here (and clearly the moron who wrote this article).

    And yes, all the black helicopter bullshit we see from leftists is going off the hook here- prosecutor tainted the jury, can’t get a indictment cause the prosecutor didn’t think they should be indicted bla bla bla

    it’s always the MAN’s fault, even when a fucking jury of citizens decides the cop acted objectively reasonably.

    whinge whinge whinge…

    the PEOPLE spoke.

    the PEOPLE that matter. a grand jury. rule of law. Due process

    it matters. even when lowly horrible evul copz are the suspect!

    1. Will you just fucking go away already? We get it. You get hard when you see cops shoot black children. It’s cheaper than viagra, and you don’t have to see your doctor.

      Go back to fucking Morgan Fairchild while on a surfboard after winning a powerlifting contest, or whatever the fuck it is that you do, and just go away.

  50. When a Jury doesn’t indict a cop, all of a sudden reasonoid bigots become Che Guevera

    REVOLUTIONARY JUSTICE!!!!

    1. Justice is repayment. Steal something, you repay with interest. Murder someone, pay with your life. What they are mad about is the complete lack of justice here.

      If a cop murders someone, they get away with it the vast majority of the time, even when all the evidence points to murder. That should anger everyone.

      IOW, there are 2 classes of people. Cops and everyone else. The law doesn’t seem to apply to cops.

      1. No, Dunphy claims there’s no double standard, and that cops are punished all the time. Totally. Yep.

        1. I would love to see some sort of evidence of this. Also, a statistical comparison (comparing the conviction rates of cops and other people) should be fairly easy to come by.

          But we both know those would show how evil it all is, and therefore it would get ignored or buried.

    2. The revolution already happened, and your side won. Stop whining, nobody likes a sore winner.

  51. ‘It would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was real’

    This is completely missing the point.

    The cop didn’t fuck up because he didn’t check to see if the gun was real, he fucked up because he failed to see if Rice was a *threat*.

    Major, major difference.

    They’ve essentially said that *being accused* of possessing a firearm merits an automatic execution.

    1. This is especially important because Ohio is an open carry state. So open carrying in Ohio is legal, but the police can now legally kill you for doing it.

  52. ‘It would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was real’

    This is completely missing the point.

    The cop didn’t fuck up because he didn’t check to see if the gun was real, he fucked up because he failed to see if Rice was a *threat*.

    Major, major difference.

    They’ve essentially said that *being accused* of possessing a firearm merits an automatic execution.

  53. Dunphy – you’re such a copsucking apologist piece of shit. Go hump someone else’s leg. Some of us have actually worked with cops, been around them, and worked in the criminal justice system. If you had one ounce of integrity – and the unions did – they should be clamoring to indict pieces of shit in cases like this, but nope – it’s circle the fucking wagons. I knew the concerns about the citizens were bullshit when the cops refused to track how often they shoot civilians. It’s like the AMA when they were offered the chance to track malpractice by doctors that results in deaths. They refused.
    In the military people are required to account for every fucking bullet. You get what’s called an NCEA – Non-Combat Expenditure Allowance – for every fiscal year to train guys with. That’s it. You have to account for every bullet. If you come off post and you’ve discharged your weapon, you’d better goddamn well believe you have to report that to the OOD. The cops want to “play” soldier, except with none of the accountability and professionalism that is required to have a job where you may take a human life.
    We’ve given retards immunity to kill people. And asshats on the Supreme Court buy into the nonsense about how dangerous it is to be a cop. It doesn’t even make the top 30 most dangerous jobs. Go fuck yourself, Dunphy, or bend over and take it from one of your heroes, you fucking fender lizard.

  54. It’s possible that either the law, or the instructions, were so tilted in favor of the porcine-American community that an indictment wouldn’t have been legally justified. If that’s true, then the problem is the law – or its interpretation – and not the grand jurors.

    1. It’s possible that either the law, or the instructions, were so tilted in favor of the porcine-American community that an indictment wouldn’t have been legally justified.

      They are tilted that way. They have been for a long time. And apparently, neither the Democratic government of Cleveland nor the majority-black population of Cleveland have wanted to change the law so far.

      If that’s true, then the problem is the law – or its interpretation – and not the grand jurors.

      But what exactly is “the problem”? I’m not sure the average voter wants police to refrain from shooting someonewaving a gun at pedestrians.

      Furthermore, if one of the pedestrians that Rice pulled a gun on had been armed, do you think they should not have used deadly force?

      1. Furthermore, if one of the pedestrians that Rice pulled a gun on had been armed, do you think they should not have used deadly force?

        If one of those erstwhile pedestrians had driven a car into the middle of the park within feet of Rice, came out of the vehicle armed, started barking commands at Rice, opened fire within seconds of arriving, refused to render or call for medical assistance afterward, and prevented Rice’s sister from doing the same, would anyone call that justified?

        If Rice walked up to somebody and pulled a gun on them, and that person shot him in return, this would be a different case.

        1. If Rice walked up to somebody and pulled a gun on them, and that person shot him in return, this would be a different case.

          Rice did walk up to several people and pulled guns on them. My point is that in a more libertarian world (widespread open carry, self-defense, no/limited police), Rice’s conduct would likely have killed him as well. Once anybody starts drawing a gun, there is a high risk of someone getting killed.

          1. “Rice did walk up to several people and pulled a gun on them”

            Cite needed. I have not heard this before and it is NOT on the 9- minute video. It’s BS.

            1. It’s in the 911 call:

              “In the park by the youth center is a black male sitting on the swings. He is wearing a camouflage hat, a gray jacket with black sleeves. He keeps pulling a gun out of his pants and pointing it at people.”

              1. I believe it was also captured on video. The words of the caller are not evidence.

          2. My point is that in a more libertarian world, … Rice’s conduct would likely have killed him as well

            Which is just dandy but not relevant to the conduct of the officers who did kill him in this world.

            1. It is relevant, because one way or another, people want to protect themselves from violence, and that will invariably lead to accidents and innocent people getting killed.

              Now, if you don’t like the conduct of the officers, what actual changes would you like to make? Saying “they shouldn’t do this sort of thing” isn’t sufficient, because that’s just the same kind of empty statements progressives make.

              1. Well, first of all, brandishing is not a crime in Ohio. So they had no reason to respond in the first place.

                Setting that aside, once they were there they made no attempt to gain situational awareness or to avoid escalation. They drove a cruiser into the middle of a park within feet of Rice, jumped out of the cruiser, probably shouted conflicting orders at Rice, then opened fire within seconds of arriving. Afterwards, they didn’t seek medical assistance and they prevented his sister from assisting.

                All of those are mistakes they made, the justification of the shooting itself besides. All of this has already been said in the thread. People have already proposed different courses of action that the cops could have taken. You ignore them because it’s inconvenient to your whinging.

                Setting that aside, once the actions were performed, there are laws governing harm resulting from negligence and recklessness. The cops should be charged under those laws. That is apparently not going to be the case. The cops should be subject to personal liability. That is not likely, due to qualified immunity. The cops should also be terminated from the force. That is probably not going to happen either, due to union stipulations.

                So the end result is likely going to be a civil suit against the city, and maybe a DOJ investigation, which will result in no meaningful changes but will play into the hands of the left and whiners like you.

                1. So the end result is likely going to be a civil suit against the city, and maybe a DOJ investigation, which will result in no meaningful changes but will play into the hands of the left and whiners like you.

                  I’m not whining, you are. You’re whining about all the things that could happen or should happen or didn’t happen, when all that actually has been decided is that they aren’t going to be indicted on murder charges.

                  And like a typical progressive and lefty, instead of recognizing that the good people of Cleveland have a right to mess up their own lives any way they like, you apparently want big government to step in and fix it.

  55. I can only hope, wish, and pray that every single member of that jury suffers the same fate to one, or ALL of their children. What kind of retards would draw a ridiculous conclusion as that? The ultimate karma would be if one, or both of those cops kids was murdered by a coworker.

    1. Again, we’d have to know the specifics of the relevant Ohio statutes, and how they were explained to the grand jury, before jumping to conclusions that the grand jurors were unreasonable, etc.

      1. One of the interesting things to come out of this is highlighting how every state has its own special-snowflake process for determining indictments. Not that I’m advocating conformity, but most of these processes have “we gamed the rules to get what we want” written all over them.

        1. I was referring to the substance of the law.

          Grand juries can only indict people they have probable cause to believed broke the law.

          If the law – fairly or not – doesn’t cover someone’s behavior, then a grand jury shouldn’t be indicting them.

          So to go back to my point, it depends on what laws the grand jury was applying, before we can say they were wrong.

          1. You’re the second person to talk about a grand jury like it’s a petit jury. In the traditional sense, grand juries are empaneled by sortition and do not answer to any judge or other authority. Prosecutors can bring cases to their attention, but the grand jury itself is responsible for determining whether to conduct an investigation and issue an indictment. They are not limited to any one law; the entire slate of the criminal code is at their disposal.

            The key factors here, as I alluded to, are what the laws in Ohio say about the authority and procedures of grand juries there. Unless you are contending that Ohio sprang into existence yesterday and doesn’t have the same sorts of laws on reckless and negligent conduct as other states do, saying the law “doesn’t cover” the behavior.

            1. … saying the law “doesn’t cover” the behavior doesn’t make sense.

            2. Note: it’s not strictly true that a grand jury “answers to no one”; if they go off the rails, a judge can order them to stop.

            3. I’m not 100% sure what we’re arguing about.

              I don’t recall saying that a grand jury is like a petit jury.

              I mentioned that a grand jury decides probable cause.

              Probable cause for what? For believing the guy violated some law.

              Unless you’re disagreeing with *that,* I don’t understand your point. Unless you’re beating straw men.

              Some states have special laws for cops, allowing them to do stuff Joe Citizen couldn’t do. That’s just the reality, I don’t endorse it.

              And I understand that in many states grand juries are authorized to do their own investigations, in Ohio I can only go by what the lawyer dude I linked to said about the system.

              1. Yeah, I linked to an Ohio lawyer who made this claim about Ohio grand juries: “On rare occasions, the prosecution may use the grand jury process to investigate a particular crime and make the determination on a case where the prosecuting attorney either is not certain what it wants to do, or, for political reasons, wants to leave such a decision to a grand jury.”

                Is this wrong?

                Again, what are we arguing about?

                1. The grand jury can issue any indictments, not just those the prosecution asks for, or those the media is interested in. There is absolutely no way to say that the laws in the state of Ohio “don’t cover” the police behavior. The circumstances of the acts may mitigate the qualifying factors in the definitions of the crimes, but nothing you said connects with the traditional understanding of what a grand jury is or what it is capable of doing.

                  The lawyers and the prosecutors are likely speaking to how the grand juries function in practice, which to my mind is good information but reflects how the process has basically been turned into another theatrical performance orchestrated by the people who have blessed themselves as the sole authorities on law.

    2. The grand jury just determined whether police acted according to the laws and rules of the city of Cleveland. Do those laws and rules suck? Sure. But don’t blame the grand jury for that, blame the Cleveland city government, the voters who put them there, and the police unions who protect these people.

      At the same time, the family of Tamir Rice also bears a great deal of responsibility: a 12 year old should not run around with a realistic-looking gun and point them at passers-by.

      1. Respectfully…

        Fuck off slaver!

        I ran around everywhere with toy guns when I was 12, and younger.

        Never shot by a cop even once. But, then again, the cops back then weren’t pants-shitting pussies AND were held to a reasonable standard.

        1. As I was saying, the people of Cleveland have the power to change this any local election.

          You, however, give us the typical progressive response: social signaling, outrage at “the system”, and collectivizing classes of people, implying that some national action would be the right way to address issues of police violence.

          Therefore, let me tell you quite clearly:

          Fuck off slaver!

          1. Yeah, the kid had his 1.5 seconds to comply. Fire away pigs!!

      2. The grand jury determines indictments, not guilt.
        The laws in question are made by the state, not the city.
        The prosecutor threw the case before it even began.
        The officers enjoy “qualified” immunity regardless of what “the voters” want.
        The 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms.

        1. The grand jury determines indictments, not guilt.

          The grand jury determines whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. If they determine that there is no probable cause, there can’t be any guilt.

          The laws in question are made by the state, not the city. The officers enjoy “qualified” immunity regardless of what “the voters” want.

          Obvious but incorrect responses. In fact, the city decides the rules under which police operate, and police that operate outside those rules generally lose their immunity. Cleveland could even decide to disarm much of their force or privatize it.

          The prosecutor threw the case before it even began.

          And the prosecutor was also locally elected. Note that for a Democrat facing reelection, this was likely a tough thing to do.

          The 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms.

          Tamir Rice was concealed carrying and he was drawing his weapon without justification. Neither of those are protected by the Second Amendment.

          1. Yeah, the kid had his 1.5 seconds to comply. Fire away!!

          2. If they determine that there is no probable cause, there can’t be any guilt.

            Another grand jury can make a different determination. “Double jeopardy” prevents a retrial after an acquittal, it doesn’t prevent a pre-trial re-investigation.

            Cleveland could even decide to disarm much of their force or privatize it.

            This is true, and almost certainly not going to happen, but doesn’t address the officers’ culpability. The city of Cleveland can’t exempt its officers from the laws of Ohio.

            Note that for a Democrat facing reelection, this was likely a tough thing to do.

            I’ll shed some tears for him, and his buddies in federal prison. I’m sure he’s the first Cuyahoga County politician to be as pure as the driven snow.

            Tamir Rice was concealed carrying and he was drawing his weapon without justification. Neither of those are protected by the Second Amendment.

            Do you have a spare decoder ring, so I can find these special exceptions that are not written in the text? And again, what relevance does any of this have to the cops who shot him?

            1. Another grand jury can make a different determination.

              Well, and until it does, he is not guilty.

              This is true, and almost certainly not going to happen, but doesn’t address the officers’ culpability. The city of Cleveland can’t exempt its officers from the laws of Ohio.

              The current laws of Ohio let officers get away with these kinds of shootings. My point is that if the people of Cleveland don’t like that fact, they have the means to change it. That is, they can’t make local rules on the use of violence more lenient than state laws, but they can make them more strict.

              I’ll shed some tears for him, and his buddies in federal prison.

              The point isn’t whether you approve of what he did, the point is that he is directly accountable to voters.

              Do you have a spare decoder ring, so I can find these special exceptions that are not written in the text?

              The Second Amendment allows you to “keep and bear arms”. It doesn’t give you a right to threaten other people with weapons.

              1. Why should I continue arguing with you when there are no firm goalposts? Yes, if you rewrite the sequence of events and change the definitions of all the words, then the situation looks quite different. Hooray for sophistry.

                1. Why should I continue arguing with you when there are no firm goalposts?

                  All I’m saying is that (1) the grand jury verdict seems to be in accordance with existing law, (2) the people hurt by these laws, namely the people of Cleveland and blacks, have all the political power they need to change them, and (3) no matter whether you handle violent crime through 2A or police or whatever, innocent people will always end up getting killed.

                  I’m waiting for you to stop whining and actually make a point. You seem to think that there is something seriously wrong with the current system and that there is some magical way of fixing it if government only does the right thing. But you haven’t articulated even that much.

          3. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the cops showed up to the scene with their weapons drawn. If drawing your weapon is cause for being shot, then why shouldn’t the cops have been shot?

            Now, as noted, if Rice was pointing his weapon at people, then the people who were pointed at may have had cause to shoot him. But nobody has contended that he pointed his weapon at the cops.

            1. Now, as noted, if Rice was pointing his weapon at people, then the people who were pointed at may have had cause to shoot him. But nobody has contended that he pointed his weapon at the cops.

              The use of deadly force by police (or even civilians) against someone is legal in the US when they hold a reasonable belief that the person is threatening, or is imminently going to threaten, either their own lives or the lives of others.

              In light of the law, the grand jury decision seems correct. Furthermore, the people who live under that law have the power to change it.

              So, I really can’t figure out what people like you want. Do you want the federal government to step in and overrule the police rules on the use of deadly force that the city of Cleveland has chosen to adopt? Or what?

              1. Where is this threat? You have now invented out of whole cloth actions that were not committed by Rice.

                1. Rice looked like an adult male waving a gun around on a playground. Are you saying that doesn’t look like a threat?

  56. My child?

    No mercy – cop would vanish one night, never to be seen or heard from again.

    1. Unfortunately, it’s not as good an example.

      1. As in, needs more “nailed to post, on fire”.

  57. “It would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was real.””

    Well, that generally why cops are trained not to roll up on somebody at high speed, and jump out 2 feet from the suspect! This isn’t Startsky and Hutch, fuckers!

    At the very leas,t there should be a Negligent Homicide charge for the complete lack of caution and professionalism exercised by those cops – it led directly to Tamir’s death.

    1. Well, that generally why cops are trained not to roll up on somebody at high speed, and jump out 2 feet from the suspect!

      Well, apparently in Cleveland, OH, they are trained to do just that. Now, you may believe that sucks and is stupid, and I happen to agree. But it is apparently what the people of Cleveland want because they keep voting for the people putting these policies in place.

      So, other than signaling what a wonderfully moral person you are, what do you think actually should be done? Should the federal government swoop in and start messing around with how local and state police operate? How is that possibly a libertarian position?

      1. State law should require a local prosecutor to recuse himself and an independent prosecutor should handle ALL police violenc cases.

        Or so says my daughter, assistant prosecutor in Dayton OH.

        1. I’m sure lots of statists like to call in Top Men from higher levels of government when things don’t work the way they want them to work somewhere.

          But why is that a good thing? The local prosecutor has to answer to local voters; the independent prosecutor can do whatever is politically expedient for his career, and he doesn’t give a damn about local voters.

  58. This will likely result in many more police officers being shot; after all, if “it would be unreasonable if the law required an officer to wait and see if a gun was real” is a valid defense then “it would be unreasonable if the law required a citizen to wait and see if a police officer was real” is also a valid defense.

  59. The story never included relevant facts like the kid was very big, 195 pounds and there was video of him looking like he had a very real looking gun.

    1. If the officers thought those were relevant facts, then why did they get so close to him?

    2. That’s because those facts are actually irrelevant. Weighing 195 lbs isn’t a capital offense. The cops never had a chance to even see the fake but supposedly real looking gun. But the person who called 911 seemed to think it was probably fake. But they shot him before they could even determine that for themselves.

  60. Justice? Perhaps not the result you were pleading for, but that doesn’t mean justice wasn’t served.

    A kid, who told all his classmates he ran with a gang, suspended from school for fighting, spends a day in the park hiding a replica gun in his waistband, pulling it on strangers.

    Yes, he was shot. That’s unfortunate. Not injustice.

    1. Believe it or not, telling people you are in a gang, hell, even being in a gang, is not grounds for capital punishment. Neither is getting into a fight at school. And I ran around playing with replica guns when I was a kid, but I guess I didn’t look like a gangbanger like you think this 12 year old did, so it was all good.

      And of course, the cops knew nothing about his supposedly bad behavior, which I don’t even grant you to begin with, not that it makes one lick of difference whatsoever.

      So yes, gunning down a 12 year old playing in a park without even trying to figure out if he posed an actual threat is an injustice, and evil.

      1. So yes, gunning down a 12 year old playing in a park without even trying to figure out if he posed an actual threat is an injustice, and evil.

        Yes it is. So what? Are you going to run to big daddy Obama to swoop in with new federal regulations to make it all better? Or what?

        And I ran around playing with replica guns when I was a kid, but I guess I didn’t look like a gangbanger like you think this 12 year old did, so it was all good.

        I guess you got away with it because you grew up in a city where people made smarter political decisions than the people in Cleveland.

      2. I was only adding the color (a’hem) commentary because the portrayal of this kid (and Mike Brown and Trayvon, etc) is that they were flawless sweeties who wouldn’t harm anyone.

        He was pointing a weapon at people on the street. When confronted, he reached in his waist band for a pretty-frickin-real-lookin’ gun.

        How much time should the cops give themselves to determine if he poses an “actual” threat?

        Grow up.

  61. “enhancement of the surveillance footage”

    Showed that Guido shot first.

  62. Silly articles like this are the reason that Libertarians are a marginal gnat in the political arena. The author of this piece of nonsense has never been to a high crime area on a Friday or Saturday night, or even visited the memorial to the two policemen who were killed a block away from where this stupid punk was killed when he pulled a gun out of his belt as the police arrived in response to 911 calls that someone was pointing his gun at people who were walking by a drug park.
    Shame on you, Robby. You would wet your panties if you had to spend a day in any squad car in any major city in this country where brave men and women put their lives on the line every day and not have the luxury of jerking yourself off at your computer with zero life experience of what the inner city is all about.

    1. Die in a fire, Tulpa.

    2. He never pulled a gun out of his belt. He never had a gun, he had a toy, and he was shot before he even had a chance to pull *that* out of his belt.

    3. If we’re going to skip the whole “law enforcement” part of “law enforcement officer” and go straight to “brave hero fighting the good fight against the dangerous criminals”, then let’s dispense with the other trappings as well. No “qualified” immunity, no union contracts, no guaranteed overtime, no special “bill of rights”, no concealed carry in otherwise illegal places, and no asset forfeiture. If what it means to be a cop is to drive a squad car and exercise deadly force, then let’s act accordingly.

      1. You know what? I can’t find anywhere that brandishing a weapon is a crime in Ohio. It’s an open carry state. So the only way Rice is a criminal given the facts at hand is if you have a secret decoder ring.

        Not that it matters, but I’m sure the Supreme Court would back them up. All it takes is a “good faith” belief by a cop that something is against the law, and presto it is!

        1. You know what? I can’t find anywhere that brandishing a weapon is a crime in Ohio. It’s an open carry state. So the only way Rice is a criminal given the facts at hand is if you have a secret decoder ring.

          Well, and Rice didn’t get convicted of a crime, he got shot. The criterion for the legitimate use of deadly force is whether someone holds a reasonable belief that there is a threat to their own or someone else’s life.

          As I was saying, I don’t know whether those criteria for deadly force are good ones, but they are the ones we have, and that we have had for a long time, and that’s why the police officers didn’t get indicted for murder. If you don’t like those criteria and you think it’s worth the trouble, come up with new ones. Most people simply don’t care either way.

    4. You would wet your panties if you had to spend a day in any squad car in any major city in this country where brave men and women put their lives on the line every day

      Fuck off Tulpa.

      They are a bunch of pants-shitting pussies who get off on fucking with people. Whose job doesn’t even make the top 10 most dangerous.

      Moar.

      Don’t like the risk, do something else. It’s voluntary. They are not fucking heros.

  63. The cops didn’t kill Tamir Rice, the community did –
    a community who refused to teach young Mr. Rice that you don’t point guns at people (especially cops) whether real or replica (toy).

    1. Never pointed the toy at the cops. Never had the chance. They shot him first.

      1. lynchpin you need to read the actual story. He had been pointing his “toy” gun, which looks no different than a real gun, at people in the drug park, which is why the cops were called and he was shot when he pulled his gun out of his belt. He was a punk, just like thousands of other punks who kill because they can all over the country. Grow up.

        1. I did read the story. That it was supposedly a drug park is irrelevant. Playing in a drug park is not a capital offense. For that matter, neither is selling or buying drugs in a drug park. The only person that felt threatened enough to call 911 also was able to tell that the gun was a toy. And the video clearly shows that he had no chance to pull the toy out of his belt before he was shot.

          Also, no amount of scare quotes around “toy” gun will change the fact it was a toy gun, and no amount of claiming that he pulled “his gun” out of his belt will change the fact that it was a toy, not a gun.

          1. You live in a world that exists only in your head. Go and spend a night shift with your local police in a high crime area, like the drug park this piece of shit played in with his “toy” gun, but wear your diapers to keep the shit from soiling the seats.

            1. Die in a fire, Tulpa.

            2. I notice your post doesn’t actually refute anything I said. Just some assertions that the dead kid was “a piece of shit” (would love to know what you base that on), continuing to use scare quotes around “toy” as if that will make it more dangerous, and some more assertions that I’m a coward.

              You know what, give me the info I need to schedule a ride-around with the Cleveland police and I’ll do it. My prediction – I won’t shoot any children playing in a park.

              1. I actually refute every bit of nonsense in your post. this was a drug park. It still is a drug park. Druggies live and die there. They also kill cops there. The “kid” had a record, at 12, of being a low-life piece of shit who was just another killer in waiting but was so stupid he pulled his “toy” gun out and pointed it at many.
                please go to the park for a day or so, and report back if you are still alive. If you don’t know how to contact the Cleveland police, you are too stupid to be contaminating this site.

          2. Forget it. He won’t listen. Though I’m noticing the more and more these discussions go on, the more Tulpa heads towards outright saying “The little black kid deserved it”. He was getting close there.

            1. Thousands of black kids kill thousands of black kids year after year and somehow cops who protect themselves from these kids are somehow bad, but Black lives only matter when a couple criminals like Michael Brown die when assaulting cops.Why not go to your local drug park and send us some pictures of the cops who protect us from those criminals.

              1. What was this cop protecting himself from? A bb in the eye?

  64. Alright, what pants-shitting “conservative” group posted a link to this and sent in all the trolls?

    1. I don’t know. The only thing that bothers me is they post one comment then leave. Fun ones include “this is why libertarians are irrelevant”. It’s about the most meaningless thing anyone can say on any topic. “Look, if you just agreed with everyone, then they’d like you more.” Um, thanks for the great insight, genius.

  65. Kind of hard to cooment on such a sparse item. Sounds more like emoting instead of a detailed critique of the grand jury’s decision. Hardly fit for a journal entitled “Reason”…

    1. Drink! I’m having cider.

      1. Another couple of nutpunches and I’ll be chugging Bacardi 151 to dull the pain.

  66. What sort of third-world hell-hole is Cleveland becoming where police can gun down twelve-year-olds and get away with it?

      1. +2 buildings

        – 1 industry

  67. Nevermind that it was never communicated to the officers that the caller said the gun was probably fake. Nevermind that Tamir Rice was 5’7″, 170 pounds and wore 36 inch pants. Nevermind that the officers relayed that they had probably shot a man in his 20’s. Nevermind that the pellet pistol looked like the real thing. Nevermind Tamir was pulling it from his waist as the cops pulled onto the playground.

    Yep…from “Skipping Record Soave” the facts in his misbegotten mind are: Tamir 12 Cops shoot Cops guilty.

    So much for the Reason part. Emotion is a heady bitch.

    1. The scenario from the video is notable for the absence of any reasoning.

      A criminal act reported positively as fact is neither a fact nor a crime until the officer confirms it with evidence.

      There is no police training anywhere that teaches you to drive fast right up the actual potential threat and jump out and act. In FACT, both training and common sense dictate otherwise. It is fundamentally negligent to assume a report as fact and act accordingly. The officers, as well as any civilian, are required to evaluate the situation before acting, to the extent possible.

      It was completely possible to stop the vehicle at a greater distance and observe the scene first. They chose not to and a young man, who may have acted quite naturally, is now dead without justification.

      There was no self-defense here. There was great negligence in evaluating the situation.

  68. “Never mind that he shot Rice the very second his car arrived at the teen’s location,” which was also the very second that Rice drew his gun. Sorry, but this is a disgusting post, essentially attacking the propriety of self-defense.

    The only difference between an officer and a private citizen in this situation is that an officer is obligated to confront someone who has been reported as threatening people with a gun. For the rest of us, this act of putting ourselves in harm’s way could, depending upon the state, put us in legal peril if we are then forced to defend ourselves.

    Police get a pass on this one point, but otherwise have no more leeway to use lethal force in self defense than anyone else, and the grand jury decision in this case is perfectly in line with that standard, so what is anti-gun moron Soave complaining about in this case? That officers are allowed to confront threats, or that they are allowed to defend themselves like anyone else? This post is absolutely unworthy of a libertarian outfit.

    1. Except Ohio is an unlicensed open carry state. It’s perfectly legal for any non felon to carry any type of firearm. The cops didn’t actually SEE him brandishing so they had no reasonable suspicion supported by specific articulatable facts that a crime had occured.

    2. Did you watch the video?

      Do you have children?
      Have they ever played with guns?
      Would it matter if they were age six and playing a sandbox?
      Do the officers only have to perceive a threat from your children to shoot them?

      Would it matter if you were showing a friend a gun out front of your house and cops came up behind you and commanded you to freeze, and startled, without thinking, you turn around with the weapon in your hands . Of course they would be justified in shooting you because you had a weapon and didn’t freeze and even turned towards them with the weapon which threatened them.

      The police did not evaluate the situation. They drove right up on the boy and did not give themselves or the boy any space to make a reasoned decision.

      As IceTrey pointed out, they disregarded a substantial fact of law and everyday life in assuming that the possession of a weapon in public was a threat when it so very easily could be otherwise.

      1. This just proves that nobody should ever have anything that looks like a gun at any time ever; that way, the police would know that anyone with a gun is guilty of a crime and we wouldn’t have this problem!!

        /what some prog has probably said at some point

        1. We wouldn’t have any problems if every one who thought like you were forced to do everything that people like you wanted you to do. No freedom, no problems.

          For the rest of us, we prefer freedom AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND RISKS that come with it.

          BTW, so if someone had a gun in your scenario, you believe that they should be given the death penalty, which would be administered by the cop arriving on the scene? No trial, no rights, just the fact that you have a gun means the police can shoot you?

          Who cares about human rights and inalienable rights?

          Hitler would be very impressed no doubt.

  69. The enhanced video shows Rice lifting his shirt not pulling the gun like McGinty claims.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9yql-CTz0vs

  70. The videos speak for themselves. Essentially, nothing matters except what the cop believed he saw even if he was negligent or acting contrary to his training.

    One theme seems to keep running through the continuous police shootings of innocent people. They do not seem to have any responsibility to evaluate the situation. Once anyone says that a person is a threat, they have signed your death warrant.

    The dispatch says there is a boy with a gun and so 2 Robocops were sent out to execute the gunman.

    1. Yes, is tragic. Yes, is wrong. But what are you going to do about it? Federal legislation? Federal lawsuits? How is that possibly a good solution? Why should my city have to put up with new federal oversight because some idiots in Cleveland elect a bunch of idiots to run their police department and another idiot as their DA?

      This isn’t a problem with “police”, it’s a problem with Cleveland and cities like it. Liberty means that people can make bad choices, including bad choices for how they police their own community.

      1. State law should require a local prosecutor to recuse himself and an independent prosecutor should handle ALL police violenc cases.

      2. The 14th Amendment makes it a national issue, whether you like it or not. If you want to repeal it, then go ahead. You’d have my support.

        Yes, the involvement of the currently constituted US DOJ, and the likely result of a “national conversation” leading to new Federal laws is odious. No doubt the people of Cleveland deserve blame for trying to create a yet another failed socialist utopia, and using the police force to cover up the consequences.

        But none of that addresses the lack of legal accountability for the officers in question. Even if this is what the “people” of Cleveland “want”, it doesn’t matter. We have a Constitutional republic, not a bare democracy.

        1. And lest you keep beating on the shooting and Rice’s actions, the surrounding events matter just as much if not more. The officers may have legitimately exercised their right to self-defense, and Rice may have been legitimately forfeiting his right to life by “brandishing” his weapon. That doesn’t address why the officers were there (carrying and brandishing is not a crime in Ohio), that doesn’t address why they approached him the way they did, and it doesn’t address why they prevented assistance from being provided after he was shot.

          The problem with saying the grand jury is the ultimate authority is that it basically says none of this conduct can be evaluated and no one can be held accountable for it, because the officers didn’t commit murder. If somebody broken into your house but a grand jury didn’t indict, that shouldn’t (and in cases not involving cops, doesn’t) exempt him from liability for causing harm.

          1. The problem with saying the grand jury is the ultimate authority is that it basically says none of this conduct can be evaluated and no one can be held accountable for it, because the officers didn’t commit murder.

            More clarification: the problem with saying this grand jury is the ultimate authority on all matters surrounding this event is that it basically says none of the conduct other than the shooting can be evaluated and no one can be held accountable for it, because the officers didn’t commit murder/manslaughter/negligent homicide by shooting him.

            1. Who is saying that the grand jury is the ultimate authority?

              They most certainly are not. Their only authority was that given them by the PROSECUTOR and the law, which was to determine whether to indict the officers based on the information provided them. Generally, the prosecutor controls a grand jury proceeding an what information is provided to them. The prosecutor can provide any evidence he or she wants.

              Failure of a grand jury to indict does not prevent a prosecutor or judge from conducting a preliminary hearing in which both sides can actually present evidence. Of course, if the prosecutor is on the defendant’s side, it is a sham and justice loses out. I am not sure what the procedure or remedy is when the prosecutor acts for the defense. I imagine it is appealable in some way. It’s not like this is the first time it happened.

          2. That doesn’t address why the officers were there (carrying and brandishing is not a crime in Ohio), that doesn’t address why they approached him the way they did,

            The officers (apparently) believed that lives were at risk, and the grand jury thought that that belief was reasonable. That’s all that matters as far as criminal charges are concerned. Self-defense isn’t required for the use of deadly force.

            exempt him from liability for causing harm

            All that happened is that they weren’t charged with homicide. They aren’t “exempted from liability”; they may still be held responsible in civil court, and I hope they are.

            1. The officers (apparently) believed that lives were at risk

              Except when first questioned after the shooting occurred.

              they may still be held responsible in civil court

              “Qualified immunity”

              1. “Qualified immunity”

                I assumed you were capable of figuring out what “they may still be held responsible in civil court” actually means. Apparently not.

            2. RE: Civil Court.

              The law allows us to file suits against a person or entity for damages suffered that are not otherwise punishable as a crime, regardless of whether criminal charges were filed. However, suing for a violation of civil rights is pure BS and contrary to the Constitution. We cannot sue someone for breaking the law over which the government has sole jurisdiction.

              Upon what would the family of Tamir file suit against the officers? On the other hand, they most certainly can file suit against the police department for various reasons.

        2. The 14th Amendment makes it a national issue, whether you like it or not.

          Given that we have about a thousand of these cases a year and police keep not getting convicted, these kinds of cases don’t seem to be a 14th Amendment issue.

          But none of that addresses the lack of legal accountability for the officers in question.

          Accountability for what? You seem to want the law to be such that you can only shoot people if they aim an actual gun at you, but that isn’t the law. Maybe it should be, I don’t know. But the law as it stands (roughly) allows both officers and civilians to use deadly force if they have a reasonable belief that that is necessary to save lives.

          1. You have thoroughly rewritten the course of events to suit your narrative and I’m getting tired of arguing about it. The officers acted recklessly, this ennoblement of their actions is entirely post-hoc.

            1. The officers acted recklessly, this ennoblement of their actions is entirely post-hoc.

              Stop bullshitting. I’m not “ennobling” the actions of the officers. I think they are incompetent, their actions are reprehensible, and they should be fired.

              I’m simply explaining to you why they weren’t indicted for murder under current law, since you seem to be too dumb to figure it out for yourself.

        3. How does the 14th Amendment make it a national issue?

          Just because a right or the deprivation of a right is covered under the constitution does not make it a federal case. If so than almost every felony case and even some misdemeanors would be a federal case.

      3. Where do you come up with Federal legislation, lawsuits or anything? Why would that even come up?

        The problem is a police officer who failed to follow police procedure and who failed to exercise due judgment and caused the death of Tamir Rice.

        Therefore, the remedy is apply already existing, long established laws and rules. The officer should be prosecuted for negligent homicide and filing a false police report. The other officer should be punished for filing a false police report and failure to follow procedures. If found guilty he should be fired because his actions resulted in the death of an innocent person.

        This is not a complicated issue as far as what needs to happen next. The only question is whether well-established laws and policies will be followed.

  71. A very similar thing happened in October to John Crawford at Walmart in Beavercreek Ohio. John picked up a BB gun as he walked around the store. A customer called 911 and said a man was waving a gun around and pointing it at people and some kids and it looks like he may have loaded it with bullets. The dispatch reports the latter as a fact. And this in a state where you can legally carry a gun loaded with bullets.

    The only part that was true is that John, while talking for a few minutes on his cell phone as he stood at the end of an isle in the pet section, pointed the pellet gun upward a few times for no apparent reason and no one was in the isle with him. Regardless, the death warrant issued. The cops came in looking for a gunman threatening to shoot people. When the startled 22 year old didn’t immediately comply with the officers commands he was shot dead.

    It didn’t matter that Walmart sells guns, or that you are allowed to openly carry a loaded gun, or that no one in the store was excited or acting distressed, or that the man reporting the incident was not excited or distressed, or that John was talking on his cell phone, or that he didn’t point his pellet gun at them, or that there was only one 911 call. Nope. It only mattered that someone else had perceived threat a and therefore the officer were justified in perceiving a threat, without any consideration that it might be false or less than factual.

    It only matters what the officer perceives.

  72. If it only matters what you perceive and circumstance are irrelevant, then does it only matter what we perceive if officers come to our house, knock on our door, and while waiting rests a hand on the gun in their holsters, like some officers naturally do, and so we open the door and shoot them because we perceive a threat?

    Does it matter if we perceive officers going door to door with weapons in hand as a threat and begin shooting them because we know if we don’t shoot first they will easily kill us?

    Of course not. It’s nothing short of a plain lie to say only the officer’s perception matters.

  73. Imagine

    “The Negro minority, the largest and most violent minority, … presents the United States with a problem which seems beyond solution.” -Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (1981)

    Imagine yourself a police officer ? whether Caucasian, Latino, Negro, or Oriental ? assigned to a largely Negroid neighborhood in a big city. Violence reigns supreme.

    Imagine being called to investigate yet another violent situation, entering into a context where you are hated even though you represent the thin, blue line between any semblance of civil order and total mayhem.

    Imagine having to make a split-second decision whether to defend your own life then, if you do, having to defend yourself publicly while being attacked by demagogues on Big Media then by avaricious lawyers in the courtroom.

    Wilmot Robertson was wrong. There is a solution. Shall we employ it? Fat chance!

    See “Truth & Consequences” under …
    http://nationonfire.com/category/context/page/2/ .

    1. Rice’s skin color is not relevant to this shooting, either for the purposes of drumming up sympathy or for you to pimp your racist bullshit.

    2. And this narrative bullshit needs to die. The cities are no more being held back by the insidious influence of non-black or non-progressive government than they are teetering on the edge of utter chaos if not for the guiding hand of the thin blue line. You’re an employee, not a crusader.

  74. Even if there exists a problem of abuse by police, there still exist “good shoots”. It takes a very ideological read on the facts to suggest that this one wasn’t one of them. The 195-lb adult-sized boy, pointing his apparent firearm at people all around, then reaching for it as police arrive.

    I don’t think it is fair in this case to say that the legal standard “tilts the scales of justice so decisively”. If a civilian concealed-carrier was near the 195-lb adult-sized boy waving his gun around, he could be justified in shooting that person, no less than a police officer would have been.

    1. The difference between the pedestrians Rice was pointing at and the cops who shot him is that the latter had a choice in being there, in terms of how they interacted with him and how close they got to him. Again, given the circumstances, the shooting may be justified, but it would also take a “very ideological read” to pretend that the circumstances weren’t, in part, under the officers’ control.

      It also does not absolve them of their conduct after the shooting.

      1. I agree that the circumstances were, in part, under the officers’ control. They probably could/should have approached differently. But still, even that relatively aggressive approach does not negate the justifiability of the shooting. (Similarly, in the Zimmerman/Martin case, the fact that the former at one point followed the latter does not mean that later, during the fistfight initiated by Martin, the former was unjustified in shooting the latter.)

        “It also does not absolve them of their conduct after the shooting.”

        Absolutely correct. (I’m not aware of any poor conduct after the shooting in this case; was there some?)

        1. They did not seek medical assistance for Rice, and they prevented his sister from assisting him.

  75. By the way, use of that babyfaced ancient photo of the 195-lb adult-sized boy is fraudulent misrepresentation – just like Trayvon Martin’s babyfaced ancient photos were.

    1. I agree. Either show the persons involved as they appeared when the events transpired, or else don’t show them.

  76. What pisses me off about this whole case (in addition to the “license to kill” mentality of police) is the efforts of the Left to turn this into solely a race issue.

    The problem in this case is a total breakdown (or outright absence) of mechanisms that hold police accountable for their actions. Until someone invents a mind-reading device, the accusations of racism are purely speculative, and even if it were proven that this cop was acting on racist thoughts, the racism would be a secondary injustice that pales in comparison to the primary injustice – the murder of a 12-year old kid.

    Whenever I hear someone fixated on the racial element of situations like these, I always want to ask: if the cops started shooting more white people, would it be OK? It’s plain to see that this would still be “not OK” (in Robby Soave’s words) because you’d still have cops murdering people who were posing no threat.

    People of any race can be, and are, murdered by cops. This is something on which people of all races should be united as citizens who want their government officials held accountable, but it has been turned into a black-vs-white conflict.

  77. you’d still have cops murdering people who were posing no threat.

    You also have civilians killing people who pose no threat. The criteria for the use of deadly force, for both civilians and cops, are whether you have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary, not whether people actually posed a threat.

    Whenever I hear someone fixated on the racial element of situations like these, I always want to ask: if the cops started shooting more white people, would it be OK?

    To put this into perspective, cops shoot people of different races roughly proportional to crime rates. In addition, the number of police killings where the victim may have been innocent is maybe a couple of dozen a year; given a million police officers, that’s lower than the national homicide rate.

    1. In addition, the number of police killings where the victim may have been innocent is maybe a couple of dozen a year; given a million police officers, that’s lower than the national homicide rate.

      Well, I would fucking hope so.

      Cops, they probably don’t commit that many murders on duty.

      Jesus Christ.

      1. You’re really like the typical whiny progressive: if you think things aren’t perfect you think someone ought to do something.

        Cleveland is 2nd in the country in rape, 7th in the country in violent crime, and 15th in the country in murder. Given those statistics, the people of Cleveland may be quite rational wanting their police to be aggressive and to shoot first and ask questions later, given that their risk of getting killed by criminals is much higher than getting killed by bad policing.

        But, hey, don’t let that stop you telling them what to do from the safety of your home!

  78. I wonder will there be some justice for Tyshawn Lee killed by gangs in Chicago and Houston anchorman Len Cannon did a good rant on this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZOhWh-nNYk

  79. Nonsense! Tamir Rice received justice, but the Black Lies Matter community does not accept it. “The grand jury declined to bring criminal charges against Cleveland police” because there is insufficient evidence the police did anything wrong or illegal. This is how justice works in America. Where is the proof of wrong doing?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.