Cleveland grand jury

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Declines to indict cops who shot Tamir rice

How long before the looting for justice starts

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Jamisjockey]

Declines to indict cops who shot Tamir rice

How long before the looting for justice starts

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Damn I was hoping to rush out and point realistic looking airsoft guns at police with impunity.  Now I can't.

Oh and moving this.

[lupinus]

But but

babydindonuffin

[Hawkmoon]

Idiocy will never end. From one of the articles: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tamir-rice-grand-jury-lets-cops-off-without-charges/

Assistant Prosecutor Matthew Meyer said it was "extremely difficult" to tell the difference between the fake gun and a real one, since the orange tip had been removed. And he said Tamir was big for his age - 5-foot-7 and 175 pounds, with a men's XL jacket and size-36 pants - and could have easily passed for someone much older.

Before police arrived, the youngster was seen repeatedly drawing the gun from his waistband and pointing it at other children, Meyer said.

"There have been lessons learned already. It should never happen again, and the city has taken steps so it doesn't," McGinty said.

Among other things, the Cleveland police department is putting dashboard cameras in every car and equipping officers with bodycams.

I'm 6'-1" and 235 pounds. I wear an XL jacket. On somebody standing 5'-7" and weighing 175 that jacket must have been down to his knees, and his hands were probably 4 inches up into the sleeves.

I'd like to know how dash cams and body cams are going to ensure that the same thing can't happen again. I remember watching the video. The cop jumped out of the car and started shooting basically immediately. There was no audio, but it didn't seem like there was even any time for a "Stop and raise your hands" command to have been issued. I'll have to watch it again to see if it "clearly" shows the kid reaching for something in his waistband. I don't remember that part.

And I also wonder why the second officer was even considered for indictment. All he did was drive the car. If anyone should be considered for any sort of charges, IMHO it's the dispatcher who failed to communicate all the known facts to the responding patrol officers.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Idiocy will never end. From one of the articles: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tamir-rice-grand-jury-lets-cops-off-without-charges/

I'm 6'-1" and 235 pounds. I wear an XL jacket. On somebody standing 5'-7" and weighing 175 that jacket must have been down to his knees, and his hands were probably 4 inches up into the sleeves.

I'd like to know how dash cams and body cams are going to ensure that the same thing can't happen again. I remember watching the video. The cop jumped out of the car and started shooting basically immediately. There was no audio, but it didn't seem like there was even any time for a "Stop and raise your hands" command to have been issued. I'll have to watch it again to see if it "clearly" shows the kid reaching for something in his waistband. I don't remember that part.

And I also wonder why the second officer was even considered for indictment. All he did was drive the car. If anyone should be considered for any sort of charges, IMHO it's the dispatcher who failed to communicate all the known facts to the responding patrol officers.

Kid goes for the gun in his waistband

One of dumber moves I have seen

Damn I was hoping to rush out and point realistic looking airsoft guns at police with impunity.  Now I can't.

Oh and moving this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Hawkmoon]

I just watched the video again. It was too grainy and jerky IMHO to show anything "clearly." I couldn't see what the kid did or didn't do. All I saw was the cop car pulled up to within inches of the kid, the passenger jumped out and started shooting.

My first question is why the cops didn't stop some distance away, to give them some space and time to assess and react.

Then, of course, there's the dispatcher who didn't relay all the information available.

And the kid himself, who may indeed have reached for (or toward) a gun in his waistband.

All in all, there was plenty of stupidity to go around with this incident.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Not really an "independent" investigation. Same DA that works seamlessly with the PD. I've already heard / read where said DA might as well been and advocate for the officer in the grand jury process.

And speaking to the shooter, the cop I mean. Why would this guy be allowed near a badge
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-cleveland-tamir-rice-timothy-loehmann-20141203-story.html

[T.O.M.]

I'm in Ohio (not Cleveland area).  Calm so far.  I don't think there will be any serious unrest right now.  Getting to (finally) be winter outside.  43 in Cleveland now, and falling into the 30s.  Nothing slows the mobs like cold weather.

[KD5NRH]

My first question is why the cops didn't stop some distance away, to give them some space and time to assess and react.

If he didn't have it visible when they pulled in, they probably didn't immediately class him as the suspect, and were going to ask him where the guy with the gun was.  By the time he pulled it, they were committed to the close approach.

[T.O.M.]

I just watched the video again. It was too grainy and jerky IMHO to show anything "clearly." I couldn't see what the kid did or didn't do. All I saw was the cop car pulled up to within inches of the kid, the passenger jumped out and started shooting.

My first question is why the cops didn't stop some distance away, to give them some space and time to assess and react.

Just heard some people discussing this issue, and they referred me to this article...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/28/tamir_rice_s_death_didn_t_lead_to_indictments_because_of_supreme_court_vagueness.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_ru

Summary:  What if an officer's use of deadly force was justified, but only because the office made a bad/poor decision which led to the need for deadly force.  In this case, officers responding to an armed man call drive right up on top of the suspect.  I think we'd all agree, dumb tactics.  And this poor decision put the officer in a position where (arguably) shots were justified.  

The resulting question in the hallway, and perhaps in the overall discussion, is whether there should be legislation enacted which creates a criminal prohibition on an officer creating a deadly force situation?  An example that comes to mind: an officer reaches into a car to try and shut it off, only to be dragged, and then shoots the driver out of fear for his own safety.  Officer created the situation by reaching into the car, so the resulting shooting cannot be deemed justified.  In Cleveland, the officers drove right up on the subject, so the resulting shooting (as it happened) could lose its justification.

It's an interesting concept, and not one completely foreign under the law.  A person in many circumstances loses the claim of self-defense if their actions led to the situation which led to the need for the use of force (i.e. an attacker cannot claim self-defense if the victim fights back).  Perhaps extend this legal concept to LEOs, taking into account the balancing need for officers to be put into hazardous situations as is inherent with the job with the burden on officers to also make decisions in the moment without the benefit of hindsight, instant replay, and computer enhanced videos.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Just heard some people discussing this issue, and they referred me to this article...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/28/tamir_rice_s_death_didn_t_lead_to_indictments_because_of_supreme_court_vagueness.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_ru

Summary:  What if an officer's use of deadly force was justified, but only because the office made a bad/poor decision which led to the need for deadly force.  In this case, officers responding to an armed man call drive right up on top of the suspect.  I think we'd all agree, dumb tactics.  And this poor decision put the officer in a position where (arguably) shots were justified.  

The resulting question in the hallway, and perhaps in the overall discussion, is whether there should be legislation enacted which creates a criminal prohibition on an officer creating a deadly force situation?  An example that comes to mind: an officer reaches into a car to try and shut it off, only to be dragged, and then shoots the driver out of fear for his own safety.  Officer created the situation by reaching into the car, so the resulting shooting cannot be deemed justified.  In Cleveland, the officers drove right up on the subject, so the resulting shooting (as it happened) could lose its justification.

It's an interesting concept, and not one completely foreign under the law.  A person in many circumstances loses the claim of self-defense if their actions led to the situation which led to the need for the use of force (i.e. an attacker cannot claim self-defense if the victim fights back).  Perhaps extend this legal concept to LEOs, taking into account the balancing need for officers to be put into hazardous situations as is inherent with the job with the burden on officers to also make decisions in the moment without the benefit of hindsight, instant replay, and computer enhanced videos.

Agreed. But why did this asshat have a badge in the first place?  His employment record stinks.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Protests starting.

[De Selby]

This is also a very important point for citizens and self defence.  You rarely know what the profile of the person you shoot is going to be.  Even in castle doctrine shootings, it makes a difference if the deceased is a 40 year old addict with 20 rape convictions versus the local high school football captain.  If it turns out to be a minor, people are going to ask extremely hard questions about just what the hell happened.

[T.O.M.]

This is also a very important point for citizens and self defence.  You rarely know what the profile of the person you shoot is going to be.  Even in castle doctrine shootings, it makes a difference if the deceased is a 40 year old addict with 20 rape convictions versus the local high school football captain.  If it turns out to be a minor, people are going to ask extremely hard questions about just what the hell happened.

Agreed.  Not necessarily fair, but agreed.  Same will go for the armed citizen.  Skeletons long thought  buried will be dug out of the closet. 

[cordex]

Summary:  What if an officer's use of deadly force was justified, but only because the office made a bad/poor decision which led to the need for deadly force.  In this case, officers responding to an armed man call drive right up on top of the suspect.  I think we'd all agree, dumb tactics.  And this poor decision put the officer in a position where (arguably) shots were justified. 

In this particular case, the driver appears to have made the poor tactical decision and the passenger reacted to it.  That muddies it just a little more.

The resulting question in the hallway, and perhaps in the overall discussion, is whether there should be legislation enacted which creates a criminal prohibition on an officer creating a deadly force situation?

It would be interesting to see how such a law would impact enforcement activities in general.  For instance, on the plus side wouldn't it entirely eliminate no-knock raids and high-speed pursuits?  From a rank-and-file standpoint I imagine it would result in a lot more "Unable to Locate" responses to calls and refusal to address dangerous situations for fear of facing criminal charges for every slip-up.

Perhaps extend this legal concept to LEOs, taking into account the balancing need for officers to be put into hazardous situations as is inherent with the job with the burden on officers to also make decisions in the moment without the benefit of hindsight, instant replay, and computer enhanced videos.

That would be a very tricky balance to strike.

[Mannlicher]

Bad things happen to good people.   Bad things also happen to bad people.  In this case, there is not enough clear evidence to really make a case against the officers.  You can arm chair quarterback all day long,  but not a one of us has even as much evidence as the GJ looked at.
Predisposed opinions are the meat in this sandwich. 

[MechAg94]

I would agree with Chris to a point.  There have been cases where plain clothes officers have shot people or done a raid where the victim had no idea it was police that were coming at him.  

It must be balanced with the fact that we expect police to put themselves in potentially dangerous situations.  We have to be careful not to start drawing too many arbitrary lines that they can't cross.  There should not be too fine of a line between "good job" and "dragged into court on charges". 

[MechAg94]

Thinking about that, I hear people in media complaining that cops often have trouble controlling suspects and laugh that is takes multiple cops to take down one guy or sometimes one kid.  They forget that is often the case because we don't let the cops beat the hell out of them first and will quickly press charges on the cops if they are even a little rough.  We expect them to be able to take down a drugged up criminal, but then expect them to stand on eggshells in other circumstances. 

[MikeB]

From a dispassionate reading of various news reports this certainly isn't a good shoot, but it doesn't appear to be a criminal one either. Mistakes were made all around by 911 operators, the officers and yes Tamir himself.

The real problem with this shooting and many others is that instead of a much needed review of policies that lead to these things happening, it will continue to be treated as a race thing. The fact is we have a lot of LEO interactions with all races that end up with officers being to quick to shoot or escalate violence. It has been created by courts not holding officers accountable, unions protecting bad cops, the thin blue line, the escalation of the war on drugs, even the so called militarization of Police is part of the problem. Of course in a lot of cases instead of common ground the left, right, and race warriors come at it all from different directions instead of saying we all have a problem we need to fix.

[MechAg94]

I would also add guilt to the race baiters who claim racism and brutality when the cops did everything right.  (Michael Brown)  When you cry wolf all the time, fewer people take you seriously when something actually bad happens. 

[KD5NRH]

We expect them to be able to take down a drugged up criminal, but then expect them to stand on eggshells in other circumstances.

This is why I like working with my aikido sensei; he makes a clear distinction between pain compliance and structural compliance, for both controls and takedowns.  You may be drugged up enough to ignore every painful thing that can be thought up to control you, put/keep you on the ground, and/or get you properly handcuffed, but you still don't get a pass on the laws of physics.  If you still manage to resist through structural failure (dislocating or breaking something so the structure changes enough to render the control ineffective) you're going to be less combat effective while the defender is picking a new approach.

[dogmush]

This is why I like working with my aikido sensei; he makes a clear distinction between pain compliance and structural compliance, for both controls and takedowns.  You may be drugged up enough to ignore every painful thing that can be thought up to control you, put/keep you on the ground, and/or get you properly handcuffed, but you still don't get a pass on the laws of physics.  If you still manage to resist through structural failure (dislocating or breaking something so the structure changes enough to render the control ineffective) you're going to be less combat effective while the defender is picking a new approach.

I also prefer structural control.  However, for better or worse, we have an environment that LEO's can't use it.  If a cop were to break an arm or destroy a joint (or more properly a suspect were to do it himself by resisting beyond the limits of his skeleton) that cop would be 100% crucified for excessive force.

So in the effort to save elbows, arms and shoulders we have forced cops to use techniques that don't work as well, and if they go bad go much worse.  Add to that most cops aren't exactly martial arts champions.

[KD5NRH]

I also prefer structural control.  However, for better or worse, we have an environment that LEO's can't use it.  If a cop were to break an arm or destroy a joint (or more properly a suspect were to do it himself by resisting beyond the limits of his skeleton) that cop would be 100% crucified for excessive force.

Ideally, with any resistance, you make it into a takedown and then focus on keeping the suspect on the ground until the cuffs are on and backup can help you with the trip to the car.

Watching a group of mostly 6+ degree black belts who were also active or retired LE sharing techniques and refining them at a conference was pretty impressive in terms of the ability to switch from a pain compliance to a clean, relatively soft takedown in a hurry.  The freakishly strong double jointed guy that a lot of locks just wouldn't work on, and who could resist a fair number of techniques got a lot of time as uke for everybody.

Add to that most cops aren't exactly martial arts champions.

This; his handcuffing and control techniques class has about as much mat time as we get for green belt, which for us just means you can play with the brown belts without sensei watching too closely.  Considering they don't get extensive ukemi, and focus on the less nasty takedowns, (The way we do at least aigame ate and ushiro ate would almost certainly KO if not kill an inexperienced uke on a hard surface, since without the breakfall, you're looking at an assisted fall straight back onto the back of the head.) they're probably a little better prepared for the specific stuff they need than our green belts, but nowhere near the level I'd want for any sort of actual fight, even if I had my opponent solidly overmatched in strength and speed.

[MechAg94]

I also prefer structural control.  However, for better or worse, we have an environment that LEO's can't use it.  If a cop were to break an arm or destroy a joint (or more properly a suspect were to do it himself by resisting beyond the limits of his skeleton) that cop would be 100% crucified for excessive force.

So in the effort to save elbows, arms and shoulders we have forced cops to use techniques that don't work as well, and if they go bad go much worse.  Add to that most cops aren't exactly martial arts champions.

The problem is that the same people who complaint the cops are laying hands on people will also complain about increased use of Tasers. 

[dogmush]

The problem is that the same people who complaint the cops are laying hands on people will also complain about increased use of Tasers. 

There's a vocal subset of Americans that are going to complain about ANY Law Enforcement, because their culture is predicated on breaking laws.  We need to ignore them, while not glossing over the actual issues with Law Enforcement in the US.

We should also call them out, publicly, at every opportunity.  In many ways the last 8 years of constant "conservitive=racist" is liberating. We can say whatever we want.  What are they going to call us, "Doubleplusracist"?