TAMIR RICE, 12 -- KILLED BY CLEVELAND POLICE

[HairOfTheDog]

Investigative Report Release Today

There's a lot of pressure for movement in the case.

Prosecutor McGinty today released the Sheriff's investigative report, to demonstrate transparency to the community and to the public at large.

The report does not include conclusions; it reports the facts gathered and the witness accounts only. The Grand Jury will determine whether criminal charges are justified. INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (six PDFs): http://prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us/en-u...-Rice.aspx

Some takeaways from the investigative report:
- Investigators noted that Tamir was in a 6-person special ed sixth-grade class. He was big for his age and the officers thought he was older. Witnesses who were interviewed told investigators that Tamir carried himself as a child, was prone to exaggeration, and was sometimes picked on by other kids at the rec center.

- The boy who gave Tamir the airsoft earlier in the day did so in trade for a cell phone. They were gonna trade back later. The boy was a neighbor and had taken the airsoft gun apart earlier but told investigators that he didn't know how to put the orange cap back on. He says he told Tamir to be careful.

- The off-duty FBI agent who finally rendered first aid to Tamir when he arrived on the scene four minutes after the shooting told investigators that Officers Loehmann and Garmback had not rendered aid; the agent said they seemed shell-shocked and like they didn't know what to do.

- The FBI agent said Tamir was alive and told him his name and mumbled something about the gun while he was still conscious (he died at the hospital the next morning).

- The FBI agent said that Loehmann told him "he had no choice" and that he'd told Tamir to freeze and drop the gun several times before shooting. Loehmann sprained his ankle at the scene.

- Three witness said they heard 2 or 3 shots; none of them said they heard the officers tell Tamir to freeze or put his hands up before the shots, but one said that he heard the officer scream for Tamir to freeze after the shots were fired. Tamir was hit once.

- Sheriff's detectives wrote that from witness interviews it was unclear if Loehmann shouted anything to Tamir from inside the cruiser before opening fire within 2 seconds of rolling up and shooting Tamir at a range between 4 ¹⁄₂ and 7 feet, and that the video appeared to show Tamir made a motion for his waistband before the shots.

- Officers Loehmann and Garmback refused to be interviewed by investigators.

[HairOfTheDog]

Hard to believe that Loehmann could have shouted anything audible 3 times in under two seconds.

We already know from the video and subsequent reports that Tamir was never holding the gun in the cops' presence.

So, why would Loehmann scream "drop the weapon!" like he claimed to the FBI agent? And, if he did in fact scream "drop the weapon!", how the hell did he expect Tamir to drop it without first reaching into his waistband to retrieve it?

Makes no sense unless Loehmann failed to assess the situation and wrongly assumed that Tamir was holding a gun in his hand, shouted a command that didn't apply, and then shot the kid when the kid went to do exactly as he was instructed.

In any case, those cops never should have been on top of Tamir in that situation when they had so many better approach options. They can blame the "slippery grass", but that wasn't Tamir's doing, it was their negligence in failing to assess the environment.

[HairOfTheDog]

I just read the interview with the FBI agent in the investigative report linked above, PDF 2.

A couple of the media recaps mixed a couple of things, I believe.

-The FBI Agent actually told investigators that Officer Loehmann mumbled that he told Tamir something like "show your hands" three times.

-It was the Cleveland PD's report which indicated that Loehmann stated he told Tamir to "drop the weapon" three times.

[Duchess]

Wow. Refused to be interviewed by investigators. I view that differently than I do when a suspect refuses to be interviewed. They are cops FFS, they should be compelled to tell their side of the story.

[Midwest Spy]

I am coming around to HotD's and Duchess' viewpoint on this, the only thing that holds me back is seeing the video of Tamir pointing his gun at passersby.

Someone calling that in to 911 and having it relayed to police would lead me to believe that yes, cops in that situation may shoot first and ask questions later. Is that wrong? In this case, yes.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationw...story.html


Prosecutors investigating the death of a 12-year-old black boy who was fatally shot by a white Cleveland police officer say they are just trying to be transparent in seeking and sharing outside reviews by experts in use of force. A lawyer for the boy's family, however, says the outside reports finding that the shooting was justified show that prosecutors are avoiding accountability.

The reports were released Saturday night by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, which asked for the outside reviews as it presents evidence to a grand jury that will ultimately determine whether Timothy Loehmann will be charged in the November death of Tamir Rice, who was holding a pellet gun.

A retired FBI agent and a Denver prosecutor both found the rookie patrol officer who shot Tamir moments after pulling up beside him exercised a reasonable use of force because he had reason to perceive the boy — described in a 911 call as man waving and pointing a gun — as a serious threat.

"We are not reaching any conclusions from these reports," Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty said in a statement. "The gathering of evidence continues, and the grand jury will evaluate it all."

He said the reports, which included a technical reconstruction by the Ohio State Highway Patrol, were released in the interest of being "as public and transparent as possible."

Subodh Chandra, a lawyer for the Rice family, said the release of the reports shows the prosecutor is avoiding accountability, which is what the family seeks.

"It is now obvious that the prosecutor's office has been on a 12-month quest to avoid providing that accountability," he said. He added that the prosecutor's office didn't provide his office or the Rice family with the details from the reports. He also questioned the timing of the release, at 8 p.m. Saturday on the Columbus Day holiday weekend.

"To get so-called experts to assist in the whitewash — when the world has the video of what happened — is all the more alarming," Chandra said. "Who will speak for Tamir before the grand jury? Not the prosecutor, apparently."

The killing of Tamir has become part of a national outcry about minorities, especially black boys and men, dying during encounters with police.

Both experts were provided with surveillance video of the shooting that showed Loehmann firing at Tamir within two seconds after the police cruiser driven by his partner pulled up next to the boy. Police say the officers were responding to a call about a man with a gun, but were not told the caller said the gun could be a fake and the man an adolescent.

The report prepared by retired FBI agent Kimberly A. Crawford concluded that Loehmann's use of force did not violate Tamir's constitutional rights, saying the only facts relevant to such a determination are those the patrolman had at the time he fired his weapon.

Loehmann, she wrote, "had no information to suggest the weapon was anything but a real handgun, and the speed with which the confrontation progressed would not give the officer time to focus on the weapon."

"It is my conclusion that Officer Loehmann's use of deadly force falls within the realm of reasonableness under the dictates of the Fourth Amendment," Crawford wrote, though she noted she was not issuing an opinion as to whether Loehmann violated Ohio law or department policy.

Lamar Sims, the chief deputy district attorney in Denver, also concluded that Loehmann's actions were reasonable based on statements from witnesses and the reconstruction.

Sims said the officers had no idea if the pellet gun was a real gun when they arrived, and that Loehmann was in a position of great peril because he was within feet of Tamir as the boy approached the cruiser and reached toward his waistband.

"The officers did not create the violent situation," Sims wrote. "They were responding to a situation fraught with the potential for violence to citizens."

Chandra, the Rice family lawyer, says the experts "dodge the simple fact that the officers rushed Tamir and shot him immediately without assessing the situation in the least. Reasonable jurors could find that conduct unreasonable. But they will never get the chance because the prosecutor is working diligently to ensure that there is no indictment and no accountability."

The pellet gun Tamir was holding shoots non-lethal plastic projectiles but its orange markings had been removed.

[HairOfTheDog]

Thanks for the update Six.

I don't think anyone questions that police shooting someone thought to be an adult waving a real gun with people all around is reasonable, if the gun-waver fails to drop the weapon or put up his hands on request. That was the original police false narrative, from which they retracted when the surveillance video showed otherwise.

I wish the parts of the reports released to media had addressed the issues of assessment, approach, and warning. The portions of the two particular reports selected for release seem to indirectly put the responsibility on the (now resigned) 911 dispatcher for failing to relay that the male could be a junvenile with a toy.

To me, that does not explain the fact that the officers rolled right up on Tamir when it was obvious that they were not approaching an "active shooting in progress" and there were no civilians near Tamir. Police reps lied at first and said the officers essentially decided to rush in because Tamir was around a group of people brandishing the weapon, then blamed it on wet grass when surveillance contradicted that false narrative.

I also wish the report addressed what commands (if any) the experts believe the responding officers could have reasonably and clearly given Tamir from a rolling car in the less than 2 seconds before they shot him.

Hopefully, the full independent investigations solicited by the prosecution addressed all of those key issues. If so, the prosecutor chose not to release those portions of the reports to the media at this time, so again we wait. This has been dragged out a long time.

Anyway, if the grand jury fails to indict based on the information presented to them by the prosecution, then a wrongful death verdict from a civil jury will be the only recourse for the family. I believe the family wants both a criminal conviction and civil award.

[Duchess]

I don't agree with their findings and I think it's fucked up.

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't agree with their findings and I think it's fucked up.

I don't think their findings will all but determine the Grand Jury's decision if the Grand Jury is presented with the surveillance video and asks for information about the rapid approach and almost immediate shooting.

The two experts' conclusions are not in regards to whether the officers broke Ohio law or Cleveland PD policy. They are only in relation to the Constitutionality of the officers' actions, it turns out. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/...-continues

So, one year later, and it took two experts to essentially conclude, "under the 4^th Amendment people who reasonably fear that lives are in jeopardy are justified in using lethal force against the perceived threat, and these two officers had reason to believe Tamir Rice presented a threat to their lives based on what the 911 dispatcher told them." Well, no shit. But, that's only part of the picture.

I believe the Grand Jury will also consider whether the officers should have been on top of Tamir Rice so quickly and what, if any, commands were given. They might come to the conclusion that the shooting was justified given the full context and that no action should be taken against the officers, but I don't think that's a given.

Anyway, I understand the frustration of the family and its lawyer... “These supposed ‘experts’ – all pro-police – dodge the simple fact that the officers rushed Tamir and shot him immediately without assessing the situation.”

Prosecutor McGinty said the report were released in the interests of being “as public and transparent as possible”. But, he also criticized Officers Loehmann and Garmback for refusing to co-operate with investigators and “needlessly delaying the process of justice”.

[username]

I was disgusted reading about that this morning. I hope there's justice for that kid and his family down the road.

[Duchess]

Why wouldn't they take into account the no reaction time? It's real and it happened. That kid didn't have a nano second to comply, NO ONE would have had a split second to comply. This is bullshit.

[Midwest Spy]

Hindsight is 20/20.

We've all seen the video of Tamir standing on a sidewalk pointing a gun at people as they pass him by.

He put himself in a position to be shot by police, IMO, because he posed a threat to public safety.

At the time no one knew it was a fake gun, and no one knew he was just 12.

The dispatcher didn't pass along the warning from the eyewitness that it may be a fake gun.

However, IMO, if it turns out not to be fake, and someone ends up getting shot, the police are criticized for not reacting fast enough.

Tamir put himself in a bad situation, and ended up with the worst possible result.

[HairOfTheDog]

Hindsight has nothing to do with it unless you're suggesting that the two responding officers were blind when they arrived at the park.

Do you acknowledge that police have a responsibility to assess the situation and respond appropriately to a 911 dispatch?

When the responding officers got to the park, Tamir was sitting ALONE with no one else in sight, he was not waving or brandishing a gun, and he did not try to elude police. He was just sitting there in the gazebo posing no immediate threat to anyone, and the officers were not responding to a 'shots fired' or 'shooting in progress' call or anything like that.

The officers know their incompetence put them in the unreasonable position of reasonably fearing for their lives (regardless of the fact that they couldn't have known Tamir's age or the fact that he had only a pellet gun on him).

That's why they lied and said the gun was on the table and there were people around Tamir when they got there. That's why they blamed "wet grass" for wrongly rushing him when the video revealed they were lying. That's why they refuse to cooperate with investigators. That's why I think there's little doubt the family will prevail in a civil liability case.

Still, those two cops should not only be held liable civilly, they should not be put back on public patrol. I think they present a danger to the pubic they swore to protect; I think it's clear that Tamir Rice is dead due to the gross incompetence of two Cleveland PD officers.

[Duchess]

Hindsight is 20/20.

We've all seen the video of Tamir standing on a sidewalk pointing a gun at people as they pass him by.

He put himself in a position to be shot by police, IMO, because he posed a threat to public safety.

At the time no one knew it was a fake gun, and no one knew he was just 12.

The dispatcher didn't pass along the warning from the eyewitness that it may be a fake gun.

However, IMO, if it turns out not to be fake, and someone ends up getting shot, the police are criticized for not reacting fast enough.

Tamir put himself in a bad situation, and ended up with the worst possible result.

I'm not at all surprised you would defend the actions of two incompetent police officers. Is this the same kid you thought would be better off dead so he didn't have the opportunity to grow into a thug or is this a different case?

[Midwest Spy]

It's the same case Duchess.

And it would seem I'm not the only person with the viewpoint I expressed.

[HairOfTheDog]

Who else said that killing a black kid for waving a toy gun in the park is a good thing for society because he would obviously grow up to be a thug, MS?

[Midwest Spy]

Who else said that killing a black kid for waving a toy gun in the park is a good thing for society because he would obviously grow up to be a thug, MS?

I was talking about my recent statement that I wouldn't prosecute the officers.

[HairOfTheDog]

I was talking about my recent statement that I wouldn't prosecute the officers.

Would you fire them for failing to assess the situation - which at least contributed to the death of a child - and then lying about it to cover their asses?

[Duchess]

Lying to their superiors should be reason enough to fire their junky asses.

[Midwest Spy]

Lying to their superiors should be reason enough to fire their junky asses.

I agree with this statement.