It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No indictment in Tamir Rice shooting says Cleveland prosecutor

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

So the police and the passers by, as well as the 911 operator should assume that the gun is not real based on who's expert opinion? I'm sure anyone in a police or combat situation is trained to treat any gun as a real threat. We are not talking about a toy gun here either, we are talking about an air pistol. They do look very real, especially at more than a two feet away on an overcast day. I'll paint this picture for you, this person pointed this "toy" at your child at the park, how would you react? This child pointed this toy at you after walking through your front door, how would you react? Now ask yourself how the police should respond rolling up on someone with a gun? Are they supposed to not feel threatened? What would happen if they assumed every gun possessed by any suspect was not real? By the way it is illegal to possess an air gun in a public place, and it is also illegal to point an air gun at someone. Per the law it is aiming a firearm at a human and is considered illegal in most if not all states. Air guns included. I was not saying liberal to you specifically by the way. The one time I saw my child point a toy gun at someone was at a friends house. I immediately said you never point a weapon at anybody. It doesn't matter if it is a toy or not. It has never happened again. As I said earlier the way the situation was handled by the police was not without fault, however we are talking about someone with a weapon in a public place.




posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Background on the officers.

This information seems to make their fitness for the work questionable. Your results may vary...


Timothy Loehmann

Loehmann, who fired the shots that killed Rice, joined Cleveland's police force in March 2014. In 2012, he had spent five months with the police department in Independence, about 13 miles (21 km) south of Cleveland, with four of those months spent in the police academy.

In a memo to Independence's human resources manager, released by the city in the aftermath of the shooting, Independence deputy police chief Jim Polak wrote that Loehmann had resigned rather than face certain termination due to concerns that he lacked the emotional stability to be a police officer.

Polak said that Loehmann was unable to follow "basic functions as instructed". He specifically cited a "dangerous loss of composure" that occurred in a weapons training exercise, during which Loehmann's weapons handling was "dismal" and he became visibly "distracted and weepy" as a result of relationship problems.

The memo concluded, "Individually, these events would not be considered major situations, but when taken together they show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions, I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies." It was subsequently revealed that Cleveland police officials never reviewed Loehmann's personnel file from Independence prior to hiring him.

Frank Garmback

Garmback, who was driving the police cruiser, has been a police officer in Cleveland since 2008. In 2014, the City of Cleveland paid US$100,000 to settle an excessive force lawsuit brought against him by a local woman; according to her lawsuit, Garmback "rushed and placed her in a chokehold, tackled her to the ground, twisted her wrist and began hitting her body" and "such reckless, wanton and willful excessive use of force proximately caused bodily injury". The woman had called the police to report a car blocking her driveway. The settlement does not appear in Garmback's personnel file.

Link



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AbbaCabba
So the police and the passers by, as well as the 911 operator should assume that the gun is not real based on who's expert opinion?


Lets just say the gun was real, does that mean he wanted to shoot? Was he in the act of a crime for the police to kill on sight within 1 second? Last time I looked I could walk down the street with a freaken M4 and not be committing a criminal act. This whole bullsh@t idea that a gun instantly means a death sentence when a gun is our right. You tell me as the cops pulled up what aggressive action did he do in 1 second for the cop to get out and shoot him?


I'm sure anyone in a police or combat situation is trained to treat any gun as a real threat. We are not talking about a toy gun here either, we are talking about an air pistol. They do look very real, especially at more than a two feet away on an overcast day.


It doesn't matter, the kid was not committing a crime by just standing there as the police pulled up, so having a gun in your hand real or not is not a reason to shoot someone within 1 second of the encounter. Do you not see why this is wrong?


I'll paint this picture for you, this person pointed this "toy" at your child at the park, how would you react? This child pointed this toy at you after walking through your front door, how would you react? Now ask yourself how the police should respond rolling up on someone with a gun? Are they supposed to not feel threatened? What would happen if they assumed every gun possessed by any suspect was not real? By the way it is illegal to possess an air gun in a public place, and it is also illegal to point an air gun at someone. Per the law it is aiming a firearm at a human and is considered illegal in most if not all states. Air guns included. I was not saying liberal to you specifically by the way. The one time I saw my child point a toy gun at someone was at a friends house. I immediately said you never point a weapon at anybody. It doesn't matter if it is a toy or not. It has never happened again. As I said earlier the way the situation was handled by the police was not without fault, however we are talking about someone with a weapon in a public place.


Boo hoo it doesn't matter they gave the kid no chance to do anything at all, that is my point, they pulled up and shot him without even a chance to see what was going on. The way police are acting is any hint of a gun is a death sentence no matter what.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Would your 12 yr old, 200 lb son,nephew, daughter,grandson etc. Be in a park in a Hoody pointing a replica of a hand gun at bystanders and then, when the Police show up, reach for the [insert your own rendition here] ?

My 7yr old niece knows better......




posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Having a gun in your possession as a minor is illegal. Having a gun in public is not illegal, what is illegal is pointing the firearm at someone. Once he did that he was in violation of the law. Pointing a gun at someone in a public place is showing perceived intent to cause bodily harm. Your argument does not dismiss these actions that took place and they also do not change the fact that the law was violated. As I said I'm not saying the officers could not have handled it better. What I am saying is he paid the price for violating the law and making poor decisions. It's very sad it happened, but it happened.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReadLeader
a reply to: Xtrozero

Would your 12 yr old, 200 lb son,nephew, daughter,grandson etc. Be in a park in a Hoody pointing a replica of a hand gun at bystanders and then, when the Police show up, reach for the [insert your own rendition here] ?

My 7yr old niece knows better......



12 years old 200 lbs? lol doesn't look a buck 50 in the video. Oh hoody is it then. The guy at the picnic table didn't look upset as he sat there watching the kid for a long while. The ONE passerby just walked, on not freaking, then the kid just sat all by himself at the table for a good while. As I said the cops didn't see this video so as they drove up all they saw was nothing but one kid by himself. Instead of driving up in the parking area they went skidding across the grass within about 10 feet of him and he took maybe a half step and nothing else and the one cop shot him within a second or less of opening his door.

Common dude....



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: AbbaCabba
Having a gun in your possession as a minor is illegal. Having a gun in public is not illegal, what is illegal is pointing the firearm at someone. Once he did that he was in violation of the law. Pointing a gun at someone in a public place is showing perceived intent to cause bodily harm. Your argument does not dismiss these actions that took place and they also do not change the fact that the law was violated. As I said I'm not saying the officers could not have handled it better. What I am saying is he paid the price for violating the law and making poor decisions. It's very sad it happened, but it happened.


Minors under 18 may not possess handguns without parental permission or authorized supervision...did they know he didn't have parental permission to shoot him for it? Did he actually point with perceived intent, the passer-by might have been laughing at him. The point is the cops knew nothing saw nothing but decided to kill within 1 second.


The cops had no clue he violated a law and when they showed up he was doing nothing at all. Who called the police? The passer-by just walked on and it is hard to say he was threatening when what I saw was him holding it down to his side and playing around with it as he did before, the passer-on sure didn't look threaten. Well I hope no one calls the police and says you are flashing a gun as you water your front yard, they just might shoot you with that hose in your hands with a mere second recondition.


As I said I'm not saying the officers could not have handled it better.


That is my point.... Their little "My Bad" incident is really reckless disregard for life and that is manslaughter.




edit on 28-12-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

So you're basically telling me when someone points a gun at someone it doesn't imply intent to inflict lethal harm? That is the sole purpose of pointing a gun at someone. The actions of the police do now cancel out the actions of the suspect in question. We you there? Do you know what was said? Do you know if the police gave orders prior to being seen on the surveillance footage? Obviously someone was concerned enough to call 911. If they were not that worried about it I'm sure they could of called the non emergency police number. I'm just guessing, but I suspect by your logic it is ok to roll through a stop sign if nobody is around. Breaking the law is breaking the law. There is no gray area. The gray area was created by individuals to explain and enable their poor judgment and bad behavior.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: AbbaCabba
So you're basically telling me when someone points a gun at someone it doesn't imply intent to inflict lethal harm?


You are assuming that was what he was doing, I saw him waving it around like he had been doing when no one was there. If the passer-by stopped put their hands up or ran then yes I would agree with you but the passer-by just walked on by...oh big threat.

But we are debating a video that the cops never saw and all they had to go on is a kid alone at some picnic tables doing nothing as they pulled up.


Where you there? Do you know what was said? Do you know if the police gave orders prior to being seen on the surveillance footage?


I wasn't there and the police were not there either, that is my point. As to whether they gave orders prior, they didn't, with their first encounter was the full second as the one cop shot. Do you have anything to suggest they were talking to the kid before they pulled up? The kid wasn't trying to run or anything he actually took a couple of steps in their direction as they pulled up, once again not doing anything.


I'm just guessing, but I suspect by your logic it is OK to roll through a stop sign if nobody is around. Breaking the law is breaking the law. There is no gray area. The gray area was created by individuals to explain and enable their poor judgment and bad behavior.


Should I be shot if I run a stop sign, or better yet should I be shot if someone told the police I ran a stop sign? My point is not whether the kid was right or wrong it was that the cops did not even determine anything before they killed him, and that my friend is reckless endangerment.

As a side note it seems the cops got all the info but that it is a kid and most likely a toy gun and that makes me think a part of this was made up to protect the cops due to their inexcusable failure.

edit on 28-12-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

That is my point. All these judgements are being based on assumptions. I never said you should be shot for running a stop sign. I said if you do it and nobody is there it is still breaking the law. What the kid was doing with an air pistol is breaking the law, period. Had he not been doing that, he would still be here. That is the point I am making. Do dumb s**t and pay the price. You can not wave a gun around in public and expect to walk away. Not in this day and age. That is the sad reality of the world we live in.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: AbbaCabba
What the kid was doing with an air pistol is breaking the law, period. Had he not been doing that, he would still be here. That is the point I am making.


I agree with you I really do, but I find it hard to see the cops driving up and within a second making the determination he was a threat as they shot him. They had no knowledge to what he did before other than what looks like a kid with a gun that is most likely a toy as what was reported to 911, well except they left the kid and toy part of.

If they had drove up and told the kid to drop it and the kid started to point it at them I'm 100% on their side, but in this case the kid didn't even have time to flinch, talk or hear any orders from them to not do them before he was killed. This would be like a cop takes a call to a family dispute and knocks on the door and as the husband opens the door the cop shoots him, because you know they said he might be violent. To me there is a line that a cop needs to walk with a part of it on the dangerous side to ensure he is doing the right thing. As I said before I could not just shoot everyone in Iraq that looked to be a threat, hell you know how many people walk around with AKs? We had to determine they were a threat before we engaged and for us that meant they shot first or they do not follow many attempts of ordering them to stop. I don't expect cops to wait until the bad guy shoots first but hell one second and BAM, that is not right.


edit on 29-12-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I think it is safe to say that the jury is privy to information that we are not. This was decided by the people of this nation and they made their decision after hearing all the available details. Had the cops handled things differently and someone was injured people would complain that they were not doing their job correctly. I have lived on this earth 40 years and never have I had any encounter with the police that could possibly lead to an escalated situation like this. I just feel that people take criminal behavior too lightly this day and age. Respect is not taught at home or in school anymore. People have no faith and if they do they are persecuted for believing. The breakdown of the family has spawned this disregard for life. Walk into your local Walmart and you'll see parents letting their kids run wild and act a fool. The world is filling up with morons. These little terrors grow up to be big aholes with a sense of entitlement that is obscene. Getting a good education is not a priority anymore and neither is staying out of trouble. You can blame the police or whoever else you want. The parents and the kid are to blame here. Had he not been there in a park with a gun pointing or waiving it this wouldn't have happened. I'm sure I would not want to take chances if I was a cop. I know I would want to make it home to my family at the end of my shift. I'm sorry, I just feel the kids actions are not excusable. The police didn't just show up and shoot someone. They responded to a 911 call regarding someone in a park with a gun.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: AbbaCabba
I'm sure I would not want to take chances if I was a cop.


Lol then park 100 feet away and put your car between him and you, then order him to drop the gun, get on the ground etc. I'm 55 and when I was a kid we would run around with BB guns and try to kill all the squirrels, yep we were some evil gangstas too.



I know I would want to make it home to my family at the end of my shift. I'm sorry, I just feel the kids actions are not excusable. The police didn't just show up and shoot someone. They responded to a 911 call regarding someone in a park with a gun.


Well they did just show up and shoot what else did they do within the one second? Remember it was a hung jury first so I can't say the evidence was in favor of the cops.



edit on 29-12-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join