The Tamir Rice Shooting.......no indictment

....
Somebody failed this kid. You probably do not have to look much further than his own Familly.

Any opinions? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Obama failed him. Along with the Demtard media. I like how Lebron, who has inserted himself into like situations in the past, is in the hot seat over this.

Where were his parents? Anybody know the answer?

Where were his parents? Anybody know the answer? Originally Posted by nwarounder

"parents" ....? You mean the people who "spawned" him?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Tami...HVokAREQsAQIGw

It's reported that "daddy" has a history of FAMILY VIOLENCE against WOMEN!!!



http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index...s_history.html

"Tamir Rice's father has history of domestic violence" ....

According to the article "mom" is having problems with "mate" selection ...

Sounds like YouRong's posting on here .... attacking women .. "axe" wound" pussies?

#1 I'll start with the obvious: Was this an "Army squad"? That doesn't change the fact that they did indeed respond just like the Army teaches!
#2 To make YOUR CRITICISM WORK you have to "assume" facts you don't know! The high ranking, long serving LE officers I know claim that the officers involved responded improperly to the call.
#3 Most (if not all) servicemembers find out that the "rules of engagement" from military training don't fit in policing. But you are willfully ignoring how the officers DID react just like the military teaches; hence, you make my point.
#4 Your "theory" IS "They put themselves ...." It's not a "theory" to look at the video and see that their "perp" was sitting at a picnic table and not putting any one's life in immediate jeopardy.

Your alleged military experience is irrelevant and your "FYI" assumes another fact that you believe exists (you "assume" you have to FYI me!), just like your lameass conclusion that one does not need to sign a warning ticket on a traffic stop. Your lame-ass needs to cite such a post, LL. And here's a FYI before you start searching, your lame-ass can't ... it doesn't exist.

These officers were not "ambushed" ... they were responding to a call of a person committing multiple aggravated assaults with the firearm! Wrong! They were responding to a call reporting "a guy" openly brandishing "a pistol" -- probably a fake. They were tasked with the responsibility of neutralizing the threat to the community by a person assaulting people with a firearm Wrong again! There was no report that anyone was "assaulted." ... and when they arrived to make contact with that person the officers were assaulted with a deadly weapon ..... FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE OFFICERS AT THE TIME. Their "perp" was sitting at a picnic table when they drove onto the scene, the "pistol" was stuck in Rice's belt, no one's life was in immediate jeopardy, and their perspective would have been significantly different if the officers had stopped 20 or 30 feet away from Rice.

And FYI .... POINTING A FIREARM AT A PERSON IS AN "ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON"! Wrong again! It was a 12 y/o with a toy.

You've done this before when you are struggling to be correct .... while sitting at the keyboard you modify facts and assume facts to fit your scenario. All of your "elements" to prove your point must be supported by the FACT that it was their intention to create an inevitable result...shooting. Wrong again! You'd be the one "modifying" the facts to fit your scenario with your bald face lies about what's been posted. There's no evidence that they "intended" to shoot anyone, but their imbecilic actions DID facilitate that event. And you're "modifying" "the facts" when you claim otherwise.

You cannot "assume" their intention to shoot the armed suspect when they were arriving at the scene. That's your straw man argument. No one argued that the officer premeditatedly planned to shoot Rice on arrival. Go back and read what was posted @ #2 before you reinsert your foot in your mouth, LL. And it appears from the video that was not their intent or they would have shot him as soon as the stepped from their unit. What "appearances", LL? The kid was shot within one second after the officer stepped out of his vehicle. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Tamir Rice was shot dead within ONE SECOND of police officers' arrival

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-arrival.html

.

One thing I will not allow you to avoid ... you are the one criticizing the actions taken by the police, not me. You have the burden to prove their actions were unreasonable. You have not done that .. and the prosecution obviously didn't do that in front of the grand jury after months .... So in order to attempt to make yourself look "correct" you cherry pick my statements like you are refuting my arguments ....

.. you should probably go back to revisit your original premise .. .based on ASSUMPTIONS!

A person coming at a police unit with a weapon in his hand is lucky if he doesn't get "shot" by the police and the police are usually unlucky if the person isn't shot.

Keep whining and fabricating. btw: How's the squad leader doing in training?

A person coming at a police unit with a weapon in his hand is lucky if he doesn't get "shot" by the police and the police are usually unlucky if the person isn't shot.

Keep whining and fabricating. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Either you didn't read post #2 or you don't comprehend what was actually posted at #2, because it is you who is "fabricating" a straw man argument, LL, and you just stuck your foot in your mouth ... again.

....you'll see that the cops responding to the call put their lives at risk by charging onto the scene.

....the cops charged onto the scene and put themselves in such close proximity that there was little recourse but for subsequent actions to play out as they did. The cops should have stood-off and evaluated the situation before making any moves. With proper scene analysis,


they may have noticed more than the "gun" and that they were dealing with a very young boy.


.....I do not understand why the cops unreasonably jeopardized their own lives by parking right next to the boy when there was no compelling reason to do so.

It came as no surprise to learn that the cop was an inexperienced rookie. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

One thing I will not allow you to avoid ... you are the one criticizing the actions taken by the police, not me. You have the burden to prove their actions were unreasonable. You have not done that .. and the prosecution obviously didn't do that in front of the grand jury after months .... So in order to attempt to make yourself look "correct" you cherry pick my statements like you are refuting my arguments ....

.. you should probably go back to revisit your original premise .. .based on ASSUMPTIONS!

A person coming at a police unit with a weapon in his hand is lucky if he doesn't get "shot" by the police and the police are usually unlucky if the person isn't shot.

Keep whining and fabricating. btw: How's the squad leader doing in training? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You don't like the answers because they don't 'fit" with your conclusions!!!!

That's fairly simple, even to someone like you.

But you do "not understand" and that's the answer!

You "understand" the "no bill," but ..... that's not good enough for you!

I'll repeat: When cops respond to any call in which a firearm ( or other deadly weapon is involved) they .... "put their lives at risk" in order to stop injury or death to others .... they are tasked with the responsibility to protect.

You have the audacity to criticize someone with 20-20 hindsight after months of being able to examine the information when the target of your criticism by your own admission had only ONE SECOND to make the decision......when the person forcing the decision was the one holding the firearm and approaching the police!!!!

You are a fool!

You don't like the answers because they don't 'fit" with your conclusions!!!!

That's fairly simple, even to someone like you.

But you do "not understand" and that's the answer!

You "understand" the "no bill," but ..... that's not good enough for you!

I'll repeat: When cops respond to any call in which a firearm ( or other deadly weapon is involved) they .... "put their lives at risk" in order to stop injury or death to others .... they are tasked with the responsibility to protect. Originally Posted by LexusLover

There's the "conclusion" I share with some high-ranking, veteran LE officer's that these two cops responded incorrectly to the call when they rolled up to within 10 ft of the "perp", and then there's your "opinion", LL. Your "opinion" is the least credible.

How to do it right

Experts in police field training point to a handful of shortcomings in the Tamir Rice case. Much of this criticism runs parallel with with the Justice Department's findings.

Thomas Aveni, executive director of the Police Policy Studies Council, and David Thomas, senior research fellow with the Police Foundation, said that well-established protocols underscore a handful of approaches police can take when dealing with armed suspects.

Experts said the way the officers approached Tamir by speeding the car up to him and stopping within feet of where the boy was standing was tactically unsound. When approaching someone who's either holding a gun or indicating that they have one, police are trained to first take cover at a safe distance and create a barrier between themselves and the other person. This usually means ducking behind the police cruiser or a building.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/how_police_are_trained_to_deal .html

"[O]fficers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback placed themselves in harm's way by driving within feet of Tamir and shooting him."

LE expert Jeffrey J. Noble found "It is my opinion the reckless tactical decision making by Officers Garmback and Loehmann created the danger that led to use of deadly force by Officer Loehmann and absent their reckless tactics it is likely that force would not have been necessary."

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/2015/...orts/76501920/

"Jeffrey J. Noble Deputy, Chief of Police - City of Irvine until 2012

Second in command of a progressive municipal department of over 200 sworn officers and 100 civilian employees and a budget of over $56 million. Oversees the Department's operations including Uniformed Patrol, Traffic, Investigations, Open Space Patrol, Great Park Patrol, Special Events, Emergency Management, Crime Prevention, Office of Professional Development, Crime Analysis, Crime Scene Investigations, Spectrum Officers, SWAT and Business Liaison Officers. Develops proactive strategies to address crime, disorder and community safety within the Department's mission, vision and values that sets a high standard for community involvement and for building community trust. Personally involved in labor relations including contract negotiations. Activily involved in policy development to ensure department and employee ethics, best practices and community service."

LE expert "Roger A. Clark, of Santee, California, has been a police procedures consultant since 1993. He's certified by the federal and state courts as an expert in jail and police procedures in federal and state courts. Clark's biography states that he has consulted in about 1,250 cases since his retirement from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.. He was with the department from December 1965 through March 1993."

It has been my opinion for years that there should be two psychological debriefing sessions for LE officers after a traumatic event, e.g. a shooting incident: The first session should be for those who were present during the event as it unfolded ... and the second session for those who were not present at any time before, during, or immediately after the event!

I'm not interested in the criticism of persons who were not involved. You can bury yourself in them, IB. Should I go find some who say otherwise to round off the debate?

As for "experts" .... I was informed one time by someone who knew that the only people who die of mushroom poisoning are mushroom experts.

Here is the flaw in YOUR EXPERT'S opinion, which is the same as in yours ....

.."the reckless tactical decision making".... like you "Expert" Deputy Chief Nobles of the "Irvine Police Department" also ASSUMES that the driver of the police unit made a "conscious, intentional decision" to park his unit next to the person with the pistol.

There is no evidence that it was an "intentional decision" to park his unit next to the person with the pistol.

In fact your "evidence" shows otherwise ...

..... the diagram showing the skid marks!

Skid marks left by a motor vehicle show an urgent, immediate decision to apply brakes to stop at a given location. So that shows no "tactical" decision to stop beside the potential shooter. #2 the dispatch reports informed LE that the person with the "gun" pointing it at people was in the swings ... which according to your diagram the patrol unit had passed already BEFORE APPLYING BRAKES .... #3 the video shows someone (not Rice) sitting at the same bench where the subject ended up sitting beneath the Gazebo and it is just as likely that as they approached the scene, saw no one in the swings, but someone at the bench and did not realize it was the subject, and turned toward the Gazebo to ask that person if they had seen where the subject had gone ...

... but when you, like others, desire a certain conclusion you paint the mosaic the way it fits your scenario .... all I'm doing is saying that you have "assumed' intention when the facts don't support it.

The question always exists ... if the officers had "stood off" and made a "scene analysis" while watching the man with the gun start shooting innocent citizens at the park .... what your "take" would be (or the "take" "Expert" Deputy Chief Nobles of the "Irvine Police Department") had innocent citizens at the park died because the officers DID NOT TIMELY RESPOND... but were assessing the situation to make a tactical decision! It's probably a good idea if Nobles remains a "Deputy Chief"!

Were you one of the "EXPERTS" who criticized President Bush on 911 when he hesitated for 18 seconds in front of the grade schoolers when he was informed of the attacks?

It has been my opinion for years that there should be two psychological debriefing sessions for LE officers after a traumatic event, e.g. a shooting incident: The first session should be for those who were present during the event as it unfolded ... and the second session for those who were not present at any time before, during, or immediately after the event!

I'm not interested in the criticism of persons who were not involved. You can bury yourself in them, IB. Should I go find some who say otherwise to round off the debate?

As for "experts" .... I was informed one time by someone who knew that the only people who die of mushroom poisoning are mushroom experts.

Here is the flaw in YOUR EXPERT'S opinion, which is the same as in yours ....

.."the reckless tactical decision making".... like you "Expert" Deputy Chief Nobles of the "Irvine Police Department" also ASSUMES that the driver of the police unit made a "conscious, intentional decision" to park his unit next to the person with the pistol.

There is no evidence that it was an "intentional decision" to park his unit next to the person with the pistol.

In fact your "evidence" shows otherwise ...

..... the diagram showing the skid marks!

Skid marks left by a motor vehicle show an urgent, immediate decision to apply brakes to stop at a given location. So that shows no "tactical" decision to stop beside the potential shooter. #2 the dispatch reports informed LE that the person with the "gun" pointing it at people was in the swings ... which according to your diagram the patrol unit had passed already BEFORE APPLYING BRAKES .... #3 the video shows someone (not Rice) sitting at the same bench where the subject ended up sitting beneath the Gazebo and it is just as likely that as they approached the scene, saw no one in the swings, but someone at the bench and did not realize it was the subject, and turned toward the Gazebo to ask that person if they had seen where the subject had gone ...

... but when you, like others, desire a certain conclusion you paint the mosaic the way it fits your scenario .... all I'm doing is saying that you have "assumed' intention when the facts don't support it.

The question always exists ... if they officers had "stood off" and made a "scene analysis" while watching the man with the gun start shooting innocent citizens at the park .... what your "take" would be (or the "take" "Expert" Deputy Chief Nobles of the "Irvine Police Department") had innocent citizens at the park died because the officers DID NOT TIMELY RESPOND!

Were you one of the "EXPERTS" who criticized President Bush on 911 when he hesitated for 18 seconds in front of the grade schoolers when he was informed of the attacks? Originally Posted by LexusLover

The fact that the officers made a conscious decision to leave the pavement (some 20 to 25 ft from the gazebo) and park by the gazebo, and not the swing sets mentioned in the report, is "proof" that they intended stop within 10 ft of Rice.

The fact that the officers made a conscious decision to leave the pavement (some 20 to 25 ft from the gazebo) and park by the gazebo, and not the swing sets mentioned in the report, is "proof" that they intended stop within 10 ft of Rice.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No it's not.

It is to you, because that's the result you want to fit your conclusion.

The skid marks PROVE they were not intending to stop in front of the gazebo when they passed the empty swings. BECAUSE like all qualified drivers who intend to stop at a point within sight as they are turning will reduce their speed so that it is not necessary to slam the brakes resulting in the locking of the brakes and thereafter SKID!

Probably even Deputy Chief Nobles knows that when he is engaged in his Expertise of Accident Reconstruction .... and inspecting skid marks ....

.. and we know he has experience and expertise in that because his officers have not been blessed with his Expertise on Tactical Decision Making during his tenure as Deputy Chief .... at the Irvine PD ....

About six months ago:

"Two Irvine police officers were injured Tuesday night after a 20-year-old Irvine woman struck them while they sitting in a parked patrol car, authorities said.

"The Irvine Police Department officers were in the patrol car at 8:45 p.m. blocking a right-hand lane on Culver Drive, east of Warner Avenue, after responding to a traffic collision in the area."

"At that time, Camille Freking was driving a 2002 Toyota Camry going westbound on Culver Drive when she rear-ended the patrol car, that was stopped with emergency lights active, according to a California Highway Patrol release."

Now here are a couple of his subordinates making a "tactical decision" of sitting on their asses in their patrol unit in the middle of a lane doing what? Don't you just love experts? Here's what he claims to do:

"Develops proactive strategies to address crime, disorder and community safety within the Department's mission, vision and values that sets a high standard for community involvement and for building community trust. Personally involved in labor relations including contract negotiations. Activily involved in policy development to ensure department and employee ethics, best practices and community service."

I guess this "expertise" is imparted by osmosis. Sometimes!

That's the problem with "experts" .... they die of mushroom poisoning.

No it's not.

It is to you, because that's the result you want to fit your conclusion.

The skid marks PROVE they were not intending to stop in front of the gazebo when they passed the empty swings. BECAUSE like all qualified drivers who intend to stop at a point within sight as they are turning will reduce their speed so that it is not necessary to slam the brakes resulting in the locking of the brakes and thereafter SKID!

Probably even Deputy Chief Nobles knows that when he is engaged in his Expertise of Accident Reconstruction .... and inspecting skid marks ....

.. and we know he has experience and expertise in that because his officers have not been blessed with his Expertise on Tactical Decision Making during his tenure as Deputy Chief .... at the Irvine PD ....

About six months ago:

"Two Irvine police officers were injured Tuesday night after a 20-year-old Irvine woman struck them while they sitting in a parked patrol car, authorities said.

"The Irvine Police Department officers were in the patrol car at 8:45 p.m. blocking a right-hand lane on Culver Drive, east of Warner Avenue, after responding to a traffic collision in the area."

"At that time, Camille Freking was driving a 2002 Toyota Camry going westbound on Culver Drive when she rear-ended the patrol car, that was stopped with emergency lights active, according to a California Highway Patrol release."

Now here are a couple of his subordinates making a "tactical decision" of sitting on their asses in their patrol unit in the middle of a lane doing what? Don't you just love experts? Here's what he claims to do:

"Develops proactive strategies to address crime, disorder and community safety within the Department's mission, vision and values that sets a high standard for community involvement and for building community trust. Personally involved in labor relations including contract negotiations. Activily involved in policy development to ensure department and employee ethics, best practices and community service."

I guess this "expertise" is imparted by osmosis. Sometimes!

That's the problem with "experts" .... they die of mushroom poisoning. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Point conceded. The 28.4 ft skid marks do indicate that if they'd actually stopped when they applied the brakes, they would have had proper, "tactical" interval. The principle, commonly seen video leaves one with the impression that the cops had pulled off the pavement onto the grass very near the gazebo ... after they had spied Rice. However, this video shows that the officers had, in fact, left the pavement and were driving across the grass some 50 or more yards ... before seeing Rice in the gazebo.




This video is a computer assisted explanation of the actual route driven by the officers.

Something about ... glass houses .... and experts ....?

"The Irvine police officer in the passenger seat at the time of the crash, was moderately injured in the crash with possible injuries to his back and hip, Orange County Fire Authority Capt. Steve Concialdi said.

"Officials said the Irvine police officer in the driver’s seat complained of pain in his left elbow and knee and both policemen were taken also taken to Orange County Global Medical Center in Santa Ana.

"Alcohol and drugs were not suspected to be factors in the crash, according to CHP."

I"m "assuming" the issue of "alcohol and drugs" had to do with the female injured by the officers' poor "tactical decision" to sit in their patrol unit blocking an lane of traffic!

Not too long ago there were a couple of officers who made the "tactical decision" to eat lunch in their parked vehicle while against the curb (I assume a "legal parking space"), and ended up getting killed by a "MAN WITH A GUN" ..... NYC PD!

I "assume" had one or both of them leaped from their unit and shot the MAN WITH A GUN you would be whining about the "tactical decision" to eat lunch in their parked vehicle while against the curb (I assume a "legal parking space")!!!!!

[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Black"]...they would have had proper, "tactical" interval...... Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Did Deputy Chief Nobles opin as to the "proper "tactical" interval"?

Or is that a phrase you ALSO blew out your ass?

One need not to have been there to garner from the video that the officers raced onto the scene with no sober reflection for the consequences of their behavior. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Like I said .... LE officers are tasked with the responsibility of responding to dangerous, violent situations in an attempt to thwart or neutralize the threat without much "reflection for the consequences of their behavior" .....

.. the pundits and all those folks who weren't there can do that! Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's the whole point. They put themselves in harm's way wherein fractions of a second determined their -- and Tamir's -- fate.

FYI, every Army trained squad leader is taught to avoid ambushes -- especially "near ambushes" -- where "attacking through" is the only option left. And that's what these cops did. They unconscionably put themselves in a "near ambush" situation.

Their armed "gunman", Tamir Rice, was sitting -- sitting -- at a picnic table under a gazebo, and these two cops drove up to within ten feet of him with no thought or attempt to deescalate the situation. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You don't like the answers because they don't 'fit" with your conclusions!!!!

That's fairly simple, even to someone like you.

I'll repeat: When cops respond to any call in which a firearm ( or other deadly weapon is involved) they .... "put their lives at risk" in order to stop injury or death to others .... they are tasked with the responsibility to protect.

You have the audacity to criticize someone with 20-20 hindsight after months of being able to examine the information when the target of your criticism by your own admission had only ONE SECOND to make the decision......when the person forcing the decision was the one holding the firearm and approaching the police!!!!

You are a fool! Originally Posted by LexusLover

The fact that the officers made a conscious decision to leave the pavement (some 20 to 25 ft from the gazebo) and park by the gazebo, and not the swing sets mentioned in the report, is "proof" that they intended stop within 10 ft of Rice.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Point conceded.

However, this video shows that the officers had, in fact, left the pavement and were driving across the grass some 50 or more yards ... before seeing Rice in the gazebo. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your assumptions AND the metamorphosis of your "enlightenment"!!!

Had the officers taken as long as you and had the 5'7" 170 pound person had a real pistol, they would have both been dead like the two NYPD officers sitting in their vehicle "enjoying" their lunch!

That's the difference between armchair computer internet hacks like you and those public servants who must put their lives on the line daily in the face of dumbass no-nothing criticism like yours! ... Even with your "Army trained squad leader" training experience!!!!!