Why Is There No Outrage About This Police Shooting?

[Turtle]

Turtle, do you have any law enforcement experience? I am just curious because of the content of your posts.

No, none whatsoever. But a lot of things interest me, with law enforcement and the judicial system just being one segment of my interests.

I would offer that whenever a municipality faces a potential civil suit, their motivations on prosecution of a state actor are adulterated in that they do not want a conviction to support or exponentially increase a civil settlement.

I also think that certainly plays a large factor. But I think more to the heart of the matter is that the police have lost the trust and consent of the public, and thus the unquestioned obedience of the public, and to question their own or to allow mere citizens to question police behavior even further erodes civil obedience. So to deal with that, the position that the police can do no wrong, is an attempt to force people to comply in unquestioned consent. We see how well that's working. Essentially, in exchange for power, the police have largely abandoned the Peelian Principles of good policing.

It also doesn't help matters that Cliven Bundy and supporters pointed rifles at police officers and explicit

 

[muttly]

Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is the taking of another life with the intent to kill or cause serious physical injury. This type of manslaughter is very similar to murder. However, the circumstances of the killing may make it a lesser crime than murder. Two common circumstances that may reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter include:

• Adequate provocation
• Imperfect self-defense

Adequate Provocation
Adequate provocation is an action by the victim that provokes the accused criminal to commit the homicide. This homicide is a killing that occurs in the heat of passion.

A common example of a heat of passion killing is when a spouse unexpectedly catches the other spouse in bed with the victim. The spouse didn’t plan the homicide, but rather only reacted to the situation.

Imperfect Self-Defense
Imperfect self-defense occurs when a person uses unreasonable force to prevent being seriously injured or killed by the victim. Everyone is entitled to use self-defense to protect themselves. However, it’s against the law to use force that’s unnecessary or unreasonable.

For example, it’s unreasonable for someone to use a deadly weapon and kill a victim when the victim wasn’t using deadly force.


The last couple of sentences is where the culpability of the officers or officer will be either affirmed or not.
It appears that at least one of the officers thought that Rice was going to use deadly force on them by reaching into his waistband.
We all now know that he didn't have a real gun. The officers didn't know that at the time. They were merely given information from dispatch that indicated the individual had a real gun and not a fake one. The breach of police policy, and lack of competence with regards to the dispatcher appears to be a real issue and possibly contributed to the deadly decision by the officers. Monetary damages to the family is certainly in the realm.
Regarding the officer's actions, they were informed that Rice was brandishing a gun. Before they confronted him, they observed him put the gun in his pants. They then proceeded to pull up close to him. When they got out of the vehicle, Rice was reaching into his waistband. Are officers required to wait until the individual pulls out his gun and points it at them before they are justified in using deadly force to defend themselves? By that time it may be to late to react. I'm curious as to what the officers could have done differently in their tactics when approaching the individual other than parking a great distance and use a bullhorn to communicate with him.

 

[Mdbtyhtr]

I got involved in criminal defense as a specialty after dealing with bail bond clients that would have rotted in jail if not for pro bono representation. Details are unimportant, but there is always much more detail than the general public is privy to. News sources often show edited down video for sensationalism when they were provided the complete video. Police reports are regularly written and re-written by supervisors to either mitigate liability or effect a significant prosecution. It never ends. The end result is there are super hero cops and legitimate and decent police officers and I have dealt with both. Unfortunately, police officers tend to chase away all supporters by the actions of a few.

 

[Mdbtyhtr]

Muttly, regardless of the information from a dispatcher, which maybe incorrect when received, all police officers are going to react to a weapon as if it was real. If one was to rob a store with a fake gun, they get the same punishment as if it was real. The intent was to convey that it was real, either as an offensive weapon or in some cases as a defensive weapon. Some of these young kids have no respect for human life and have taken lives as children (pre-teen). A gang initiation in DC required initiates to steal a gun from an officer, but you never read about that!

 

[Turtle]

Muttly, regardless of the information from a dispatcher, which maybe incorrect when received, all police officers are going to react to a weapon as if it was real.

Yeah, even if they don't see it. The dispatcher is at least as culpable as the cop who puled the trigger, in my opinion. The dispatcher set the stage for this to happen. If dispatch had relayed "it's probably fake" and "a juvenile" to the officers, they may have approached the scene entirely differently and with entirely different attitudes, especially since Ohio is an open carry state and the mere sight of a gun should not be immediately perceived as a threat.

The dispatcher, Beth Mandl, resigned from the police force in July after never having shown up for work again since the shooting. She was fired from her dispatching job at the Case Western Reserve Police Force, for failing to adequately and timely relay pertinent information to officers, but also, probably not coincidentally, shortly after she was arrested and charged with bringing a gun to a bar.

Loehmann fired two shots before the car came even came to a halt and within two seconds of arriving on the scene. Neither officer administered any first aid to the child after the shooting. They reacted to the information they received from dispatch, not to what they witnessed at the scene. In addition, a fundamental principle of policing is that once a threat has been eliminated and a scene secured, an officer's first priority is to aid an injured person. It's not only an ethical requirement, but almost certainly a departmental imperative to do what they can to save the life of the suspect. The failure to do that is really, really disturbing.

On the day of the shooting the police said, "[Loehmann and Garmback] pulled into the parking lot and saw a few people sitting underneath a pavilion next to the center. [Loehmann] saw a black gun sitting on the table, and he saw the boy pick up the gun and put it in his waistband." Also on that same date, Cleveland Deputy Chief Tomba stated, "The officer got out of the car and told the boy to put his hands up. The boy reached into his waistband, pulled out the gun and [Loehmann] fired two shots."

Every sentence above was a lie.

Then the video got released and the police quickly changed their story. Chief Tomba said, uh,, er, ah, you know, "Loehmann shouted from the car three times at Tamir to show his hands as he approached the car."

Also a lie. Turns out that both car windows were rolled up as the police car approached, and remained rolled up after the shooting.

Frankly, I'll be a little surprised if Loehmann gets indicted.

 

[muttly]

Muttly, regardless of the information from a dispatcher, which maybe incorrect when received, all police officers are going to react to a weapon as if it was real. If one was to rob a store with a fake gun, they get the same punishment as if it was real. The intent was to convey that it was real, either as an offensive weapon or in some cases as a defensive weapon. Some of these young kids have no respect for human life and have taken lives as children (pre-teen). A gang initiation in DC required initiates to steal a gun from an officer, but you never read about that!

Yes, that's a good point about the information given to the dispatcher. He or she apparently didn't convey every word and opinion of the 911 caller to the officers. For one, the caller said the gun is probably a fake. How does he know this? Another was that he was probably a juvenile. Again, specifically how does the caller reach that opinion.
Those are both opinions that hadn't yet been verified as facts. I'm not sure it is negligence for a dispatcher not to convey every opinion of a caller that may or may not be true based on the caller's best guess.
Callers can be wrong about what they think is a fake gun. Unless they can give specific details on why they think it is fake, it is just an opinion.
Regardless if someone is of juvenile age, they still can commit a violent act. So the dispatcher not informing the officers that the individual is 'probably a juvenile' may not be egregious,
With regards to a robber using a fake gun or even just an object under a shirt that looks like a gun, the store owner or even the police, not knowing that it is fake, can lawfully defend themselves with deadly force under the assumption that the gun may be real. They are not required to wait long enough for the robber to demonstrate that the gun or object is a phony before they can act in self defense.

 

[Mdbtyhtr]

The police often lie. They can have a legitimate and legal arrest and then they add something else for who knows why, that is blatantly false. It blows the whole case. If the video (I have not seen it) is valid and shows what you say it does, and I have no reason to doubt this, you can stick a fork in them both.

Police officers will approach a fake gun the same as a real one and any information to the contrary is never heard or processed past "gun" and the information they process on the scene visually will determine their course of action. Most act professionally, and then there are the bitter John Wayne's and we end up with this scenario.

 

[muttly]

Regarding the lack of first aid given to Rice by the two officers:
Rice apparently wasn't unconscious and was still breathing. No need to perform CPR at that point. He had a gaping abdominal wound. Certainly you would want the officers to do some kind of first aid on the wound, but from the responding FBI agent's account, it was more about them not knowing how to perform proper care on a gunshot wound than an indifference to helping.
FBI agent who gave first aid to Tamir Rice said Cleveland officers on scene 'didn't know what to do'

 

[muttly]

Regarding the dispatcher:
She didn't receive the initial 911 call. Someone from the call center conveyed the information to her. It's unclear if all the information was given to her. It is true she was terminated from her first dispatching job around the same time as the gun charge for bringing a weapon into a bar, but it's unknown whether she had prior communication problems relaying information to officers in that job. She had positive reviews in her more recent job except for taking too many days off within a three month period and before she stopped reporting for work.

 

[Turtle]

For one, the caller said the gun is probably a fake. How does he know this? Another was that he was probably a juvenile. Again, specifically how does the caller reach that opinion.
Those are both opinions that hadn't yet been verified as facts. I'm not sure it is negligence for a dispatcher not to convey every opinion of a caller that may or may not be true based on the caller's best guess.
Callers can be wrong about what they think is a fake gun. Unless they can give specific details on why they think it is fake, it is just an opinion.

Who exactly are you trying to defend with this utterly absurd line of thinking. Not a single thing the 911 caller said was a verified fact. The caller said there was "a male black sitting on a swing and pointing a gun at people." How does he know it was a male? Unless he can give specific details on why he thinks it is a male, it is just an opinion. Did he even see the "male's" genitalia? The the "male" could self-identify as transgender or female or genderqueer or gender fluid or even genderless. The caller doesn't know. He's just guessing. How does he know the gun was being pointed at people, and not just in the general direction of where people just so happened to be located? The gun could have been pointed just a few inches away and not directly at someone.

This is the kind of crap speculation that comes from questions that demand speculation to be answered, all in an attempt to absolve someone of responsibility. The 911 call taker, Constance Hollinger, did not relay all of the pertinent information to Mandl, according to the Sheriff's investigation report. In her interview with investigators, she was forthcoming about everything except on the question of why she did not accurately relay a witness' statement to dispatch. On that question, on the advice of her union-provided attorney, she invoked the Fifth Amendment (which, legally, she can't even do one she's started answering question about the incident).

According to a personnel file released by the city of Cleveland, a supervisor gave Hollinger a "satisfactory" performance rating in 2013, noting that Hollinger "tends to be abrupt, and disconnect the caller when they are attempting to provide additional info."

There is always the chance the witness is wrong, that the suspect has a real gun, but a witness's description of a weapon as 'probably fake,' combined with a description of the suspect as a juvenile, is very different than a description of an adult holding a firearm that the witness is sure is real. But according to the Cleveland Police's own policy for answering 911 calls, they are to "relay all information included in an incident" to officers responding to a call, including a suspect's "physical characteristics" (the description of "he is probably a juvenile" falls into that classification) and a weapon type and description ("it's probably fake" falls into that classification).

911 call takers and dispatchers do not have the time, the luxury or the resources to determine whether or not a witness' statement is fact or opinion, and to imply that witness statements that might be opinion and/or is not pertinent information and therefor is optional unnecessary to relay to officers is just butt-stoopid.

All of that aside, anyone who has seen the video can determine for themselves that an unjustifiable killing took place. If the police had been given "shot fired, people down" information from dispatch, then a 1.7 second decision to fire could be easily justified. But that didn't happen.

 

[muttly]

Who exactly are you trying to defend with this utterly absurd line of thinking. Not a single thing the 911 caller said was a verified fact. The caller said there was "a male black sitting on a swing and pointing a gun at people." How does he know it was a male? Unless he can give specific details on why he thinks it is a male, it is just an opinion. Did he even see the "male's" genitalia? The the "male" could self-identify as transgender or female or genderqueer or gender fluid or even genderless. The caller doesn't know. He's just guessing. How does he know the gun was being pointed at people, and not just in the general direction of where people just so happened to be located? The gun could have been pointed just a few inches away and not directly at someone.

This is the kind of crap speculation that comes from questions that demand speculation to be answered, all in an attempt to absolve someone of responsibility. The 911 call taker, Constance Hollinger, did not relay all of the pertinent information to Mandl, according to the Sheriff's investigation report. In her interview with investigators, she was forthcoming about everything except on the question of why she did not accurately relay a witness' statement to dispatch. On that question, on the advice of her union-provided attorney, she invoked the Fifth Amendment (which, legally, she can't even do one she's started answering question about the incident).

According to a personnel file released by the city of Cleveland, a supervisor gave Hollinger a "satisfactory" performance rating in 2013, noting that Hollinger "tends to be abrupt, and disconnect the caller when they are attempting to provide additional info."

There is always the chance the witness is wrong, that the suspect has a real gun, but a witness's description of a weapon as 'probably fake,' combined with a description of the suspect as a juvenile, is very different than a description of an adult holding a firearm that the witness is sure is real. But according to the Cleveland Police's own policy for answering 911 calls, they are to "relay all information included in an incident" to officers responding to a call, including a suspect's "physical characteristics" (the description of "he is probably a juvenile" falls into that classification) and a weapon type and description ("it's probably fake" falls into that classification).

911 call takers and dispatchers do not have the time, the luxury or the resources to determine whether or not a witness' statement is fact or opinion, and to imply that witness statements that might be opinion and/or is not pertinent information and therefor is optional unnecessary to relay to officers is just butt-stoopid.

All of that aside, anyone who has seen the video can determine for themselves that an unjustifiable killing took place. If the police had been given "shot fired, people down" information from dispatch, then a 1.7 second decision to fire could be easily justified. But that didn't happen.

You forgot to mention that the 911 caller said 'I don't know if it's real or not.' So that too would fall under 'relay all information included in an incident'. So in the same call, the caller says it's probably fake, but he doesn't know either way.
The caller also said this :
'The guy keeps pulling it out of his pants and pointing it at people,' the 911 caller told the dispatcher, adding that it was 'scaring the s***' out of him.
Why would it be scaring the blank out of him if he thought it was probably fake? Fake guns don't shoot real bullets.
I'm sure officers appreciate dispatchers giving conflicting information based purely on speculation while approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
Cleveland Deputy Chief Tomba also said this about the dispatcher not relaying the info about the gun being fake:
But in response to questions over her failure to mention the gun could be fake, he said dispatchers had to strike a balance between 'the need to get information to that zone car with the need to give every bit of information that we can'.

Regarding not relaying that 'he's probably a juvenile'. That is something that should probably be relayed to officers, but not an egregious error considering that a juvenile is someone up to the age of 18 yrs old and who can and do commit violent crimes just like adults. Relaying that the individual is 12 years old would be much more important, but nobody knew that at the time. 12 year olds rarely have real guns. The officers at the scene thought that from his size( 5'7" 195 pounds) he was older than he was.

BTW, you previously confused the dispatcher's disciplinary record with the call center woman's record, but thanks for clarifying.

 

[Turtle]

You forgot to mention that the 911 caller said 'I don't know if it's real or not.'

I didn't forget to mention it.

So that too would fall under 'relay all information included in an incident'. So in the same call, the caller says it's probably fake, but he doesn't know either way.

Right. None of which the officers received.

Why would it be scaring the blank out of him if he thought it was probably fake?

I'm not sure. You'd have to ask him. But the most likely speculation would be that he thought it was probably fake, but he wasn't sure, and that it might be real, and the not knowing one way or the other scred the crap out of him.

I'm sure officers appreciate dispatchers giving conflicting information based purely on speculation while approaching a potentially dangerous situation.

Huh? The witness never gave conflicting information on the 911 call. So there would have been no conflicting information to give the officers. Instead, they got woefully inadequate and misleading information that was in direct conflict with the witness' statements.

Cleveland Deputy Chief Tomba also said this about the dispatcher not relaying the info about the gun being fake:
But in response to questions over her failure to mention the gun could be fake, he said dispatchers had to strike a balance between 'the need to get information to that zone car with the need to give every bit of information that we can'.

Well, A), that's in direct conflict with the department's own policy guidelines for taking 911 calls, and B) he's been lying to make his department and officer look good ever since his first lie in the initial press conference, so I don't know how much confidence you really want to put into his "strike a balance" statement.

Regarding not relaying that 'he's probably a juvenile'. That is something that should probably be relayed to officers, but not an egregious error considering that a juvenile is someone up to the age of 18 yrs old and who can and do commit violent crimes just like adults.

It's astonishingly egregious because it was part of the witness' description, and it's even more egregious considering it was, in fact, a juvenile with a toy gun who is now dead.

BTW, you previously confused the dispatcher's disciplinary record with the call center woman's record, but thanks for clarifying.

No I didn't.

 

[muttly]

No I didn't.

Turtle wrote:
The dispatcher, Beth Mandl, resigned from the police force in July after never having shown up for work again since the shooting. She was fired from her dispatching job at the Case Western Reserve Police Force, for failing to adequately and timely relay pertinent information to officers, but also, probably not coincidentally, shortlyafter she was arrested and charged with bringing a gun to a bar.

That looks like it's from Hollinger's record,( the underlined part) not from Mandl's. But you clarified it afterwards, so thanks.
Records of police dispatcher from Tamir Rice call

 

[muttly]

" Also on that same date, Cleveland Deputy Chief Tomba stated, "The officer got out of the car and told the boy to put his hands up. The boy reached into his waistband, pulled out the gun and [Loehmann] fired two shots."

Every sentence above was a lie.

Then the video got released and the police quickly changed their story. Chief Tomba said, uh,, er, ah, you know, "Loehmann shouted from the car three times at Tamir to show his hands as he approached the car."

Also a lie. Turns out that both car windows were rolled up as the police car approached, and remained rolled up after the shooting.

Frankly, I'll be a little surprised if Loehmann gets indicted.

Apparently Loehmann, from his passenger seat, opened up his car door with his windows up and yelled to show his hands. How is that a lie?
He also exited the vehicle immediately afterward. How long should an officer wait to defend themselves when the information given to them indicated the threat of a gun, their observations before hand indicated it may be a gun, and the individual was pulling out an object that looked like a real gun? How many seconds?

 

[paulnstef39]

Long enough to realize it's a 12 year old kid with a toy.

 

[Turtle]

Far as I know, Hollinger never worked at Case Western Reserve University in any capacity. Beth Mandl, however, did, and according to the Case Western Reserve University Press student-run newspaper The Observer, Beth Mandl was terminated, in part. for "failing to adequately and timely relay pertinent information to officers, time-clock irregularities [whatever that might mean], sick leave issues, difficulties with rotating schedules..." and the termination occurred on "September 30th [2008], just one day after her arrest on a concealed carry violation for bringing a loaded firearm into a liquor establishment."

 

[muttly]

It's astonishingly egregious because it was part of the witness' description, and it's even more egregious considering it was, in fact, a juvenile with a toy gun who is now dead.
.

Again, a juvenile can be an individual up to the age of 18. Saying the person is probably a juvinile isn't the same as saying the person is a 12 year old. Yes, a 12 year old is a juvenile, but so is a violent, real gun packing seventeen year old. The officers didn't know what type of juvenile they were approaching.

 

[muttly]

Long enough to realize it's a 12 year old kid with a toy.

And someone who is 5'7" and 195 pounds couldn't actually be a twenty year old? And a toy gun with the distinguishing toy safety feature removed would take how long to determine after you found out it was instead real and the person decided to shoot you?

 

[Turtle]

Apparently Loehmann, from his passenger seat, opened up his car door with his windows up and yelled to show his hands. How is that a lie?

It's a lie because the video refutes it utterly. The Chief backed off that statement once the video was released and showed it to be a lie.

He also exited the vehicle immediately afterward.

He exited the vehicle before the vehicle had even stopped.

How long should an officer wait to defend themselves when the information given to them indicated the threat of a gun, their observations before hand indicated it may be a gun, and the individual was pulling out an object that looked like a real gun? How many seconds?

Their observation before hand was barreling off-road across a park at 40 MPH ,so I'm not sure what kind of observation you think they saw, and the individual (the dead guy) wasn't pulling out an object that looked like a real gun, as the officers never saw the gun until after they'd shot him. As for how long officers should wait to defend themselves when the information given to them indicated the threat of a gun, I'd say long enough to actually see the gun, log enough to get a good look at the suspect from the 10 feet they the were standing, and long enough to assess the situation instead of arriving already assuming stuff. As to the absurdly retarded question of "How many seconds?" the answer is... however many it takes to assess the situation to determine if the threat is real or all in your mind. They certainly could have given themselves just a snotload more time if they hadn't literally rushed the suspect in a flash-bang surprise attack maneuver.

 

[muttly]

Far as I know, Hollinger never worked at Case Western Reserve University in any capacity. Beth Mandl, however, did, and according to the Case Western Reserve University Press student-run newspaper The Observer, Beth Mandl was terminated, in part. for "failing to adequately and timely relay pertinent information to officers, time-clock irregularities [whatever that might mean], sick leave issues, difficulties with rotating schedules..." and the termination occurred on "September 30th [2008], just one day after her arrest on a concealed carry violation for bringing a loaded firearm into a liquor establishment."

Thanks for the link.