Police shoots 12 year old with toy gun, cops walk

This isn't my area of expertise, but it's my understanding that police are not legally authorized to open fire unless 1. they're being fired upon, or 2. they are protecting the lives of others in a situation where deadly force is necessary. I also hear that to even draw one's gun from its holster requires reasonable evidence to conclude that a violent crime is taking place (or is about to take place), and even if no shots are fired, there's a mountain of paperwork and a debriefing afterwards. If this is so, then I cannot fathom how neither officer was charged.

 

It sounds like u were there. Much certitude.

 

Nope. But I can read. I read that the state has an open carry law.
That means that nobody (police included) can just shoot a person for carrying a gun.

So, if the cop didn't shoot him for carrying a gun, what other reason is there?

 

An Ohio grand jury decided not to indict Officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback, prosecutor Tim McGinty said Monday.

Loehmann, an officer-in-training, shot 12-year-old Tamir on November 22, 2014. Garmback was training him.

"It is likely that Tamir, whose size made him look much older and who had been warned his pellet gun might get him into trouble that day, either intended to hand it over to the officers or show them it wasn't a real gun," McGinty said. "But there was no way for the officers to know that, because they saw the events rapidly unfolding in front of them from a very different perspective."

It was "reasonable" to believe the officer who killed the boy believed Tamir was a threat, the prosecutor said, adding that the toy gun looked real.

A recent FBI video analysis, the prosecutor said, showed Tamir "was drawing his gun from his waist as the police slid toward him and Officer Loehmann exited the car." After the shooting, officers discovered it was a toy gun.

The officers involved haven't spoken publicly about what happened that day. In a statement released on behalf of both officers by Loehmann's lawyer Monday, they said they were grateful for the grand jury's "thorough review of the facts" and hadn't spoken earlier because it would have been "prejudicial and irresponsible."

"Both of the officers are and will remain on restricted duty. They have been on restricted duty since this incident happened," he said. "That's part of our process, not to allow officers involved in critical incidents to go back out there into the fray. They will remain on restricted duty until we complete the administrative process."

A federal review of the case is ongoing


http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/28/us/tamir-rice-shooting/


You should read the entire article, to be honest. lots o' facts.

 

I just realized the title could mean they used a toy gun to shoot the kid.

 

What the kid did is called brandishing (details at bottom of post)

"A recent FBI video analysis, the prosecutor said, showed Tamir "was drawing his gun from his waist as the police slid toward him and Officer Loehmann exited the car." After the shooting, officers discovered it was a toy gun."

If a cop rolls up on you and as soon as he does you pull a weapon/looks like weapon from your waist that's brandishing and since your a cop and the person has no reason to pull a weapon on you, havent talked etc. that makes it a threatening manner.

So your statement makes it sound like cops drove up saw kid with gun in holster and just shot him twice, that's not even close to what happened. The cop exited car and starting moving towards suspect when suspect drew a weapon/perceived on him, that's how and why he got shot. When someone is pulling a weapon on you, you never wait for them to get it pointed at you, that's how you end up dead. It appears many think cop should have waited for the suspect to pull weapon and point it at him then seen how it all went down. I can tell many here have never had a gun pulled on them lol you can pull a weapon and fire in much less than a second, that's a very short time to make a life death decision. I would never pull a toy gun, pellet gun, or real gun on a cop as they approached and not expect to get shot and I knew that way way earlier than 12.

Since it was a minor that makes the parents responsible for him, his parents let him go outside with what easily can be seen as a real weapon and play in a park, very dumb move and their kid paid for it. So if you have a kid don't let them run around with what looks like a weapon in the park or they might get shot, its pretty obvious really. Whoever trusts cops to make the "right" move is sadly misplacing their trust. I view all cops as a possible idiot who you know is armed.

"brandishing" means to display, show or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening.

For example, California Penal Code section 417, subdivision (a)(2), defines "brandishing" a firearm as follows:

(2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of
any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or
unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any
manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel ...

 

Also a pellet gun is a real gun and not a toy, it counts as a weapon. So the kid was armed and it wasn't a toy in legal context. A little more information below on a current case.

"The Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed to review the case of a man sentenced to five years in prison for illegally possessing a BB gun.
David Lee Haywood was charged in Ramsey County District Court in 2013 with possession of a firearm as an ineligible person.
He was convicted by a jury after the court told them that, under the law, a BB gun is a firearm.
Haywood, 37, appealed his conviction, arguing that a BB gun is not a firearm under the statute, but the state Court of Appeals upheld it.
The Supreme Court will now take up the issue.
According to the criminal complaint, Haywood was found in possession of a Walther CP99 Compact .177-caliber BB gun, which looks like a small replica of a standard Walther P99. Haywood was deemed ineligible to possess a firearm because of a 2005 controlled-substance conviction.
On appeal, Haywood argued that a BB gun shouldn't be considered a firearm under the ineligible-person statute, which makes it illegal for a felon to possess a firearm but doesn't define the term. He cited several dictionary definitions, which defined a firearm as a weapon that uses gunpowder or an explosive charge to fire a shot.
The appeals court said in its Sept. 28 opinion, "Minnesota's appellate courts have consistently interpreted the term 'firearm' as used within certain sections of chapter 609 (the Criminal Code) to include BB guns."
The appellate opinion also cited a 1977 Supreme Court ruling, which stated, "(W)e think that term should be defined broadly to include guns using newer types of projectile propellants and should not be restricted in meaning to guns using gunpowder."
That court cited a statute that defined "firearms" under game and fish laws as "any gun from which shot or a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, gas, or compressed air."

 

Very tragic, but logic > emotion. A grand jury dismissed the charges.

Drawing on cops is beyond dumb, and many thousands of whites have lost that battle over the decades too.

 

Why do people still believe warning shots, and non-lethal shots are still a thing. If you fire a gun, it had better be with lethal intent. There is absolutely no reliable way to fire a gun, and expect a non lethal result. The effort you took to shoot the kid in the leg. Femoral Artery. Dead. Shoot the ground in a warning shot. Ricochets, kills him or injures an innocent onlooker. Or you fire a shot at the ground, and they take the same time to shoot you.

Police in the US are trained, that if a 'gun' is pointed at someone, or if a suspect make the effort to turn the barrel to someone, that it is a threat. There's generally very little time to consider, and react. The fact the kid had something that close to a 'gun' was justification enough. Was it appropriate that he is dead. No. Did the police react appropriately in the situation? Yes.

An, that is assuming that is exactly how the situation played out. The "gun" turned, and he fired to prevent it from being aimed. Standard procedure. I'm not saying that'show this incident did happen, nor that what happened in this incident was appropriate. I am however, saying that if law enforcement enacts the use of a gun. Lethality should be the ONLY expected result. To expect otherwise is foolish and dimwitted. Note, that doesn't mean empty 4 clips into the suspect like a previous video that Burn shared.

That view is how standard police procedure operates, and why officers are starting to carry multiple forms of non lethal weaponry. Including, Mace, Short & Long range tasers, Zip Ties cause handcuffs are hard to get on during a struggle, and other assorted items. Because a bullet is not the answer to everything, and police in the US realize that. Yes we should berate those that do not realize it, and yes we should strive for the safety of both the suspect and the police officers that protect the masses. But we should not penalize the profession as a whole for the actions of a few asshats, nor should we preach misguided beliefs about non-lethal, and warning shots with weapons. It's not a thing. It's not reliable.

 

"Why do people still believe warning shots, and non-lethal shots are still a thing"

Wait what its not ? you must be wrong! I see it all the time in the movies. I really don't see what the big deal is anyway, if someone pulls an AK and shoots at you, you just flip a table and hide behind it then roll out from it and throw a kitchen knife into them ending their life instantly.

Edit, then make a witty remark and drive off in a cool car!

Double edit because Darkjello is so right - at least one Hottie is in the car.
Shame on me for forgetting that and thanks for the correction.

 

...with at least one hottie riding shotgun. How dare u forget!

 

wait the hottie isn't driving? sexist much?

 

By that logic, the police absolutely should have gunned down those ranchers that were waving their guns around and verbally threatening to shoot the police.
Except the police didn't. Because gunning down white people is bad.

Soon as one black kid waves around a gun (without making the threats even) BLAMO!

That's the issue people keep having, that's why people keep saying this was race-related.

 

This is classic, I am sure your grasp of the law and what is considered "whatever" is much greater than what the courts and legal system could ever be!

If you ever go to court please please represent yourself and post in here so I can come watch. I found your grasp of these issues to be so rock solid I don't know how anyone could possibly doubt you. I think with the argument and facts you just presented you could call any police station and they would instantly relay your wisdom to every branch of government and changes would happen overnight and this cop would go to jail!!!

What the hell was I thinking using the legal definition and not yours. Thank you! You should become a Lawyer, Oh wait you must already be one if not a supreme court judge!

 

this is outdated and very anglo-centric. male form is hottey.

 

Oh you misunderstand they probably would/could have if it was only one! dont you remember white dude who they used a 50 cal to shoot while he was in van a few months ago ? they break out fifty cals for whitey lol

But if you are actually curios why they did not shoot at ranchers/militia. The militia had counter snipers on the police snipers had police outgunned and the police knew they were outgunned and they know they would have died if they chose to start shooting. None of which I condone just explaining. So cops and government got scared of a bloodbath.

I am surprised you don't like the militia since they stood up against those "racist" cops

 

Yeah



it's a two years old, but JS tells it like it is (ferguson shooting), same principles apply concerning the shooting

If every statistic points towards blacks being treated tougher by cops than whites, it's not playing the victim.

edit: 6:50 - 7:20 to capture the essence, in case of laziness

 

Can't bring that up, unless you bring up both sides.

 

I link comedians when they are funny. U link them to prove legal points?

 

At no point did I argue with your description of "brandishing."

Maybe what I wasn't clear enough about was that "brandishing" is a hell of a lot harder to be certain of when anyone can legally carry around a gun openly.
Cops shooting someone "waving a gun around" means just about every gun nut at a pro-gun rally should be shot dead by police. That'd go over well. But nope, instead they go after the lone black kid.

The sentence works better without the quotes.
But honestly, not all cops are racist. I think a higher percentage of them are just ****s, not necessarily racist.

As far as the rest of what you said, if you can find statistics that that prove that cops "shoot whitey" as often as they shoot black people, your comment would be relevant, otherwise it's simply not.
Oh, and the statistics show they shoot black people more often sooo... good luck with that. Especially considering that black people are a smaller percentage of the population.



or

Except it's not about white on black violence or black on white violence.
It's about cops, who are supposed to protect and serve, frequently targeting one segment of the population over another.

No matter how hard some of you guys try to get around it, the numbers are there that black people are targeted with violence by the police more often than white people are. That's simply facts and numbers.
That's what people want to change. I know a lot of conservatives are terrified of change, but if it's change that helps to save lives, it's a good change.