I have and my assessment stands. You’re calling for instant comprehension and compliance on the part of anyone encountering police, so much so that even a few seconds of confusion, hesitation, random movement, etc. supplies grounds for a reasonable assumption of imminent threat, with no need for police hesitation to respond with deadly force.
If that’s not what you’re saying, you should work on your communication skills. Maybe you and Smapti could take a class or something.
Well, my assessment that it wasn’t self-defense is based on the lack of a gun in Rice’s hand, coupled with the very short time Loehmann waited before opening fire. I admit tending by default to disbelieve a claim of self-defense unless an actual threat is shown to have existed, and I’m not seeing such threat manifest, unless you’re arguing that Rice having a gun in his waistband in itself posed an imminent threat, in which case anyone carrying a gun also poses such a threat and concealed carry should be ended immediately. To me, it looks like Loehmann was eager to start shooting, so much so that I’m not sure Rice could have done anything to dissuade him.
Well… so a jury can decide.
I don’t know for sure that he’s guilty, but like Judge Adrine, I think the evidence warrants a trial. A trial is not a violation of someone’s rights – he will have the fullest opportunity to offer a defense.
Is that where the gun was? I saw that his hand/arm seem to move toward the center of his body. There is no way to know that that was where the gun was. (It was a chilly November day. He was wearing a jacket. The gun could have been in his jacket pocket.)
Looks to me like Rice was wearing a light grey sweater-vest of some kind and anytime before the cops arrive when he appears to be holding the Airsoft gun, it’s in his right hand. Rice partly lifts the right side of his sweater-vest. I cheerfully admit that up to now I was assuming (not unreasonably, I think) Rice had the gun in the right side of his waistband, but I’m open to correction on this point.
In any case, there’s no time for the repeated instructions officers claim they gave. Even saying “drop the gun” once with any clarity in the short interval between Loehmann opening his door and Loehmann shooting Rice is stretching it.
For someone who likes to tell others off for using idiolectic meanings of words you seem to have your own for “imminent.” The gunman was still in the store when the staff and customers were afraid. He wasn’t just holding a gun, he was loading it.
Sheesh. Man loading a gun in a supermarket: isn’t that the definition of an act that’s not intended to cause fear but is extremely likely to?
Where did I say “going near” the police? I said calling them. I have no fear at all of going near the police. And in the UK I have no fear of calling them, either. Have done several times.
You were disingenuous with your comment about armed police, then, weren’t you? There are armed units in every city in the UK; Nottingham is not unusual in that respect. You bringing up armed units in Nottingham made it sound like there was something unusual about them, like maybe all or most of the police carried guns.
I had to stay indoors just once because of an armed siege that I watched from my kitchen window. Also had to stay on lockdown after a bombing on my road.
I’ve witnessed an extraordinary amount of violent crime, TBH (obviously more than just the above!), partly because of my area and partly because I’m home a lot more than most people. I mean, really, you couldn’t have picked a worse person to play violent crime witness one-upmanship with - it’s quite amusing.
Er, except I’m not. “Too many” does not equal “all.” Thankfully.
So much for the presumption of innocence, I guess… The only reason there wasn’t a manifest threat is that the gun was a replica, and there’s no way the cop could have known that.
It’s far from clear that this case warrants being put to a jury.
That’s a rather disturbing thing to say as an absolute statement. Do you think that if *you *were picked up and put on trial for Rice’s death, your rights wouldn’t have been violated?
How in the world are we to distinguish between a harmless guy loading a gun in the store from a non harmless guy loading a gun in a store? I just don’t get it.
It seems to me that it’s being argued that civilians shouldn’t be afraid until the bullets start to fly, but cops are permitted to be afraid at the bare hint that there might be a gun.
It’s just crazy.
In cases where someone claims to have killed in self defense? I guess there would have to be some examination of that claim, otherwise anyone could claim it at any time to justify any killing.
If it’s true that the mere possession of a gun manifests a threat, then anyone who possesses a gun must also manifest such a threat. By that standard, Smapti manifests a threat when he carries his gun.
Well, that determination will have to go through multiple people, including a prosecuting attorney, a grand jury, and a trial judge…
If I had shot Rice, then no. I can rephrase it if you like; facing a trial after killing a child would not be a violation of officer Loehmann’s rights.
Of course there should be an investigation. But yes, anyone who kills can claim it was in self defence. The reason most don’t is that it means admitting that they did, in fact, kill the person, and most times when there’s a dispute about whether someone is guilty of murder the question is whether they were the killer, not whether the death was murder.
But the same standard should apply, and does in every state except (unfortunately, in this case) Ohio.
It’s not true that the mere possession of a gun is a threat. This has been explained exhaustively to you, and I don’t believe for a second that you don’t understand the difference between “merely possessing” a gun and reaching for a gun as the police approach you.
Not necessarily. The prosecutor could simply decide not to charge him, and leave it at that.
If there isn’t probable cause it was murder, yes it would be.
If there is probable cause but no realistic chance of conviction, it’s not Loehmann’s rights that have been violated, but the right of the taxpayers not to have their money wasted on an unwinnable trial.
That said, if the purpose of the trial, believed to be unwinnanble, is to harass or punish Loehmann, his rights will have been violated. It may not be provable or actionable, but they will, in fact have been. And you should not be encouraging that. In my opinion, that’s exactly what happened to George Zimmerman.
Obviously in my mind (and Judge Adrine’s), there is probable cause, and there would be a realistic chance of conviction.
Yeah, I’ve watched a lot of Law & Order episodes, too.
I’m not aware that Ohio is unique in this regard, or indeed the specific regard to which you refer. The defense’s burden to sustain an affirmative defense?
Well, here’s the problem - it’s not established that any such reach occurred. That, I believe, has been repeated exhaustively to you. Besides, you insist on blurring it by pointing how a reach only takes a fraction of a second and how police should not be compelled to wait for a fraction of a second, therefore by your argument merely having a gun comprises an imminent threat because within a fraction of a second it could be reached, drawn, pointed and fired. The final conclusion is that anyone in possession of a firearm poses an imminent threat to police and since police have no obligation to hesitate in responding to imminent threats with deadly force, the police are free to shoot anyone who has a gun or looks like they have a gun.
I was describing a serial process.
- A prosecutor must decide a prosecution is warranted.
- The prosecutor must convince a grand jury that an indictment is warranted.
- A trial judge must agree that a case can be sustained, since any defense attorney would no doubt move for dismissal at some point.
There are other intermediate steps which will require cooperation (or at least a decision not to intervene) from other officials, any one of which could interrupt the process and prevent it from getting to the point where a jury goes into deliberation. Sure, it’s lengthy and complicated and has lots of checkpoints. I admit it’s kind of strange for you to suggest a trial in itself could violate someone’s rights.
I gather Steophan is expressing concern about potential prosecutorial misconduct, which is fair, though not automatically applicable.
I cited this before, but here it is again. Yes, Ohio is the only state that requires someone who kills in self defence to prove their innocence.
Correct. But, as I keep saying, so what? We have no evidence that it didn’t, and some that it did. Even in Ohio, that will mean that he’s not guilty.
Nope, still not true. No matter how many times you repeat it. If you don’t understand what “imminent” means by now, you should probably stop talking about this subject. Or “threat” for that matter. Someone simply having a gun is not a threat. Someone ignoring police commands and reaching for a gun is.
The police are not free to shoot anyone who has a gun, or who looks like they have a gun. They are free to shoot anyone who they reasonably believe is about to shoot them, or someone else. This is such a massive, fundamental distinction that I find it incomprehensible that you don’t understand it.
So, if they chose to try you for the murder of Tamir Rice, you’d be fine with that, and not think your rights had been violated? A trial would violate anyone’s rights except in the very specific case that there is probable cause that they committed the precise crime or crimes they’re being tried for.
Well, that’s interesting. Does it make a difference in practice, i.e. are there Ohioan killers languishing in jail unjustly and are there non-Ohioan killers running free unjustly?
Maybe. The process will have to run its course to make that determination.
Well, there you go again, presuming a reach occurred. I suppose if you keep doing this, eventually someone will agree just by random chance.
I don’t believe that you believe I don’t understand it. I believe that you find it hard to believe that someone isn’t as eager to interpret the events as favourably to police as you do.
Well, they’d have to extradite me first, but this whole tangent is a waste of time. Arresting and trying some random person isn’t being contemplated here, but rather arresting and trying the person who fired the lethal bullet, who officially admits firing the lethal bullet and is on video firing the lethal bullet. The arrest (let alone the trial) might not actually happen, but arguing that it would comprise a rights violation is premature at best. Loehmann has access to legal counsel (I’d be frankly astonished if he did not) and the process is ongoing.
I don’t believe such a law could allow any killers to run free unjustly, because if it can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they committed a crime - that is, that they did not kill in self defence - it is not unjust that they are free.
I’m not presuming a reach occurred in this situation. I’m saying that, if a reach occurred, it would justify the shooting, whereas someone simply possessing a gun wouldn’t.
To claim someone is guilty of a crime, you must interpret the events as favourably to them as possible, and still believe them guilty. That’s pretty much a definition of “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” - the most favourable reasonable interpretation of the evidence still has them guilty.
But those things combined don’t (or at least, shouldn’t - as I’ve said, Ohio law is unique in the US on this matter) amount to probable cause, unless there is probable cause it wasn’t self defence.
If you’re saying that the available evidence does, in fact, show probable cause that it wasn’t self defence, that’s fair enough. I disagree, but it’s a difference of opinion rather than principle. If, however, you are saying that even if there isn’t probable cause it wasn’t self defence, he should be tried anyway, then I think you are wrong on a fundamental, moral level.
I’ll note that this doesn’t give an easy way out for most murder suspects. One can’t say “I didn’t kill him, and if I did it was self defence”. Claiming self defence requires admitting every other element of the crime, except arguably the intent for “depraved heart” type murder (first degree murder in some states, murder rather than manslaughter in others).
Fair enough. I wouldn’t want to leave you with the impression that any jiggery-pokery was afoot. 
Judge Adrine believes that there is sufficient evidence to go to trial. Fortunately, or unfortunately, Adrine isn’t in a position to make that happen.
*In response to a petition from citizens, under an obscure and little-used provision of Ohio law, Municipal Court Judge Ronald Adrine agreed that Officer Timothy Loehmann should be charged with several crimes, the most serious of them being murder but also including involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, negligent homicide and dereliction of duty. Adrine also found probable cause to charge another officer, Frank Garmback, with negligent homicide and dereliction of duty. He rejected aggravated murder charges against both officers.
…But Adrine did not order the two men to be arrested. He stated that because the law under which the affidavits were filed had been amended in 2006, judges no longer have the authority to issue warrants themselves in such cases.
Instead, Adrine forwarded his opinion to city prosecutors and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty, who says he is currently investigating the case. And he took pains to note that prosecutors are required to apply a different standard before filing charges, determining that it is more probable than not that a reasonable “trier of fact” would hold the officers accountable for any alleged crimes.
…But since all murder prosecutions have to go through a grand jury under Ohio law, Adrine’s order just funnels the case back to where it was before—waiting for McGinty to act.*
After reading many of the posts in this “omnibus thread”, I believe “Rorschach test” is an apt description of the Tamir Rice video. Without additional evidence, the video is not a clear indication of whatever actually happened. Everyone is free to speculate as to what they think they are seeing. Just like a Rorschach test.
While it’s important to note that only the officer fired, I believe it’s more important to discover/uncover why the officer believed he needed to fire.
Based on what I’ve read about rookie Loehmann’s previous police training experience, I think it’s a reasonable minimum outcome that Timothy Loehmann never work in law enforcement as a police officer. There are other law enforcement options available to him, but no badge, no gun, and no authority.