@lj-writes / lj-writes.tumblr.com
"You are free to say whatever you want to say in this country, but that does not make you immune to the social ramifications that come as a result of what you said.”
“For some people in this country, our childhood mistakes end up getting us killed. And for others in this country, there’s no accountability whatsoever."
Police officer Timothy Loehmann fired two shots, one of the shots hit Tamir in his torse which resulted in him dying the following day.
Tamir would have turned 14 years old earlier this year - on June 25. But he was killed by a cop who was never held accountable for the murder.
We will never forget you #TamirRice. Rest in peace, sweet angel.
When interacting with police, its the POLICE who have been trained to deal with a myriad of potentially dangerous situations. Its their JOB to act and react in the best possible way to anything a person might say or do. People, especially black people, should not need to be on their best behavior when talking to cops if they want to live.
So I dont give a shit if someone is screaming profanity at them while holding a steak knife. Its never the cop’s job to kill them.
Killing people is not the police’s job. Ever.
So no. None of those killer cops was never “just doing their job” and they should be able to deal with high tension situations better than any civilian. There’s no excuse.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve read.
Let’s make a post that totally tries to get citizens off the hook for acting in a civilized manner. Because citizens can just be assholes and if you choose a profession too help the majority you can’t defend yourself from idiot psychos.
Sweet.
Do you think cops should be able to shoot and kill people who are rude to them?
Rude? No. But if they have a weapon? Even if it’s a knife, then I think they have every right to use extreme measures to take that person down.
Instead of like, a taser? Or any other form of deescalation? Just shoot and murder anyone who might maybe be a threat?
I like how you totally exaggerated what I said. Lol.
No they should definitely use other means first. I agree there. But if it escalates to a shooting, I’m not going to feel sorry for the first wielding a weapon at a police officer.
Thats the problem though. There are like, a lot of cops killing a lot of people. And they, ya know, shouldnt be doing that. Cops should never kill people.
So if someone is shooting at them they should just taze them? Lol. Nah.
So I take it you think the police were wrong in the deaths of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Mike Brown, Philando Castile and the many other cases where the deceased were NOT shooting at the police?
Only Philando Castile was a bad shoot. All the others were justified
Pro tip - it helps to actually know the legal definition of deadly force and when it can be used and what essential elements must be present for it to be justified.
Which I’m betting you don’t. Not knowing the thing you’re arguing is not a winning strategy
Is “bad shoot” a euphemism for murder? Talk about political correctness run amok! 😂
If you actually know the legal requirements you speak of, feel free to enlighten me. You’re not baiting me into wasting my evening to enlighten you, sorry. Fair warning though, I’m a lawyer and I will know bullshit when I see it.
Deadly force, oh mighty lawyer, is that force which a reasonable person BELIEVES is LIKELY to cause death OR serious bodily injury. And if a reasonable person BELIEVES that the other person possesses means, opportunity AND intent to commit said deadly force, then you’re justified in using it yourself in your own defense or defense of another
I capitalized the important words for you. Note this is pretty much the most restrictive standard across the planet earth and used in almost all western countries.
Bad shoot is bad shoot. It’s an unjustified shooting. The facts of the case will determine what crime was committed in an unjustified shooting. You calling it murder makes me question your lawyer credentials. Murder is a very specific legal charge with very specific essential elements. It’s almost never applicable to a police shooting. Manslaughter is almost always the proper charge even for a bad shoot
Oh my god, you… you couldn’t even copy-and-paste from the correct end of whatever Google search you made. 😂 The deadly force doctrine is about whether a police officer may use deadly force, not whether the officer believes the person interacting with them will use deadly force. One of the situations justifying the use of deadly force is where its use is reasonably believed to be necessary for self-defense or the defense of others.
So let’s look at the facts of the cases I mentioned.
Eric Garner: Even by your flawed use of the terminology, what part of swatting one’s arms away from the police deadly force? What made a prohibited chokehold necessary in self-defense? And why was it necessary not to give immediate medical help to the man?
Tamir Rice: Was a 12-year-old child with a toy gun. The police fired within two seconds of arriving on the scene without ascertaining if the gun was real, without taking cover, without first telling Tamir to drop the gun. This is not only morally and legally wrong but also piss-poor policing.
Michael Brown: Was unarmed and moving toward the officer. A trained police officer had no other means than deadly force to defend himself? Really? Couldn’t talk the guy down? Couldn’t use a tazer? Couldn’t take cover? Again, this is at best incompetent policing.
Many states interpret the “malice aforethought” required for murder as including extreme and reckless disregard for human life. Philando Castile told Jeronimo Yanez he had a licensed firearm. Yanez, rather than asking Castile to step out or otherwise deescalating the situation like, you know, a police officer should, started screaming and then fired seven shots into a car whose occupants included a four-year-old child. I’d say that’s pretty extreme and reckless.
I teach use of force for federal agents. I’m FLETC certified and a court recognized use of force expert. Lmao. I don’t cut and paste. Tennessee v Garner is the relevant precedent. It’s what eliminated the fleeing felon doctrine and replaced it with reasonable officer belief that the subject has means opportunity and intent(MOI) to cause violence likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.
“The deadly force doctrine is about whether a police officer may use deadly force, not whether the officer believes the person interacting with them will use deadly force” This is basic ignorance. Police are responsive. Police can only use force against resistance. So an officer can only use deadly force is they have a reasonable belief that the subject is using or going to use deadly force and has MOI to do so. Reactive. So yes cops have to articulate whether they believe the subject will use deadly force. And then yes, if those criteria are met one can use it in self defense or third party.
Sure you’re a lawyer? This is basic shit you’re not getting right
Prohibited chokehold by policy. Not law. So he can only be sanctioned by his department. My department allows chokeholds BECAUSE THEYRE NOT LETHAL FORCE. Let’s recap - force LIKELY to cause death or serious bodily injury. Chokeholds aren’t likely to else we would have dead MMA fighters and Brazilian jiu-jutsu players dead all over the world. Thousands and thousands of them. Chokeholds, especially the vascular restraint used in this case, are safe as a rule. Punching someone CAN kill them. But it’s very unlikely so punches aren’t considered lethal force. Same with chokes. Not lethal force so now we are back to whether force was justified in the arrest of a non-compliant person. It was. A choke is not unreasonable force legally as it does no damage as a rule. Again, this is why MMA fighters aren’t dying or injured from them.
Rice was walking to the officers drawing a gun that looked exactly real. Hindsight knowledge cannot be applied - only the facts known at the time of the incident. Someone walking to you drawing a gun isn’t something you wait around to see if it’s real. MOI is present. Justified.
Micheal Brown had already severely punched the officer while he was sitting is his car unable to get out. 400lb guy hits hard, as a rule. Especially if you can’t slip the punches because you’re trapped inside a car. There’s a reason there are weight classes in fighting. But that’s not necessarily lethal force right there. What made it lethal force is when he tried to take the officer’ gun from him. This is lethal force anywhere on the planet. Justified
You’re going to try malice aforethought off a traffic stop? You’re leaving some stuff out, like that malice aforethought has mostly abandoned. Driving around drunk is extremely reckless, but killing someone doing so isnt murder. Particularly in Minnesota, which is where it happened. You’ll need causing the death of someone with intent to cause that death (with or without premeditation depending on first or second degree murder - Minnesota penal code 609.185-609.19). Best of luck with that charge. Seeing as how manslaughter wasn’t even found, although based on what I know that charge seemed relevant and the shoot was a bad one. Not justified but not murder
You’re so utterly, amazingly wrong. I’m less convinced than ever you’re an attorney
Have you read the precedent you cite? Because the decision in Tennessee v. Garner almost never applies the term “deadly force” to the fleeing suspect--it’s always, always about whether the police officer is justified in using deadly force. Deadly force on the part of the suspect was only brought up in a comparison of state laws where the commission of a felony using deadly force was one of the justifications for the use of deadly force by the police in eighteen states at the time.
Furthermore the Garner test itself is a totality of the circumstances test which means it does not, and cannot, hinge on a single factor like the suspect using deadly force. Do you understand the importance of using precise terminology in law? Yeah, thought not.
“Prohibited chokehold by policy. Not law. So he can only be sanctioned by his department.”
So... wrong for reasons of violating department policy, rather than by wrongful use of lethal force? Okay. Remember, my contention was simply that the police were wrong in Garner’s death, and you were the one who brought up deadly force. If you admit this was an irrelevant interjection in Garner’s case, that’s fine. Nice self-drag there.
The OP and my own additions were at least as much about police incompetence as legal liability, and if you think it’s a good outcome for someone to die over loose cigarettes then I really don’t know what to tell you.
In the Tamir Rice case the police walked out of the vehicle to confront Tamir when he was not directly threatening anyone and he could still have been talked down. The whole thing was over in two seconds, in direct contravention of good policing practice to slow down so officers have time to correctly assess a situation and hopefully deescalate it. To the extent the officer thought Tamir had a real gun he had put himself in danger by acting so wrecklessly.
Um, talk about getting basic shit wrong, you don’t even know where and when Michael Brown was killed. 😂 It wasn’t while trying to take Wilson’s gun, he was killed after failing to and fleeing.
I didn’t get malice aforethought from a traffic stop. Read my post over if you didn’t get it the first time. Also, how inconvenient for you that Minnesota actually puts endangerment and lack of regard for human life in its statute for murder.
Minnesota Statutes
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
When interacting with police, its the POLICE who have been trained to deal with a myriad of potentially dangerous situations. Its their JOB to act and react in the best possible way to anything a person might say or do. People, especially black people, should not need to be on their best behavior when talking to cops if they want to live.
So I dont give a shit if someone is screaming profanity at them while holding a steak knife. Its never the cop’s job to kill them.
Killing people is not the police’s job. Ever.
So no. None of those killer cops was never “just doing their job” and they should be able to deal with high tension situations better than any civilian. There’s no excuse.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve read.
Let’s make a post that totally tries to get citizens off the hook for acting in a civilized manner. Because citizens can just be assholes and if you choose a profession too help the majority you can’t defend yourself from idiot psychos.
Sweet.
Do you think cops should be able to shoot and kill people who are rude to them?
Rude? No. But if they have a weapon? Even if it’s a knife, then I think they have every right to use extreme measures to take that person down.
Instead of like, a taser? Or any other form of deescalation? Just shoot and murder anyone who might maybe be a threat?
I like how you totally exaggerated what I said. Lol.
No they should definitely use other means first. I agree there. But if it escalates to a shooting, I’m not going to feel sorry for the first wielding a weapon at a police officer.
Thats the problem though. There are like, a lot of cops killing a lot of people. And they, ya know, shouldnt be doing that. Cops should never kill people.
So if someone is shooting at them they should just taze them? Lol. Nah.
So I take it you think the police were wrong in the deaths of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Mike Brown, Philando Castile and the many other cases where the deceased were NOT shooting at the police?
Only Philando Castile was a bad shoot. All the others were justified
Pro tip - it helps to actually know the legal definition of deadly force and when it can be used and what essential elements must be present for it to be justified.
Which I’m betting you don’t. Not knowing the thing you’re arguing is not a winning strategy
Is “bad shoot” a euphemism for murder? Talk about political correctness run amok! 😂
If you actually know the legal requirements you speak of, feel free to enlighten me. You’re not baiting me into wasting my evening to enlighten you, sorry. Fair warning though, I’m a lawyer and I will know bullshit when I see it.
Deadly force, oh mighty lawyer, is that force which a reasonable person BELIEVES is LIKELY to cause death OR serious bodily injury. And if a reasonable person BELIEVES that the other person possesses means, opportunity AND intent to commit said deadly force, then you’re justified in using it yourself in your own defense or defense of another
I capitalized the important words for you. Note this is pretty much the most restrictive standard across the planet earth and used in almost all western countries.
Bad shoot is bad shoot. It’s an unjustified shooting. The facts of the case will determine what crime was committed in an unjustified shooting. You calling it murder makes me question your lawyer credentials. Murder is a very specific legal charge with very specific essential elements. It’s almost never applicable to a police shooting. Manslaughter is almost always the proper charge even for a bad shoot
Oh my god, you... you couldn’t even copy-and-paste from the correct end of whatever Google search you made. 😂 The deadly force doctrine is about whether a police officer may use deadly force, not whether the officer believes the person interacting with them will use deadly force. One of the situations justifying the use of deadly force is where its use is reasonably believed to be necessary for self-defense or the defense of others.
So let’s look at the facts of the cases I mentioned.
Eric Garner: Even by your flawed use of the terminology, what part of swatting one’s arms away from the police deadly force? What made a prohibited chokehold necessary in self-defense? And why was it necessary not to give immediate medical help to the man?
Tamir Rice: Was a 12-year-old child with a toy gun. The police fired within two seconds of arriving on the scene without ascertaining if the gun was real, without taking cover, without first telling Tamir to drop the gun. This is not only morally and legally wrong but also piss-poor policing.
Michael Brown: Was unarmed and moving toward the officer. A trained police officer had no other means than deadly force to defend himself? Really? Couldn’t talk the guy down? Couldn’t use a tazer? Couldn’t take cover? Again, this is at best incompetent policing.
Many states interpret the “malice aforethought” required for murder as including extreme and reckless disregard for human life. Philando Castile told Jeronimo Yanez he had a licensed firearm. Yanez, rather than asking Castile to step out or otherwise deescalating the situation like, you know, a police officer should, started screaming and then fired seven shots into a car whose occupants included a four-year-old child. I’d say that’s pretty extreme and reckless.
Tamir Rice (6/25/2002–11/23/2014) should be celebrating his 15th birthday today. Never forget. #blacklivesmatter
Here are seven facts that everyone should know about the case.
This is according to the official report from the prosecutor: “Officer Loehmann discharged his firearm within two seconds of exiting the car. Officer Loehmann fired two shots, one of which hit Tamir in the abdomen and caused him to fall in the area between the patrol car and the gazebo.”
The officers both claimed to have warned Rice multiple times before firing. None of the witnesses heard any of these “verbal commands.”
As the investigation dragged on activists “invoked a provision of Ohio law that allows citizens to bypass prosecutors and seek a judge’s opinion on whether cause exists to bring criminal charges.” The judge, Ronald B. Adrine, “found that sufficient cause exists to charge Loehmann with murder, involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, negligent homicide, and dereliction of duty.” He also found that Loehmann’s partner, Frank Garmback, could be charged with “negligent homicide and dereliction of duty.”
“After viewing it several times, this court is still thunderstruck by how quickly this event turned deadly,” Judge Adrine wrote in his opinion.
The prosecutor ignored the judge’s ruling.
As a member of the Independence Police Department in Ohio, Loehmann was described in his personnel file as “an emotionally unstable recruit with a ‘lack of maturity’ and ‘inability to perform basic functions as instructed‘ during a weapons training exercise.”
A memo in Loehman’s file said “his handgun performance was dismal,” citing a “dangerous loss of composure” during training. He was in the process of being fired. From a letter in his file:
The Cleveland Police Department then hired Loehmann without reviewing his personnel filefrom Independance.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported:
Rice lay on the snow-covered grass beside the cruiser’s passenger side for four minutes as Loehmann, 26, took cover behind the trunk and Patrolman Frank Garmback, the driver, positioned himself opposite his partner near Rice’s body.
Rice wasn’t given first aid until a medically trained FBI agent on duty in the area arrived at the scene…
Matt Meyer, one of the prosecutors, brushed off the officers inaction saying the department “did not train their officers to administer first aid to gun shot victims.” Meyer added that Loehmann was dealing with a sprained ankle he sustained during the incident and Garmback was occupied with Rice’s 14-year-old sister, who he tackled and handcuffed.
This unusual accommodation was highly beneficial to the officers, allowing them to present their version of the events without being subject to any questioning.
“Submitting self-serving, unsworn written statements — rather than appearing live before the grand jury so that the officers’ versions of events are subject to vigorous cross examination — shows that these officers know their story will not withstand real scrutiny,” Subodh Chandra, an attorney for the Rice family, said.
McGinty commissioned reports of two out-of-state experts with a history of sympathy toward police, Kimberly Crawford, a retired FBI agent, and S. Lamar Sims, a Colorado-based prosecutor. Crawford and Sims concluded the officers conduct was “reasonable.” These reports were presented to the grand jury and released to the media.
McGinty did not explain why he picked Crawford and Sims to produce reports.
Two months prior to releasing his report, Sims appeared on television and appeared to defend the officers shooting of Rice. Crawford produced a memo of use of force by law enforcement that was rejected by the Justice Department as too generous to the police.
Two experts in police use of force commissioned by the Rice family found “the shooting was unjustified.” Those experts, Roger Clark and Jeffrey J. Noble, also found that the prosecutors reports “contradicted one another, made unfounded assumptions and ignored principles of police training.”
The job of the prosecutor, quite explicitly, is to reexamine the police officers conduct and to question the appropriateness of their actions. From the beginning, it appeared to be a task that was uncomfortable for prosecutor Timothy McGinty.
