home

Monday Open Thread

The time between Xmas and New Years is like a dead zone. But, since some people, including me, will sometimes have something to say, I'm going to fill it with open threads.

Here's one, all topics welcome.

< Top Media Internet Peeves of the Year | Five Hours I'll Never Get Back >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    No tornado damage, but it is flooding (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    My daughter is on her way here to ride it out. Elba and Geneva are flooding, one family has perished trying to drive through a flooded area that was blocked off. They drove around the road block.

    Glad to hear you and yours (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 05:09:05 PM EST
    are okay.

    Parent
    Thank you Casey (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 09:48:52 PM EST
    We have been watching the weather pattern all day. It's really strange. Storms here usually develop in the Gulf and then march in on a Northeast course. The center of this weather appears to be over Indiana and creating a front coming out of LA. We have never really seen this before.

    As things look right now, tomorrow should be dry and people can begin to recover from the flooding.

    Parent

    Tinkling in NE PA (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 12:07:20 AM EST
    It started a couple of hours ago. It sounds like a choir of glass bells playing lovely music. I do hope the lovely music stops before morning. I suspect I will have to take some photos to send back to California. After an ice storm, it can be magical when the sun comes out.  

    Parent
    Just sent my FIL (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 08:23:08 AM EST
    Back home in that direction. Are the roads icy today?

    Parent
    For that one day only. Back to nice today (none / 0) (#83)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Dec 31, 2015 at 10:31:57 PM EST
    Happy New Years. Let's have a great 2016!

    Parent
    It going to be one (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    For the books.  

    Bubba vs Donald alone should mean investing in popcorn futures.

    Parent

    End of the Year (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 03:50:22 PM EST
    left over: Wonder what is going on in the case of disgraced former Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich. In July of this year, an appeals court vacated five convictions out of 18. The appellate court presented options, a new trial on the five vacated charges or drop them--and move to possible re-sentencing of the 14-year sentence. Blagojevich was sentenced late in 2011 and has been serving time in a Colorado prison.  

    The trial judge was not required to reduce sentencing based on the vacation decision since the guidelines permit them to be unchanged owing to the remaining 13 counts.

    However, the five vacated counts (wire fraud, two counts; extortion conspiracy; attempted extortion; and bribery conspiracy) relate to the prominent charges of selling US Senator Barack Obama's senate seat made available upon his  being elected President.

    The appeals court ruling was based on a trial flaw that considered all proposals alike, when they were legally different.  The proposal to trade one public act for another was ruled "logrolling," unlike a swap of an official act for private payment.

    To my knowledge, neither the prosecutors have   moved toward a retrial--an unlikely step, nor has the trial judge moved toward consideration of re-sentencing.  

    The sentencing of 14 years always seemed harsh to me.  And, with the vacating of five counts, justice appears to call for a reduction in sentencing.  And, without undue delay.

    Overzealous cops strike again (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 11:46:51 PM EST
    As someone who drinks tea and, not only shops at garden centers, but works in them, I have to laugh to keep from crying over these stupid cops and their aggressive incompetence.

    The drug war, the cops, the prosecutors, and how your skin color could either keep you out of jail or lead to your life being destroyed.

    The worst part, for me, was the (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    ruling by the court:

    Last week, U.S. District Court Judge John W. Lungstrum dismissed every one of the Hartes's claims. Lungstrum found that sending a SWAT team into a home first thing in the morning based on no more than a positive field test and spotting a suspect at a gardening store was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. He found that the police had probable cause for the search, and that the way the search was conducted did not constitute excessive force. He found that the Hartes had not been defamed by the raid or by the publicity surrounding it. He also ruled that the police were under no obligation to know that drug testing field kits are inaccurate, nor were they obligated to wait for the more accurate lab tests before conducting the SWAT raid. The only way they'd have a claim would be if they could show that the police lied about the results, deliberately manipulated the tests or showed a reckless disregard for the truth -- and he ruled that the Hartes had failed to do so.

    Apparently, in Kansas, if you're a private citizen, you're screwed.

    Parent

    What's the Matter with Kansas? A lot!! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 03:49:36 PM EST
    The judge is so wrong on this, especially when you consider that the failure rate of those tests is so high. The couple is appealing the ruling, but as Balko pointed out: they're former CIA agents, they're white, they know the system, they have access to lawyers, and they have the money to cover legal fees.

    BTW, Anne, I thought of you when I saw this.

    So adorable.

    Parent

    Our newest little one did come home with (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    a Christmas hat, but no stocking!

    That is an adorable photo, though, isn't it?

    Parent

    Totally adorable (none / 0) (#52)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 03:53:35 PM EST
    How can it not put a smile on your face?

    Parent
    You can have my turtles (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ragebot on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 01:28:43 AM EST
    when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

    In what seems like an over step to me the DOT/FAA is requiring remote controlled air craft to be registered.  Popular Science had an funny article about more planes hitting turtles than hitting remote controlled air craft.  

    I recently moved my boat, a 42 foot catamaran, to Ft. Myers to have it hauled out and get the bottom painted.  My cinematographer made this video as I was driving the boat.  I have lived in Florida since the 1950s and noticed more and more boats being operated in a dangerous manner.  Not really a shock that Florida leads the nation in boating fatalities.

    Not sure what the cost of the RC registration will be and as a long standing member of the AMA, the national RC group, I do have $US2,500,000 insurance coverage and like to think of myself as a safe pilot.  But I doubt the DOT/FAA will be able to enforce any RC rules given how poorly boating rules/laws are enforced.  Also have to wonder how the DOT/FAA sets priorities.  As any film maker will tell you the video I posted of the speeding boater was not a one take thing.  I would guess I saw at least fifty boats recklessly speeding too close to other boats and was able to get that footage because we got out the camera, the gimbal and were ready after seeing the same thing happen multiple times.

    So at what point does the government lose credibility for ignoring real longstanding problems like dangerous boaters while stepping into an area where there is clearly no way to enforce the rules they have proposed.

    What point does the government lose credibility (none / 0) (#33)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 05:50:12 AM EST
    That shipped set sail a long time ago

    Only 19 percent of Americans -- about 1 in 5 -- say they trust the government "always or most of the time," according to a study released by the Pew Research Center on Monday. Yet clear majorities also favor the government taking "a major role" in fighting terrorism, responding to natural disasters, keeping food and drugs safe, protecting the environment, strengthening the economy and improving education.

    Despite this desire for government services, Americans are clearly dissatisfied with the level of service they feel they receive. Three out of four, 74 percent, say public officials put their own interests ahead of the nation's. And a majority, 55 percent, say ordinary Americans would "do a better job of solving problems" than the people whose job it is to do so.



    Parent
    WWII (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    really set the stage for belief in govt. As a country we acted as a team. FDR created trust on govt.

    Conservatives have done everything to undermine that trust.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#66)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 09:00:06 PM EST
    I would say it was the unbridled expansion of government, where it was not needed or wanted,
    From WW2 to the current.

    Plus the continued incompetence of government that has pushed the meter of the general public.

    The least bang for your buck is to give it to the federal government

    Parent

    But that's not true Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 11:46:44 AM EST
    I think many historians (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 12:10:13 PM EST
    point to Vietnam and Watergate as the beginning of distrust.

    After WWII, we still had good education, Medicare and the Moon landing....

    But if we could lead the world in defeating the Nazis and Imperial Japan and the Great Depression, then we were doing something right.  And our leaders were even keeled responsible people like Ike......

    Conservatives do not like modernity and blame the government for enshrining it....But govt in the end just reflects the people.    

    Parent

    One factor (none / 0) (#82)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 03:39:33 PM EST
    ...in that is that the Presidency and the House were in Democratic Party hands while all these positive accomplishments took place.

    OTOH, it is also the time of HUAC and the disgraceful treatment of Hollywood writers and American hero Pete Seeger.

    Parent

    No charges in Tamir Rice case (2.00 / 3) (#1)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    Link

    Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Tim McGinty said it was "indisputable" that the boy was drawing the weapon from his waistband...  He called it "a perfect storm of human error" but said no crime was committed.

    This decision shouldn't be surprising or controversial.  This was never going to be a strong criminal case.  You can't blame one cop for the mistakes of others.  The Rice family will have more success with a civil case.  

    What a typical load of b.s (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 03:54:07 PM EST
    Surprising? No. Controversial? He[[ yes.

    And this:

    You can't blame one cop for the mistakes of others.

    is a nonsense statement, which has nothing to do with anything.

    Just curious: did you pop open a bottle of champagne to celebrate? After all, you've been flogging this one for months.

    Parent

    Typical response from someone who lets (2.75 / 4) (#5)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 04:21:55 PM EST
    their emotions get the best of them.  Fortunately, the grand jury wasn't comprised of people like you and common sense prevailed. Sorry, you won't get your social justice today.

    If the dispatcher, the driver and shooter were one person, criminal charges would have been more likely. But you can't blame the shooter for the mistake of the driver.  And you can't blame either cop for not knowing the caller said it was probably a kid with a toy gun. Sometimes, especially when police are involved, tragic mistakes are not crimes.  

    And, no, I didn't celebrate.  As I have said many times before, I enjoy watching high profile trials on TV.  I won't get to do that with this one.


    Parent

    Yup, once again, typical right wing B.S. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 05:04:45 PM EST
    You've shown your true colors here in countless comments. And you've been salivating over the possibility of this result for months. I guess you think you're fooling somebody. News flash: you're not fooling anyone.

    Parent
    The cops according to one (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 10:26:26 PM EST
    expert did not follow correct procedures.

    They should not have driven up so close and fast--which gave them no time to evaluate and act deliberately.  

    They should have come in at a distance and tried to communicate with the boy.   Slow, not fast.

    And, this critique reminded me of a line from David Hackworth's Vietnam Primer, which became the unofficial but widely used field manual for Vietnam.   Hackworth said to never rush in combat.  

    That sounded so odd because in combat everything is so urgent.  Assess and calmly act, slowly deliberately.  

    So for big city cops, a little less bang-bang shoot 'em up....more assessment.  

    Parent

    Perfect example of your true colors: (none / 0) (#7)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 05:06:38 PM EST
    Sorry, you won't get your social justice today.

    Out there for all to see.

    Parent

    Well, at least you can enjoy ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 05:46:42 PM EST
    ... the grand jury spokesman's summation of that panel's deliberative process in this case.

    Parent
    I didn't realize (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 10:31:04 PM EST
    Tamir Rice was the size of a pretty big man (he didn't look like a typical child) even though he was only 11.  (The ME's report lists him at 67 inches and 195 pounds).

    I also didn't realize there was video that showed him pulling his "gun" out of his waistband after he was told to halt.

    Tragic, all around.

    Parent

    When my nephew was 12, he was 5'9". (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 04:24:11 PM EST
    The Goddess of Nature neither instantly confers emotional maturity upon a boy once he reaches a certain height or enters puberty, nor does She simultaneously impart to him the wisdom of adulthood in the absence of personal experience. A 12-year-old boy is still a child, regardless of whether he's 4'10" or 6'0".

    And no, 5'7" and 195 lbs. is not necessarily indicative of "a pretty big man." Per the Cuyahoga County coroner's report, that size is consistent with the description of a somewhat pudgy adolescent: "The body is of a well developed, well nourished, edematous, 67 inch, 195 pound, black adolescent male, whose appearance is consistent with the reported age of 12 years or older." (Emphasis is mine.)

    But honestly, why does Tamir Rice's size even matter, except perhaps as a straw to grasp when trying to defend what's an otherwise indefensible act? The relevant and decisive factor for consideration here should be the boy's age, and not his height, weight and shoe size. He was still 12 years old, which would more than likely have been quite obvious to someone had he or she only talked to him.

    Only Tamir Rice was never even given a chance to talk. He was simply and methodically gunned down within two seconds of Officer Timothy Loehmann's arrival on the scene. So, how could he have ever been "told to halt," never mind even given a chance to comply with that alleged police directive?

    Further, neither Loehmann or the driver, Officer Frank Garmback, ever bothered to suggest to the other that they first scope and assess the situation before approaching directly. No, they just threw caution to the wind, came down upon that poor boy like a bat out of hell, and opened fire. (And again, never mind that the police dispatcher apparently failed to inform them that this was a boy and not an adult.)

    If that's not a textbook case of manifest irresponsibility and incompetence on the part of law enforcement, then I really don't know what is. Yet how is it that neither policeman is to be held accountable by the authorities for the tragic and wholly unnecessary death of this 12-year-old child?

    African Americans comprise only 13% of the U.S. population, yet they account for 32% of all persons who've been shot by law enforcement officers. Further, given that Ohio is an open-carry state with regard to its gun laws, Tamir Rice became a candidate for a police shooting -- how, exactly? Because he was black, 5'7" and 195 lbs., and the white cops therefore determined that to be a scary and menacing prospect?

    I've heard more than a few TV pundits reference Tamir Rice's height and weight the last two days, while defending the grand jury's decision to not indict either Loehmann or Garmback in Rice's death. IMHO, that's a racist argument to offer in justification for what those two officers did to that boy, and those who make it in public really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of people on TV nowadays who are clearly impervious to such personal embarrassments.

    At the very least, Officer Loehmann should be terminated by the City of Cleveland, summarily and with extreme prejudice. Given his appallingly inept personal judgment skills, he really needs to find another line of work, because he certainly has no business wearing a badge. And I hope that Tamir Rice's family sues him into penury.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Most 12 year olds are not 5'7 (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 01:32:26 PM EST
    However, since all the pictures we've seen of him (much like the ones we saw of Trayvon Martin) showed a much more youthful looking boy, which is why certain narratives get built.

    Parent
    He saw that acted out somewhere (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 10:41:07 PM EST
    He was a child.

    It was a great Christmas for me, but sad too. A couple of my friends decided guns were great Christmas gifts this year. This is the first year any of my friends gifted guns and made such a big deal out of it that everyone had to know.

    It is a "gun attitude" that might not get you killed if you are white, but as Ruff pointed out still could. But Americans who are black get different acceptable gun attitude rules than Americans who are white.

    I'm really tired of everyone's attitude who is pro gun though. They seem juvenile and overly insecure.

    Parent

    IMO (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 08:16:51 AM EST
    The real problem is the so called "legal standard".   All that's necessary for the police to execute a 12 yo is a "perceived threat" what HELL does that even mean?  It means whatever cops need or want it to mean.

    Parent
    The officer has no obligation (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 06:19:17 PM EST
    to determine if the gun is real or fake before using lethal force. That is astounding.

    Pierce has more  on the bad choice of Rice to have a scary growth spurt.

    Parent

    the "toy" (none / 0) (#42)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    A child who tragically was carrying around a toy gun with no orange tip.  Does anyone know who took off the orange tip?  Isn't this what the take home lesson should be---don't make toy guns look real and don't alter toy guns to look real?

    Parent
    I'm sure (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 10:29:34 AM EST
    The orange tip that was in his pants is what the cop, within one second, based his decusion on.

    No doubt.

    Parent

    I'm curious (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 07:47:46 PM EST
    Tamir Rice had not committed a crime.  In an open carry state, an adult would have been entitled to be carrying a REAL weapon.  As far as I know, he never did anything to you.  But you seem to be overjoyed that he died.  You seem to think he had it coming.

    Why do you hate a kid you never met? Why are you metaphorically high-fiving the cop who shot him?

    If there is someone not to like in the incident, I choose the cop, who never gave the kid a chance.

    Parent

    That is a very good point (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 07:53:55 PM EST
    How are people in open carry states supposed to walk around in such a way that does not seem to 'threaten' the police? Sure, being white will help them most of the time, but I would not rely on that.

    Parent
    The guy who called 911 (none / 0) (#21)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    said Tamir had a pistol and was "pointing it at everybody"

    You could start by not doing that.  

    Parent

    The guy said the gun was "probably fake" (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Towanda on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 07:10:53 PM EST
    but you somehow omitted that.  Why?

    Parent
    Because the dispatcher failed (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 08:02:16 PM EST
    to relay this information to the officers who responded to the dispatch?

    Parent
    True (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 08:10:41 AM EST
    And that person should absolutely not have a job anymore.  At least not that job.   I would be very surprised if they do not.

    Parent
    Is it "open carry" (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    If, at the time the cops arrived, he was pulling it out of his waistband?

    Parent
    I didn't hate Tamir Rice (none / 0) (#14)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 08:07:11 PM EST
    I never knew him.  I do hate it when people make dumb assumptions on the internet.  When you say something like you that you should back it up with something or be suspended from TL.

    We covered this before.  It doesn't matter if Ohio is an open carry state.  What mattered is if officer Loehmann had reason to believe Rice might shoot him or someone else.  

    No one is recommending Timothy Loehmann for officer of the year but people who base their decisions on facts, not emotion, recognize he probably didn't commit a crime.

    Parent

    Negligent homocide, at the very least? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 09:25:18 PM EST
    if they thought the kid was possibly armed and dangerous, why the hell did the pull the car up ten feet from him without first making an intelligent assessment of the situation?

    The cop's crazy tactics screamed negligence and incompetence..

    Parent

    jondee, there are certain (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 09:49:45 PM EST
    cases where, by simply offering to debate them logically, lends a certain patina of rationale (or, justification) to the case, when the irrefutable fact is, an outrageous rape of justice is being committed right before our eyes.

    In other words, the very same arguments could, logically, be used to excuse this debasement of Constitutional intent even if  the jury pool consisted of KKK members only and the Prosecutor being the Grand Dragon himself.

    "They" don't deserve debate, they deserve a face-full of phlegm.

    Parent

    Which cop are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 10:02:38 PM EST
    "The cop's crazy tactics screamed negligence and incompetence"

    There were two officers involved.  The shooter, Loehmann, wasn't the one who drove up close to Rice.  You can't blame him for the driver's possible mistake.  If you want to indict the driver, he's not the one who shot Rice.  

    I don't see how negligent homicide applies here. I do see a potential civil settlement.  Perhaps a demotion.  

    Parent

    There could be a good reason (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MikeB on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 10:03:50 PM EST
    There could be a legitimate reason. Getting out of thier car closer allows them a better view of what he's carrying and how he's carrying. Secondly, if they have to respond, they are less likely to miss at that range and hurt innocents. Lastly, thier response time is much quicker if Rice wanted to fire off some shots towards innocents. In my opinion, in the interest of protecting innocents around them, I think it was the right thing to do. We have the benefit of hindsight - they didn't.

    Parent
    The cops testified (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 10:33:48 PM EST
    It was icy that day and their car slid further than where they would have stopped.

    FWIW.

    Parent

    Here's the problem (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    The cops testified...

    That they did, and by doing so, gave up their Fifth Amendment rights.  Thus they became subject to cross examination.  But no one was there to do that, the victim did not have an advocate, even though that is the prosecutor's job, so they gave self-serving statements, unchallenged by the adversarial system we depend on to sift testimony for truth.

    Anyone who thinks justice was done here does not care much for justice.

    Parent

    What was supposed to happen? (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 02:00:05 PM EST
    Force this case to trial with no chance of a conviction?  That strategy doesn't seem to make many people happy.  

    Parent
    Off the top of my head, prosecutors (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 03:50:17 PM EST
    were not supposed to rig the grand jury process to get the result they wanted: clearing the cops.

    "Even though video shows the police shooting Tamir in less than one second, Prosecutor McGinty hired so-called expert witnesses to try to exonerate the officers and tell the grand jury their conduct was reasonable and justified," the attorneys charged. "It is unheard of, and highly improper, for a prosecutor to hire 'experts' to try to exonerate the targets of a grand jury investigation."

    "Then, Prosecutor McGinty allowed the police officers to take the oath and read prepared statements to the grand jury without answering any questions on cross-examination," the attorneys said. "The prosecutor did not seek a court order compelling the officers to answer questions or holding the officers in contempt if they continued to refuse. This special treatment would never be given to non-police suspects."

    Also, can you explain to me how it is that police don't have the skills and training to keep a 12-yr old black kid alive, but somehow, someone like an older white guy like Robert Dear, who was known to have killed people in cold blood, could be taken into custody alive?

    And for something even more puzzling, explain this:

    Here's what happened. It was a Sunday afternoon about 4 p.m. when Kalamazoo 9-1-1 got several calls from citizens concerned about an intoxicated man with a gun walking around a coin laundry and "stumbling around a little bit and kind of bumping into some stuff" on the street. The police arrived shortly and confronted the man by saying, "Hey, partner, how you doing? Can you set that down real quick and talk to me?" (The officer didn't have his gun drawn.) The armed man refused to set it down. The officer told him that he was jaywalking and was being detained. At that point the officer radioed that the armed man would not drop the weapon. He tells the man again that he just wants to talk to him and says, "You're walking around here scaring people, man."

    A second police car arrives at the scene. The man refuses to identify himself and demands to know if he's free to go and the officer says no, that he is resisting and obstructing, a misdemeanor, for jaywalking and failing to identify himself. The man says, "Why don't you fucking shoot me?" The officer gently replies, "I don't want to shoot you; I'm not here to do that."

    [...]

    Soon 12 police are on the scene, including a supervisor and SWAT negotiator. The street is shut down in both directions. Police recordings describe the man as agitated and hostile and although he is holding his gun at "parade rest" he's switching it back and forth and fumbling in his pockets for chewing tobacco. After much discussion, he finally agrees to give up the weapon.

    Do the police then instantly swarm him and wrestle him to the ground? Do they handcuff him, throw him in the back of the police car and arrest him for the trouble he's caused? Did he get roughed up or put in a chokehold for resisting arrest and being uncooperative?

    None of that happened to this man. The police took his gun and then said he could have it back immediately if he agreed to take a breathalyzer test on the spot. (You can be arrested for carrying a firearm while intoxicated in Michigan if you blow a .08 or above, the same legal limit for DUI.) The man refused. They carried on for a while longer with the man objecting to having his gun taken away even as the police explain that he is free to walk home and retrieve it at the police station the next day. They spar over whether he's mentally unstable and if it's a good idea for him to "demonstrate" this way, particularly being hostile to the police. He finally apologizes and leaves the scene without his gun. No charges were filed. Nobody was hurt. He got his gun back.

    Really just too bad, isn't it, that the cops in the Tamir Rice case couldn't have found a better way to handle the situation than roaring up in a police car, and in one second, shooting him dead?  For having a toy gun.

    Parent

    I started writing a response, but, (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    while organizing some thoughts in my head before starting to type, I realized the malfeasance was so great, the violations so numerous, and the assault on justice so egregious, that I'd be writing a book, not a comment.

    Then, complicating matters, is the realization that any response would be addressed to someone who is as interested in understanding the facts about this case, the facts that makes this case so much more than just a stupid, incompetent cop screwing up a relatively simple assignment, as Jimaka is in attending a Climate Change Seminar.

    One tiny example: You asked a simple question, something about why the two cops couldn't have found a better way than,"... roaring up in a police car, and in one second, shooting him dead?" My guess is that that question was what they were discussing in their squad car for FIVE WHOLE PHUCKING MINUTES AS THE 12 YEAR OLD BOY LAY ON THE GROUND BLEEDING OUT, WITHOUT A SECOND'S THOUGHT OF GIVING CPR!

    You see? this is why I start writing responses, but hardly ever finish one. So, out of respect for Jeralyn's "rules," the person addressed in this case is not a racist. He is, simply,  a commenter who.....

    acts, writes, thinks, and, behaves EXACTLY LIKE A DAVID DUKE, KKK, RACIST.

    Parent

    But what would have happened if it went to trial? (2.00 / 2) (#56)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 06:13:03 PM EST
    Nothing good.  No convictions.  Those upset now, would still be upset.  

    You can blame McGinty all you want but the evidence just wasn't there.  Neither cop committed a crime.  There's no evidence race had anything to do with this tragedy.  How different cops handled a different situation isn't at all relevant to this case.  No crime, no trial.

    Parent

    I don't know how you can decide there (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 08:19:12 PM EST
    would be no convictions if there were a trial.  Well, unless you are asserting that the same prosecution that rigged the grand jury in favor of the cops would put on an equally pro-cop case.

    I would probably have a different perception of these police officers if either of them had exhibited even the slightest understanding of the horror of the events in which they played an integral role.  They made no effort or attempt to render aid to Rice, who was still alive.  They treated Rice's sister like she was a criminal, showing no compassion or humanity to someone who had just witnessed her loved one being shot.

    Here's what I know - and what I would hope you would know, too.  Timothy Loehmann should never have been on any police force, much less the Cleveland police force.  If the Cleveland police force had done any due diligence on Loehmann, had reviewed his poor performance with the Independence force, he would probably not ever have been hired.

    In my opinion, making sure these officers faced no criminal charges was as much a case of protecting the city of Cleveland as anything else, because there is no credible defense for why someone who was weepy and distracted, couldn't follow directions, had poor handgun performance, and about whom it was believed no amount of training would correct his deficiencies, should have been responsible for making life and death decisions.

    As for McGinty, why shouldn't be be held accountable?  Aren't you the same person who wants to hold Marilyn Mosby accountable for what you perceive as her bias?  Why do you not hold McGinty to the same standard?

    Parent

    You make some points and observations (none / 0) (#65)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 08:34:53 PM EST
    that might be relevant for a civil case.  The Rice family might get a victory there.

    In my opinion, McGinty should have never put this case before a grand jury. He should have decided not to press charges.  That's what a brave and ethical prosecutor would have done.

    Marilyn Mosby is at the bottom of the barrel, with the worst of the worst....  Mike Nifong, Jeff Ashton, Angela Corey.  I wouldn't put McGinty anywhere near their territory.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 09:10:21 PM EST
    He had to bring this to a grand jury,

    But as with Ferguson, the prosecutor has all his evidence in front of him prior to going to the grand jury.
    In both cases the DA realized he had no case  and presented all the evidence to the grand jury, as opposed to just the probable cause to indict.

    In both cases the grand juries decided no to indict.

    This instance was just poor procedure all around, starting with the dispatcher, then the driver, both of their mistakes placed the officer jumping out of the car in a terrible position, from whence a terrible decision was made.

    Parent

    All the evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 09:46:54 PM EST
    Not so sure you have a basis for making such a definite claim, at least not based on what we've heard about the proceedings.

    Seems like people who have the power to make decisions that could take someone's life should be doing a better job of hiring and training police officers and those on whom they rely for information.

    And then there's the small matter of the Cleveland judge who found probable cause for charges; yes, it was advisory in nature, and did not bind prosecutors, but I think it points out that things were not as clear-cut or cut-and-dried as you and McBain keep wanting to make it.

    Parent

    McBain doesn't need to have a basis (none / 0) (#70)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 10:59:46 PM EST
    for any of his claims. He's an armchair lawyer. He's like Chauncey Gardener...he "likes to watch." As he stated above, he likes to watch criminal trials on TV.

    Parent
    Are you saying he "had to" because of (2.00 / 1) (#68)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 09:28:47 PM EST
    public opinion?  It's my understanding he had at least four choices...
    • indict
    • not indict
    • grand jury
    • special prosecutor

    If he realized he didn't have a case he should have decided not to indict.  That's the ethical choice.

    I mostly agree with your last paragraph, however, I'd like to know more about what information dispatchers are supposed to pass on.    

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#73)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 05:34:46 AM EST
    He had to to show the public.

    DA's rarely try cases they do not think they can win. So yes, they can decide not to indict,

    But in these instances, because of the  nature of the crime, and the local community pressure, the DA's decided it would be best to present all the evidence to the grand jury, and let them make their decision.

    I would consider it Solomon like, cutting the baby in half, so to speak. Not perfect, but in these instances , the DA saw no way he could decide there was no case and still do his job in the community.

    Parent

    I haven't been following this closely (2.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 12:11:57 AM EST
    having been involved in some extensive poker playing... But in my catch up mode I find it interesting that I could have stated the responses/positions of each of you.

    The only thing I haven't seen is this.

    Who here thinks the officer jumped out and killed Tamir because he was black??

    Who here has ever actually been in a situation in which his life was at risk....besides Nyshooter and Repack? (perhaps?)

    Given that the dispatcher told the officers that a person was waving a gun, leaving  out the fake part...given that when the officer came out of the police car Tamir was waving the gun...

    Would you train the officer to give the other person the first shot??

    Parent

    et al (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by sj on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 12:46:14 AM EST
    I beg of you: please don't feed it.

    Parent
    Classic response. Well Played! (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 08:54:16 AM EST
    Try answering the question (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 08:52:31 AM EST
    instead of running away.

    If you think we have a national problem, how would you change the training?

    Do you think it reasonable that the police should always give the other person the first shot?

    Would you be a policeman under those rules?

    Or maybe you should just run away because you don't want to answer the question and debate the issue.

    Parent

    No justice (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 06:21:20 PM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 10:28:45 PM EST
    Sitting by the fire (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    For a while I've been wondering what I was going to do with my massive VHS collection.  Most of which are exactly what you think.  I have a small house with limited storage and it has not made sense for several years to have a truck load of media I have not touched in (15-20?) years.

    I've discovered they make pretty good fuel for the wood stove!

    Which is worse a little smoke or clogging a landfill?

    I have to make some decsions about media (none / 0) (#11)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 06:57:05 PM EST
    and media devices clogging up my storage space. Jerry Seinfeld did a great bit on garbage that's funny and painfully true....

    all things are "in different stages of becoming garbage"

    Parent

    Howdy, transfer your DVD (none / 0) (#35)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 07:46:22 AM EST
    collection to digital, re-edit on your computer and burn disks of anything you want to keep.  It takes a long time but you will become a video editor, and will learn not to make mistakes while shooting with your camera.  You probably didn't shoot all the VHS tapes but still transferring and editing ultimately will make you a better cameraman.

    Parent
    It would take a long time (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 08:10:40 AM EST
    As in the rest of my natural life.  I actually did some of this.  Tried transferring it to digital.  A few collectibles.   Like the one made famous by Clarence Thomas.
    But in talking about VHS not DVD.  I don't have a problem storing DVDs.  They don't take up much space.  Got hundreds of those too.
    99% of the stuff, let's be honest, is p@rn.   I've tried giving it away but no one wants it.  The internet killed the adult video tape I'm afraid.  
    And they make great fuel.  I think I'll throw another tape on the fire and have another cup of coffee.

    Parent
    Yes it takes a long time (none / 0) (#39)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 08:33:43 AM EST
    to transfer any and all video and photo collections.  It took me four years to transfer all my 8,000 prints, slides, and negatives to my computers.  When you transfer slides or negs you must name and correct them or you will be lost.  Recently I found a hidden box of slides I'd never opened since moving from Aspen 15 years ago.  So its back to the light box, loupe, and scanner.  They make a big deal about how much faster wireless hookups are between computers and printer scanners, but when the info gets there the scanner still chugs along at "I"m leaving the room now" speed.

    Parent
    The only slides (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 08:41:28 AM EST
    I ever kept were examples of my work from my very first computer imaging job which started in 1978-9 for a company called Genegraphics.  Which was put out if business by the personal computer.  Talk about ancient history.   We did CG slides for different kinds of complex slide shows.  I got rid of those years ago.  I now wish I had kept a few.

    Like fossils.

    Parent

    So Donald (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 10:06:04 PM EST
    and the NH Union Leader are having another knock down drag out fight. I guess this is how it's going to be until he either loses the GOP primary or the presidential election. At this point I'm not sure who is worse Trump the bully or Cruz the greasy pretend evangelical.

    I know, that has long been the dilemma (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 06:22:53 PM EST
    Which one is going to be more odious to watch until next November? Really a toss-up to me.

    Parent
    I don't know if it happens (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 01:18:23 AM EST
    in this cycle, but, a coalition of Trump's supporters added with Bernie's, and, you've got one helluva new Party.

    I know I wrote about it here months ago, saying that I saw elements within the Tea Party that would integrate well with true Progressives.

    My point was, and it's being born out with Trump's success, that there's one issue that's stronger than Right/Left, guns/abortion, etc.

    And, that is, The Public is beyond mad, they're livid! They don't know why, or how, but what they do know is that they're getting screwed, blued, and, tattooed by whoever they send to Washington, "R," or, "D."

    How does a Trump/Sanders, or, Sanders/Trump Ticket sound?

    It sounds absurd (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 02:18:37 AM EST
    Sanders supporters know exactly why they're pi$$ed off, and what their candidate's policy positions are. Sorry, Shooter, but comparisons between Sanders and Trump--or between their respective supporters--are silly and shallow. Right-wing, low-information voters are happy to let someone else do the thinking for them, and follow like sheep any swaggering corporatist with a big mouth. Trump is no different than the vile radio talk show hosts who pump up their audiences with the basest rantings they can fill a three-hour time slot with.  

    Parent
    The problem with that idea, and this (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    is where Bernie misjudges Trump supporters, is that the people in the Trump camp have shown themselves time and again perfectly willing to do without the things that would make their own lives better in order to ensure that nothing helps the "others"- the browns, the blacks, the gays, the Not Christians.

    Trumpers are never going to fall in line behind Bernie or make common cause with progressives. It is just not going to happen.

    Parent

    The Bern agrees with you (none / 0) (#32)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 05:44:47 AM EST
    From Politico

    Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said Sunday he believes he can win over supporters of Republican front-runner Donald Trump, explaining that Trump has been successful at channeling working-class anger.
    In a pre-taped interview for CBS' "Face the Nation," Sanders said many of Trump's supporters are "working-class people" who have "legitimate" angers and fears because of decreasing wages and the rising cost of college tuition, among other reasons.


    Parent
    Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 06:53:48 AM EST
    does not have a clue then as to why Trump supporters are Trump supporters if that's what he's saying. Trump supporters have more of the mentality of a homeless person living in a box and think everybody else ie liberals, minorities, you name it is going to take their box away from them. Like most Republicans they have a fear based anger.

    Parent
    Yes, this will be (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 01:57:22 PM EST
    tough sledding for Senator Sanders.  Not so much because there is no snow, but because there is no sled.  The senator needs to take some time and read Thomas Frank's "What's the matter with Kansas."  It may provide some insights into the ambitiousness of his undertaking.  

     Sanders, as do his supporters, rail against 'millionaires and billionaires,' in the cause of income inequality.  Trump, and his supporters, have rallies for 'millionaires and billionaires' --as wannabes who are deprived of such economic status by immigrants and taxes and "our money" going to those people on welfare.

    Trump is seen as a populist. What is not seen is his attitudes that do harm to the populace. The billionaire who is the buddy of the working man, the one who thinks they make too much money. The one who sells privatization, deregulation and monopolies as the needed nostrum for economic health. One who calls on patriotism to diminish their life's chances.  

    Yes, anger is the commonplace. But, I hope that Senator Sanders is suggesting similarities in his and Trump supporters as a political tactic to downplay "socialist" attacks, rather than a true bugle summoning his cavalry to the rescue.

    Sanders seems to be saying, boy, we can whip this problem.  Trump seems to be saying, we need a whipping boy for this problem.

    Parent

    Trump's voters, to the extent that they are really (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 06:28:12 PM EST
    populist and angry at the rich, are really angry at the diminishing of white privilege. They would still apply 'most deserving of the trickle down' rules for whatever they think they can shake loose from the rich.

    Needless to say, this is not Sanders' message.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 06:07:52 PM EST
    just heard on facebook from a Trump supporter that Bernie must be crazy to think that they'd ever vote for him. I guess Bernie does not realize how they react to the word "socialist" and working class people in Vermont are way different than working class in other places.

    Parent
    The Bern, then, is not someone (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Towanda on Tue Dec 29, 2015 at 07:16:27 PM EST
    for whom I would vote, if that's the company that he wants to keep.  The Trumpites whom I know are nasty.

    Parent
    Sanders appears totally out of touch on this one (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 30, 2015 at 08:56:57 AM EST