Officer who fatally shot Tamir Rice hired as a cop again

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,908
136
Yes, the caller twice said the gun was "probably fake" and that Rice "looked like a juvenile." But as I said above, the investigation revealed that this information was not passed on to the police. The dispatch call just said "gun." I'm saying someone was negligent here, but not necessarily the police on scene.
You still don't roll onto the scene and not give the person a chance to surrender. Killed in 1-2 seconds. Similar thing cops did to John Crawford except he was talking on the phone. Scary black man with gun and cops go in with shoot to kill on the brain. Then to add insult to injury "let's just get him another job"
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Tamir was a chunky 5'7 12 year old with a child's face and build.
I have kids around that age and I have dealt with plenty of kids who are in the higher percentile on the growth chart.

A 6'9 12 year old still communicates, looks and moves like a 12 year old.

An experienced adult dealing with the public should be able to tell the difference between child and an adult even at the same height and weight.

In this case the officer was not only young and inexperienced, he was also dealing with potentially implicit racial bias. He was also dealing with cultural bias typical of a department in a high crime area. He was dealing with a unusually crappy department over all and he was partnered with a guy who screwed up the entire approach. ("Potentially armed suspect? Lemme drive the car right up to em!!!")
He was also dealing with the fact that he was an incompetent officer overall

Both actually. Screw them both. Screw everyone involved in that case

The average height of a 12 year male is 4'11". Height and build suggested he was older than 12. It's also difficult to say in regards to the photographs of Rice what age he was when the photos were taken.

The problem here is that no time really elapsed for a closer observation of either the toy gun or the boy's age because Rice drew the toy from his waist almost immediately and that is what prompted the shoot.
 

FaaR

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2007
1,056
412
136
12 years old isn't really a "small child." But the officers didn't really know his age. They could assume he was young but it would have been impossible to precisely gauge his age. 11 or 12 is the onset of puberty. But the age was secondary here. What was primary was that the toy he held looked like this:
12-year-olds tend to be pretty small on average I'd say.

Also, I disagree that the look of the toy played any substantial part in this, rather the problem is the shooter was seriously trigger-happy. The cops came gunning their car onto the scene like fucking starsky and hutch (which is obviously aggressive and confrontational in of itself), and one of them fired on the kid only two seconds OR LESS after the vehicle stopped from what I understand.

That's not enough time to do any kind of deep visual analysis of the situation, like say, how close to a real firearm a toy gun looks. Rather, it's really only enough time to open the door of the car, aim, and fire.

He was not "obviously a small child." He was 5'7" and 195 pounds (170 cm and 88kg).
Ok, so he was tall for his age. What I meant is, he had an obviously juvenile facial appearance - not that you really can tell anything about another person if you shoot them dead after no more than 2 seconds.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
12 years old isn't really a "small child." But the officers didn't really know his age. They could assume he was young but it would have been impossible to precisely gauge his age. 11 or 12 is the onset of puberty. But the age was secondary here. What was primary was that the toy he held looked like this:

View attachment 23250

The bottom one is real while the top is the toy, but you can only tell that on closer inspection. Yet the cops on scene did not arrive in a mindset that this was or even might be a toy. They were literally told it was a "gun" by the dispatcher.

Fuck are you trying to argue here?

Cop shot a kid in a park playing with a toy.

All the hand waving doesn't change that fundamental fact that some parents lost their kid after he went out to play. Some family lost their kid brother. Have some sense
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Fuck are you trying to argue here?

Cop shot a kid in a park playing with a toy.

All the hand waving doesn't change that fundamental fact that some parents lost their kid after he went out to play. Some family lost their kid brother. Have some sense

Fuck I'm arguing is the facts of the case, all of them. If the issue is whether these cops should be held to account, then all of the facts need to be considered. Not just the emotionally charged ones: child, toy, dead. By ignoring the facts, you are suggesting that the police should be held accountable for a tragic result regardless of whether they were actually at fault.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
12-year-olds tend to be pretty small on average I'd say.

Also, I disagree that the look of the toy played any substantial part in this, rather the problem is the shooter was seriously trigger-happy. The cops came gunning their car onto the scene like fucking starsky and hutch (which is obviously aggressive and confrontational in of itself), and one of them fired on the kid only two seconds OR LESS after the vehicle stopped from what I understand.

That's not enough time to do any kind of deep visual analysis of the situation, like say, how close to a real firearm a toy gun looks. Rather, it's really only enough time to open the door of the car, aim, and fire.


Ok, so he was tall for his age. What I meant is, he had an obviously juvenile facial appearance - not that you really can tell anything about another person if you shoot them dead after no more than 2 seconds.

I've already provided facts in prior posts to refute these points, so I'm a little hesitant because we're going round and round. But I'll do this one more time.

The "Starsky and Hutch" approach was because the dispatcher literally told them that someone was going around brandishing and pointing a firearm at people. That is a description of an emergency situation where the police need to act quickly to possibly save lives.

The 2 seconds wasn't because they were trigger happy. It was because 2 seconds was when Rice pulled the toy gun out of his waistband, as can be seen in the camera footage. They never had a chance to study his facial features or the gun before they were in a situation they perceived as a lethal threat.

They were given bad information here. You cannot understand their behavior unless you take into account that this bad information is what informed their conduct.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
The dude quit!

Officer who fatally shot Tamir Rice quits Ohio police department days after he was hired
Tamir's mother said thousands of people had protested the hiring of Timothy Loehmann as a part-time officer in Bellaire, Ohio.


 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
I agree that cop should have been unhireable for having been found unfit then lying about it on his job application.

I don't agree about the quick timing of the shoot. The shots were timed based on when Rice pulled the toy gun out of his waistband, not by some arbitrary desire to shoot quickly.

These cops were told he had a gun. They arrive at the scene. The boy, as you said, could easily have been in his mid teens by appearance. Seconds later, the boy pulls a toy replica of an actual real world gun (a Colt 1911) out of his waistband. In their minds, it was shoot or possibly be shot at.

Even if Rice were an adult with a real gun, the officers' blatant disregard for human life, by unnecessarily placing themselves in a life-or-death scenario, should have been enough to get them fired.
That Rice was a boy playing with a toy gun only makes the officers' incompetence that much more egregious.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Even if Rice were an adult with a real gun, the officers' blatant disregard for human life, by unnecessarily placing themselves in a life-or-death scenario, should have been enough to get them fired.
That Rice was a boy playing with a toy gun only makes the officers' incompetence that much more egregious.

How was it unnecessary for the cops to be in that situation? Once again: the cops were literally told by dispatch that someone was walking around pointing and waving a firearm at people in a public place. That and a vague physical description was their entire universe of knowledge.

Taking a cautious approach wasn't really what was called for under the circumstances as they understood it. Had they been standoffish or slower in their approach and this man (for all they knew) had shot and killed a bystander with his gun (for all they knew) they would have been seen as not protecting the public and would have been blamed for the resulting harm.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
An experienced adult dealing with the public should be able to tell the difference between child and an adult even at the same height and weight.

The gun being pulled on the officers is the only thing that matters. Not who is doing it.
 

mistercrabby

Senior member
Mar 9, 2013
962
53
91
This is why there exists BLM. This is why we march. Will it ever stop?



Jackass premise. Officer called to an impossible situation. Darkness, weapon, spit second decision. No charges pressed. Your post is disconnect from truthfulness. Shame.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,079
136
Should anyone be surprised by this? As if BLM were a reality vs an aspiration
Well, the MOVEMENT is real. Men and women are marching. They're getting attention from politicians.
I dont know how much societal change can be attributed to them.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
How was it unnecessary for the cops to be in that situation? Once again: the cops were literally told by dispatch that someone was walking around pointing and waving a firearm at people in a public place. That and a vague physical description was their entire universe of knowledge.

Taking a cautious approach wasn't really what was called for under the circumstances as they understood it. Had they been standoffish or slower in their approach and this man (for all they knew) had shot and killed a bystander with his gun (for all they knew) they would have been seen as not protecting the public and would have been blamed for the resulting harm.

So how did this result work out for them with regards to public opinion?

You shouldn't apologize for incompetence. It doesn't become you.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
So how did this result work out for them with regards to public opinion?

You shouldn't apologize for incompetence. It doesn't become you.

The optics were bad. Which has nothing to do with whether the shoot was justified. Unless you actually believe that perception and reality are the same thing.

As for calling someone's argument "incompetent" without actually making an attempt to refute it, it's bad form. It's always easy to avoid the charge of incompetence when you aren't really making an argument.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
The optics were bad. Which has nothing to do with whether the shoot was justified. Unless you actually believe that perception and reality are the same thing.

As for calling someone's argument "incompetent" without actually making an attempt to refute it, it's bad form. It's always easy to avoid the charge of incompetence when you aren't really making an argument.

In order to determine if ones actions were of incompetence one would need to know what the standard policy is for such a situation. Now maybe at this particular precinct it is standard practice to roll right up on a suspect with a gun without observing the suspects behavior. Maybe it’s not standard practice to take a defensive position first but instead to blindly charge at a suspect and jump out of a vehicle and immediately engage with an armed suspect. It could be that deescalating a situation isn’t standard practice either. Maybe it’s also standard practice to engage an armed suspect when no bystanders are in immediate danger.

But if that is the standard then you’ll have to show us that because it most certainly looks like incompetence from here no matter what information was or wasn’t relayed to the officers.

As to whether a shoot is justified one would hope that there are only two situations where a police officer has the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner. I would hope that those two situations are a) when an officer’s life is in immediate danger b) when someone else’s life is in immediate danger.
It seems a little fucked up that a cop who purposefully puts their life in harms way without fully understanding what the situation is might be considered a good shoot by anyone.
 
Last edited:
Nov 17, 2019
12,258
7,377
136
A little more for the Woolfe to chew on ..... (from a 2017 article)


The Cleveland Plain Dealer explains that Loehmann failed to disclose the full circumstances of how his time at a previous police department ended:

"Loehmann was allowed to resign from the Independence department after six months following a series of incidents where supervisors determined he was unfit to be a police officer.

"The disciplinary letter cites a letter in Loehmann's personnel file from Independence that says he was emotionally immature and had 'an inability to emotionally function.' The letter also cites an emotional breakdown Loehmann had on the gun range in Independence."


 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,908
136
How was it unnecessary for the cops to be in that situation? Once again: the cops were literally told by dispatch that someone was walking around pointing and waving a firearm at people in a public place. That and a vague physical description was their entire universe of knowledge.

Taking a cautious approach wasn't really what was called for under the circumstances as they understood it. Had they been standoffish or slower in their approach and this man (for all they knew) had shot and killed a bystander with his gun (for all they knew) they would have been seen as not protecting the public and would have been blamed for the resulting harm.
Is it typical for police on the word of a phone call go into a situation fail to asses and just start shooting? You realize that's exactly what got John Crawford killed.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
The optics were bad. Which has nothing to do with whether the shoot was justified. Unless you actually believe that perception and reality are the same thing.

As for calling someone's argument "incompetent" without actually making an attempt to refute it, it's bad form. It's always easy to avoid the charge of incompetence when you aren't really making an argument.

I didn't call you or your argument incompentent, I said you were apologizing for incompetence. Which is what you were doing. Tamir Rice's death was the result of police incompetence at almost every level. The dispatchers didn't relay critical information to the officers going to the scene. The officers rushed in half-cocked with this incomplete information and put themselves in a life-or-death situation which got a boy killed. And then the police dept and union responses were to circle the wagons rather than accept accountability. And so forth which led to a massively negative public response. All the result of incompetence.
Yeah, I get it that the police have tough jobs, and that we all make mistakes. But that doesn't excuse not owning up to their mistakes and refusing to present some kind action plan, to the public they are sworn to protect and serve, as to how they intend to prevent the same mistakes from happening over and over again.
 
Last edited:

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
By ignoring the facts, you are suggesting that the police should be held accountable for a tragic result regardless of whether they were actually at fault.

They were at fault. Shooting someone should be a last resort, not the first reaction. That is what is wrong. The police have adapted a 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach to dealing with minorities. That must end.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
They were at fault. Shooting someone should be a last resort, not the first reaction. That is what is wrong. The police have adapted a 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach to dealing with minorities. That must end.

While minorities are being disproportionately affected by this, it's not just them. A few years ago in my middle-class neighborhood, the parents of a teenage boy with severe schizophrenia called 911 because the boy was having a mental health episode. Their intent was to have him taken to the hospital for treatment. The police arrived at the scene first and spoke with the parents outside the house as they waited for the ambulance to arrive. When the boy suddenly walked out the front door, the cops gunned him down right in front of his parents. The police claimed they saw a knife, but there was none. Excuses were made by the police dept, but no apologies were offered. The officers were not investigated, were not charged, and did not lose their jobs. The parents sued and were awarded a substantial wrongful death settlement which came out of the city's general fund, not the police dept budget. The parents and the boy were white.

Now don't get me wrong here. Minorities are being disproportionately affected here, but it is also happening to everyone. It is the result of the public's growing inability to hold the police accountable. IMO focusing on just when this happens to minorities allows racists to assume it can't happen to them, and for apologists to ignore the larger picture of police unaccountability. And all that must end.

Just my $0.02.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
A little more for the Woolfe to chew on ..... (from a 2017 article)


The Cleveland Plain Dealer explains that Loehmann failed to disclose the full circumstances of how his time at a previous police department ended:

"Loehmann was allowed to resign from the Independence department after six months following a series of incidents where supervisors determined he was unfit to be a police officer.

"The disciplinary letter cites a letter in Loehmann's personnel file from Independence that says he was emotionally immature and had 'an inability to emotionally function.' The letter also cites an emotional breakdown Loehmann had on the gun range in Independence."



I said twice on page 1 that Loehmann was absolutely wrong on that, and that they should never have hired him in Florida because of it.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I didn't call you or your argument incompentent, I said you were apologizing for incompetence. Which is what you were doing. Tamir Rice's death was the result of police incompetence at almost every level. The dispatchers didn't relay crucial to the officers going to the scene. The officers rushed in half-cocked with this incomplete information and put themselves in a life-or-death situation which got a boy killed. And then the police dept and union responses were to circle the wagons rather than accept accountability. And so forth which led to a massively negative public response. All the result of incompetence.
Yeah, I get it that the police have tough jobs, and that we all make mistakes. But that doesn't excuse not owning up to their mistakes and refusing to present some kind action plan, to the public they are sworn to protect and serve, as to how they intend to prevent the same mistakes from happening over and over again.

You're right, I was mistaken about who you were calling incompetent.

I'm obviously not disagreeing about the dispatcher's incompetence. If anything, I think it's been de-emphasized here to favor an interpretation of the police on scene being at fault. I can't emphasize enough that they were not merely fed with incomplete information. They were fed with incorrect information. Altering "probably a fake gun" to "a gun" is a critical distinction which affected their entire mindset and approach to that scene. A person brandishing and pointing a real gun at people in a public place is an emergency!

I am not going to argue over the union or how the police handled their PR here either. I'll take your word on it that they screwed that up because police usually seem to do that in these situations.

My only point is what stemmed directly from the thread topic. That Loehmann should not have been hired in Florida. And I said right off, I agree they shouldn't have hired him but for reasons unrelated to the Rice incident. However, because of how the police were primed by dispatch, Rice's apparent age being older than his actual age, the realistic looking toy gun seeming to confirm what dispatch had said, and his drawing of the toy gun immediately after they got there, I think the shoot was reasonable under the circumstances. That is my point, and my only point.
 
Last edited: