RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Williams writes: "Ohio prosecutor Timothy McGinty accused the family of 12-year-old police shooting victim Tamir Rice of being 'economically motivated' in their pursuit to bring the officer responsible to trial."

Samaria Rice, center, mother of Tamir Rice, takes part in a December march in Washington calling for justice in police shootings. (photo: Jose Luis Magana/AP)
Samaria Rice, center, mother of Tamir Rice, takes part in a December march in Washington calling for justice in police shootings. (photo: Jose Luis Magana/AP)


Prosecutor Smears Tamir Rice's Mother

By Lauren C. Williams, ThinkProgress

08 November 15

 

hio prosecutor Timothy McGinty accused the family of 12-year-old police shooting victim Tamir Rice of being “economically motivated” in their pursuit to bring the officer responsible to trial.

“They waited until they didn’t like the reports they received. They’re very interesting people… let me just leave it at that… and they have their own economic motives,” McGinty said during a community meeting Thursday, Cleveland’s WKYC reported.

McGinty’s remarks Thursday were his first public comments on the grand jury process regarding Rice’s death, raising questions about his objectivity in the case and its ongoing investigation.

The prosecutor’s office uncustomarily released expert reports in October, ahead of convening a grand jury, stating that Cleveland police officer Timothy Lehmann was justified in fatally shooting Rice only seconds after pulling up beside him in a public park in November 2014.

Rice family attorney, Subodh Chandra, denounced McGinty’s comments on Friday, saying, “It’s a shock and a surprise to Samaria Rice and her family that the prosecutor would go out of his way to insult her and her motives in trying to get justice as a grieving mother.”

Chandra further defended his client, who struggled with homelessness in the wake of her son’s death, and raised concerns that Cuyahoga County Prosecutor McGinty’s apparent partiality regarding the preteen’s murder has “compromised” the grand jury process:

Ms. Rice herself believes that the prosecutor has compromised the grand-jury process’s fairness by soliciting and personally vouching for so-called “experts” with discreditable backgrounds who (1) assumed the existence of non-existent testimony (the officers’ excuses for their actions), and (2) ignored critical evidence (such as Officer Loehmann shooting Tamir immediately and both officers leaving 12-year-old Tamir bleeding and dying on the ground without administering first aid).

The U.S. Department of Justice rejected one of the prosecutor’s chosen “expert’s” views, when she tried to exonerate law enforcement involved in killing civilians as too extreme. The other “expert” offered an opinion about Tamir’s death even before reviewing the evidence. Yet the prosecutor doubles down on praising them and then insults Ms. Rice and the counsel who are merely stating her concerns. The prosecutor thus cannot be trusted in the secret process to draw the grand jury’s attention to the flaws in the reports or the writers’ backgrounds.

McGinty’s office responded in an amended statement, claiming his initial comments were not meant to criticize Samaria Rice’s grieving process. “We have never once criticized Tamir’s mother or questioned her right to grieve in any way. We have met with her repeatedly and cooperated with her in every possible manner. And we will continue to do so.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+23 # Capn Canard 2015-11-08 09:55
No surprise that the criminal prosecutor would smear Tamir Rice's grieving mother out of the fear that law enforcement may be held accountable. From coast to coast our system of Law Enforcement has worked very hard to hide their obvious guilt.

Law Enforcement and Prosecution is a parasitic cancer on our society.
 
 
+12 # lyman 2015-11-08 10:50
Well, the prosecutor didn't accuse her of racism: I guess we're supposed to take that as a sign of progress.

What a country....
 
 
+4 # reiverpacific 2015-11-08 11:50
I guess that these good folks seeking some specter of justice are at least succeeding in getting on "Tim McGinty's Goat"!
 
 
+17 # marind 2015-11-08 12:01
Anyone seeing the shooting of Tamir Rice can only gasp at the execution.

But the cops bought the white Charleston mass murderer a hamburger.

America is a moral sewer.
 
 
+14 # jouster 2015-11-08 12:18
re. "both officers leaving 12-year-old Tamir bleeding and dying on the ground without administering first aid"

That callous behavior should disqualify those officers from any law enforcement (or public service) job FOREVER.

I wonder if the authorities will manage to keep that from being admitted in any legal action.
 
 
-19 # lnason@umassd.edu 2015-11-08 12:57
The police officer in this case was clearly in the wrong and, I would hope, would be indicted for something -- not willful murder perhaps, but negligent homicide or manslaughter at least.

That said, a smear must be at least arguably untrue to be legitimately called a smear. This prosecutor only stated the obvious truth that boy's mother did indeed have a financial incentive in the case -- any kind of indictment would set her up for a big suit for money. Since what the prosecutor said is obviously true, it cannot be a smear.

If you define the word smear otherwise, you must be saying that any expression of any fact you don't like to face constitutes a "smear" and that robs the word of all of its meaning.

In this case, anger and outrage are justified but asserting untrue things is never justified.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+12 # tm7devils 2015-11-08 14:04
I'm an atheist...but every day I thank God that I wasn't born with your brain.
(This is a smear)
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2015-11-08 16:40
Quoting tm7devils:
I'm an atheist...but every day I thank God that I wasn't born with your brain.
(This is a smear)


Ditto. Well said.
 
 
+3 # Bruce Gruber 2015-11-08 14:38
Somehow you manage the same selection of 'disrelatedness ' that Ben Carson opines so elegantly. The definition of a reporter's descriptive word can hardly be the foundation of a premise of "intent" ascribed to someone named in the reporter's account. You seem to need to jump to the "Tort Reform" illogic that promotes the protection of wealth from publicly determined punishment.

Concern that a community might have to 'settle' the grievances of an injured party because their elected/appoint ed representatives of public policy erred in the conduct or practice of responsibilitie s can hardly be construed (ex post facto) as unfair opportunism. New York City taxpayers have suffered the burden of more than $100 million$ in 'settlements over the past 20 years from actions by those hired to "protect and serve" them.
The "truth" of the prosecutor's opinion varies with the bias of the ear hearing the words. Whether they "ought" to be uttered is another matter.
However, a prosecutor's intent to prejudice public perception of the issue seems like the "pot calling the kettle black" in so many ways that "slur", 'smear" or "slander" sound more accurate than overstated.
Motivation could seem the basis of your opinion AND HIS: "This prosecutor only stated the obvious truth that boy's mother did indeed have a financial incentive in the case -- any kind of indictment would set her up for a big suit for money. Since what the prosecutor said is obviously true, it cannot be a smear."
 
 
+2 # mmcmanus 2015-11-09 13:09
It seems that the biased comments made by the prosecutor would require his recusal from any further participation in any investigation of this matter. Whatever the parents' motives are in bringing their child's executor to justice is irrelevant to the prosecutor's ethical duty to pursue justice blindly. His crticism of the parent shows he is incapable of doing that.
 
 
0 # Archie1954 2015-11-09 23:02
Unfortunately,i t looks very much, as though the prosecutor is obstructing justice. That is a definite no no and can subject the prosecutor to substantial penalties including prison.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN