How Can Tamir Rice's Killer Be "Mistaken but Reasonable" When He's Lying?

By Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News

29 December 15

imothy Loehmann is the cop who shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice in a Cleveland playground on November 22, 2014. Loehmann’s initial report was that he shouted at Rice to “show us your hands” three times before he shot him.

But the surveillance video shows Loehmann firing on Tamir within two seconds of stopping the car.

You can’t repeatedly give a warning when you haven’t even arrived at the scene yet.

Loehmann lied about the warnings. None of the witnesses heard any warnings prior to the shots.

That’s unreasonable behavior.

Yet the Cuyahoga County prosecutor, Tim McGinty, told the media today that the grand jury had refused to indict the two officers on any charges. McGinty added that the officers were “mistaken but reasonable” in their claim that they believed their life was in danger from a boy holding a toy gun in a playground.

As reported in last month’s article on the Tamir Rice case, McGinty went so far as to put experts before the grand jury to support the officers’ actions as “reasonable.” That is the job of a defense attorney, not a prosecutor.

McGinty even accused Tamir’s mother having an “economic interest.” That is the response of a crazy person.

The federal government should step forward and bring criminal charges against the officers for their intentional and reckless actions before, during, and after the fact. McGinty should be removed from office.

As seen on the video, the car drove right into the playground – not using proper judgment. Neither Loehmann nor his partner Frank Garmback administered any first aid to Rice after the shooting. One of the officers tackled Tamir’s sister ninety seconds after the shooting, as she tried to save his life. (See the video above, seconds 28-35.) It took eight minutes for paramedics to reach his body. Tamir died the following day. Would these officers be set free if the victim had been Anglo?

Prosecutor McGinty also made sure that the grand jury results were announced on December 28, in between Christmas and New Year’s. McGinty wanted to make sure that the roar of public outrage was as muffled as possible.

Michael Benza, senior law instructor at Case Western Reserve University, stated that McGinty “got the results that he wants.” Benza said the case illustrates that outside prosecutors should handle police use-of-force cases.

He also said McGinty and co-prosecutor Matthew Meyer admitted that they asked the grand jury whether these officers were guilty of a crime.

Historically, grand juries decide whether enough evidence exists to criminally charge a defendant. A far lower standard than determining whether a person is guilty of a crime.

“That’s not a question for the grand jury,” Benza said, “that’s a question for trial.”

This is reason #1234 for the abolition of the grand jury in the United States of America. The criminal justice system cannot be turned into the prosecutor’s play toy.

What you did is not reasonable, Mr. McGinty. What you did is the worst kind of obstruction of justice.

What you did is not reasonable, Officer Garmback. What you did was shameful, refusing first aid and refusing to tell the truth about your lying partner.

What you did is not reasonable, Officer Loehmann. What you did should land you in prison.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.