The Tamir Rice Shooting.......no indictment

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did Deputy Chief Nobles opin as to the "proper "tactical" interval"?

Or is that a phrase you ALSO blew out your ass?

If you weren't being such an obnoxious and supercilious jackass, you might actually read -- and correctly comprehend -- what has been posted and the articles cited in those posts. Nobles stated that the officers decisions were "tactically unsound", and in this instance he further stated that the officers should have exited their vehicle at a "safe distance" on the hardball and entered the playground on foot.

"Reasonable police officers responding to a man-with-a-gun call would have stopped their vehicle prior to entering the park to visually survey the area to avoid driving upon a subject who may be armed," Noble wrote.

"Analysis of the video recordings document that Officer Garmback, who was the driver of the patrol unit, hurriedly pulled the car right up next to Tamir so that the passenger side of the car was only a few feet away from him (Tamir) - rather than approach and position the unit in a tactically correct way. The passenger side of the car was only a few feet away from Tamir when it came to a stop." (Roger Clark)

"18. [T]he proper standard for the evaluation of Officer Loehmann’s use of deadly force includes a review of their reckless tactical decision making that placed the officers in danger.

"19. Officers Garmback and Loehmann engaged in reckless tactical decision making that created the danger, thus the use of deadly force was excessive, objectively unreasonable and inconsistent with generally accepted police practices...

"30. The officers engaged in reckless tactical decision making, they unreasonably placed themselves in harm’s way...

e. Instead of stopping, surveying the scene, waiting for additional officers, developing a plan, calling out to Tamir from a position of cover behind their car doors as police officers are trained, Officer Garmback and Loehmann rushed to the gazebo at such a speed that emergency braking caused them to skid their vehicle to a stop, placing Officer Loehmann between 4.5 and 7 feet of Tamir as he exited the police vehicle.

f. Because Officer Loehmann was so close to Tamir and because he had no cover, Officer Loehmann was forced to make a split-second decision regarding the most serious decision a police officer can make – the decision to use deadly force.

g. Although Officer Garmback was in control of the vehicle and he was the training officer, every officer has the responsibility to speak out should they see another officer engage in reckless tactical decision making. Absent any evidence that Officer Loehmann took any action to prevent Officer Garmback from driving up to Tamir, suddenly hitting the brakes, coming to stop, leaving Officer Loehmann without cover and within a few feet of Tamir, both officers are responsible for the reckless tactical decisions that created the danger and directly led to Tamir’s death.

h. The officers’ grossly reckless tactics placed Officer Loehmann in a position where he was within a few feet of Tamir."

(Jeffry Noble)

Proper tactical interval when approaching an armed perp varies situation to situation, but considering that officers are commonly taught the "21 ft rule" for engaging suspects armed with edged weapons, engaging a perp with a firearm at 4 ft violates even that most basic rule of thumb as it is obviously too close; hence, tactically unwise.

The maxims that apply to engaging a suspect with a firearm includes maximizing the policeman's advantage of firearms training by keeping the distance at 35 to 75 ft where a policeman's marksmanship should be superior to that of most suspects in cases where there is gunfire. Another maxim these officers violated is apparent in their failure to position the vehicle's engine between themselves and the most dangerous threat for added protection -- at a distance of less than 10 ft, there was only a pane of glass between Officer Loehmann and Rice. So blow it out your ass, you supercilious jackass.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Your assumptions AND the metamorphosis of your "enlightenment"!!!

Had the officers taken as long as you and had the 5'7" 170 pound person had a real pistol, they would have both been dead like the two NYPD officers sitting in their vehicle "enjoying" their lunch!

That's the difference between armchair computer internet hacks like you and those public servants who must put their lives on the line daily in the face of dumbass no-nothing criticism like yours! ... Even with your "Army trained squad leader" training experience!!!!!

Notice how it wasn't your supercilious ass that produced the videos to support your position, LL, and how your stupid, supercilious ass continues to ignore how Loehmann's tactic of engaging and fighting through the attacker is precisely what the Army teaches, you supercilious jackass. BTW, your "expertise" on the subject is obviously inferior to the expertise of the experts heretofore cited, you supercilious jackass.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If you weren't being such an obnoxious and supercilious jackass,......

The difference between you and Nobles is ... paper and reality!

Every thing you have said and pasted ASSUMES what the officers "knew" and were "thinking" at the time of their approach ..... YOU CANNOT DO THAT ... NEITHER CAN NOBLES.

JUST LIKE you want to say it was a "boy with a toy"!!! 20-20 hindsight!!!!!!!

So in your "squad leader" training ... you were "taught" what?

Has anyone EVER pulled a firearm on you within 10 to 5 feet of you in a live fire nontraining environment? How many times?

I'll repeat what I said about you:
That's the difference between armchair computer internet hacks like you and those public servants who must put their lives on the line daily in the face of dumbass no-nothing criticism like yours! ... Even with your "Army trained squad leader" training experience!!!!!

Get bold faced, get loud, name call all you want .... keep posting cut and paste articles ... all you want. Nothing you have posted has ANY RELEVANCE to the reality those two officers faced when they had a second to decide what to do! Nothing. You are full of shit. Period.

You're being the critic, and the expert. Not me! I'm not the one criticizing!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The difference between you and Nobles is ... paper and reality!

So in your "squad leader" training ... you were "taught" what?

Has anyone EVER pulled a firearm on you within 10 to 5 feet of you in a live fire nontraining environment? How many times?

I'll repeat what I said about you:
That's the difference between armchair computer internet hacks like you and those public servants who must put their lives on the line daily in the face of dumbass no-nothing criticism like yours! ... Even with your "Army trained squad leader" training experience!!!!!

Get bold faced, get loud, name call all you want .... keep posting cut and paste articles ... all you want. Nothing you have posted has ANY RELEVANCE to the reality those two officers faced when they had a second to decide what to do! Nothing. You are full of shit. Period.

The reality is that Loehmann reacted to the situation just like any trained, Army private would react in a near ambush, you supercilious jackass. And your "expertise" on correct police tactics is quantifiably inferior to the expertise of the experts heretofore cited, you supercilious jackass, because you'd be the jackass positing that using a pane of glass as a shield between oneself and an armed assailant less than 10 ft distant is a bona fide and "correct" police tactic.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The reality is that Loehmann reacted to the situation just like any trained, Army private would react in a near ambush, .....

Been with a lot of Army privates in ambushes have you?

How many times have you been ambushed?

How many times have you had an encounter with someone (not in training!) holding a firearm in a threatening manner?

Cut and paste all you want .... call names all you want.

One thing about "movie critics" .... ever met one that made a movie?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Been with a lot of Army privates in ambushes have you? More than your non-serving, supercilious ass.

How many times have you been ambushed? More than your non-serving, supercilious ass.

How many times have you had an encounter with someone (not in training!) holding a firearm in a threatening manner? At least six.

Cut and paste all you want .... call names all you want. Your "expertise" on correct police tactics is quantifiably inferior to the expertise of the experts heretofore cited, you supercilious jackass.

One thing about "movie critics" .... ever met one that made a movie? You'd be the jackass positing that these officers using a pane of glass as a shield between themselves and a potentially armed assailant less than 10 ft distant is a bona fide and "correct" police tactic, you supercilious jackass.

.

[Yssup Rider]

Meow.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

.

If you've been in "ambushes" with "privates" then apparently, you've got no business criticizing these officers for not making a correct "tactical assessment" before they drove into the park .... now isn't that correct?

And how many incidents I've experienced of a similar nature is not "relevant" either ... now is it .... since YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THE CRITICIZING of the officers' response to the call to which they were dispatched .....

My quote applies to you ... "nonserving"? More assumptions? Seen my OMPF have you?

Keep talking shit big boy! Now you've got YouRong WKing for you!!!!!

BTW: Weren't you the one who proclaimed that "warning citations" don't need a signature .... based on your "EXPERIENCES"???????????

[LexusLover]

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...=bland&page=13

My cursory look at the above thread leads me to believe it was not IBH who directly stated signing the warning ticket was not required .... it was Iva .... who made that direct statement. I would like to call IBH's attention to his post # 161... regarding mental processes.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

If you've been in "ambushes" with "privates" then apparently, you've got no business criticizing these officers for not making a correct "tactical assessment" before they drove into the park .... now isn't that correct?

And how many incidents I've experienced of a similar nature is not "relevant" either ... now is it .... since YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THE CRITICIZING of the officers' response to the call to which they were dispatched .....

My quote applies to you ... "nonserving"? More assumptions? Seen my OMPF have you?

Keep talking shit big boy! Now you've got YouRong WKing for you!!!!!

BTW: Weren't you the one who proclaimed that "warning citations" don't need a signature .... based on your "EXPERIENCES"???????????

You'd still be the jackass positing that these officers use of a pane of glass as a shield between themselves and a potentially armed assailant less than 10 ft distant is a bona fide and "correct" police tactic, you supercilious jackass, and you've yet to cite a solitary legitimate source to back up your assumption, you supercilious jackass. And Noble's 30 years in LE makes him a more credible expert on correct police tactics than you, you supercilious jackass.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And Noble's 30 years in LE makes him a more credible expert on correct police tactics than you, you supercilious jackass.

Nobles considered himself to be an "expert" 30 minutes after he graduated from the police academy. It's an affliction of LE. The other "affliction" is an obsessive habit of being "critical" of what "other" officers did and didn't do even though the "critic" wasn't present. You seem to share the same affliction. You also indulge in the fallacy that military training and experience regarding "procedure" and "tactics" is relevant to LE training and experience regarding "process" and "tactics." It's not. That's what you get from TV.

One of your flaws in this discussion is you "pretend" to know what the officers on the scene were thinking and seeing, and when they were thinking and seeing it. Nobles does also!

The other one is: You know nothing about me or my history!!!!!

Please continue your cut and paste!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

... the cops charged onto the scene and put themselves in such close proximity that there was little recourse but for subsequent actions to play out as they did. The cops should have stood-off and evaluated the situation before making any moves. With proper scene analysis, they may have noticed more than the "gun" and that they were dealing with a very young boy.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

One need not to have been there to garner from the video that the officers raced onto the scene with no sober reflection for the consequences of their behavior.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

FYI, every Army trained squad leader is taught to avoid ambushes -- especially "near ambushes" -- where "attacking through" is the only option left. And that's what these cops did. They unconscionably put themselves in a "near ambush" situation.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The fact that the officers made a conscious decision to leave the pavement (some 20 to 25 ft from the gazebo) and park by the gazebo, and not the swing sets mentioned in the report, is "proof" that they intended stop within 10 ft of Rice.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Your assumptions AND the metamorphosis of your "enlightenment"!!!

That's the difference between armchair computer internet hacks like you and those public servants who must put their lives on the line daily in the face of dumbass no-nothing criticism like yours! ... Even with your "Army trained squad leader" training experience!!!!!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

If you've been in "ambushes" with "privates" then apparently, you've got no business criticizing these officers for not making a correct "tactical assessment" before they drove into the park .... now isn't that correct?

.... based on your "EXPERIENCES"???????????

LL: "Been with a lot of Army privates in ambushes have you?"

IBH: "More than your non-serving, supercilious ass.

LL:"How many times have you been ambushed?"

IBH: "More than your non-serving, supercilious ass.

I guess it's a good thing I didn't serve with you as a "Squad Leader"!

Or more appropriately: ... as one of my "Squad Leaders"!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nobles considered himself to be an "expert" 30 minutes after he graduated from the police academy. It's an affliction of LE. The other "affliction" is an obsessive habit of being "critical" of what "other" officers did and didn't do even though the "critic" wasn't present. You seem to share the same affliction. You also indulge in the fallacy that military training and experience regarding "procedure" and "tactics" is relevant to LE training and experience regarding "process" and "tactics." It's not. That's what you get from TV.

One of your flaws in this discussion is you "pretend" to know what the officers on the scene were thinking and seeing, and when they were thinking and seeing it. Nobles does also!

The other one is: You know nothing about me or my history!!!!!

Please continue your cut and paste!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

blah, blah, blah ..."

You'd still be the jackass positing that these officers use of a pane of glass as a shield between themselves and a potentially armed assailant less than 10 ft distant is a bona fide and "correct" police tactic, you supercilious jackass, and YOU HAVE YET to cite a solitary legitimate source to back up your assumption, you supercilious jackass. And your pathetic deflection doesn't in any manner change the fact that Noble's 30 years in LE makes him a more credible expert on correct police tactics than you, you supercilious jackass.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You'd still be the jackass positing that these officers use of a pane of glass as a shield between themselves and a potentially armed assailant less than 10 ft distant is a bona fide and "correct" police tactic, ....

I suppose you can find a post in which I made such a statement....ever!

You are the only one posting on here discussing "correct police tactics" .....

.... because you are the cut and paste QUEEN ..... BigTitsIdiot2016 is the KING!

The only way you can prevail in this discussion is LIE ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE POSTS ... then refute YOUR OWN LIE.

Deputy Chief Nobles can't keep the weeds out of his own yard .... and he should mind his own yard, which needs attention, before criticizing others.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I suppose you can find a post in which I made such a statement....ever!

You are the only one posting on here discussing "correct police tactics" .....

.... because you are the cut and paste QUEEN ..... BigTitsIdiot2016 is the KING!

The only way you can prevail in this discussion is LIE ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE POSTS ... then refute YOUR OWN LIE.

Deputy Chief Nobles can't keep the weeds out of his own yard .... and he should mind his own yard, which needs attention, before criticizing others.

And what do you suppose taxpayer funded police academies teach, you supercilious jackass? Those academies teach correct police TACTICS, you supercilious jackass!

Nobles expertise trumps yours, you supercilious jackass. Your whole position is predicated on how the officers' use of a pane of glass as a shield between themselves and a potentially armed assailant less than 10 ft distant is a bona fide and "correct" police tactic, you supercilious jackass, and YOU HAVE YET to cite a solitary legitimate source to back up your assumption, you supercilious jackass.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And what do you suppose taxpayer funded police academies teach, you supercilious jackass? Those academies teach correct police TACTICS, you supercilious jackass!

I thought you were the expert? What with your "ambush" military training!

Or are you just holding on to Deputy Chief Nobles?

So you think all academies are "taxpayer funded police academies"?

http://discoverpolicing.org/what_doe...g_academy_life

There are academies for which cadets pay a tuition and provide their own equipment! And for your "information" these statements are correct:

"Each state and each jurisdiction has different training requirements.....There is no standard national curriculum, but the state may guide agencies in developing training programs."

And you also "think" police academies teach "military tactics" to cadets? You should probably do a little research into the curriculum of various academies and also investigate research papers published by the DOJ on guiding police training programs with respect to cadets who are former servicemembers. It doesn't take a lot of analytical skill when reviewing your remarks that you are deficient in your personal knowledge of "patrol procedure" and the standards around the country for "first responder" approaches to "live scenes" as opposed to paper and planned scenarios. I have selectively approached some of your statements on here (off the cut and paste page) and demonstrated without "cutting and pasting" that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about ..... just your loud mouthed name calling!

These is one:"Those academies teach correct police TACTICS" .... how the fuck would you know?

Keep cutting and pasting!