The question of whether there are grounds for federal intervention in this case depends upon whether there is evidence upon which a reasonable juror could determine that the cop intentionally (in this case anyway) deprived Tamir Rice of his life without due process of law and/or without legal justification. Technically, the answer to this question is to be determined without regard to any evidence whatsoever which is favorable to the cop. However, because it helps to demonstrate the disturbing thought processes of those who claim "no federal action is available here," the evidence from both sides should be examined.
Looking at the evidence and in a light MOST FAVORABLE to the cop, we have a video that some experts testified show Tamir Rice "going for his gun," but that other experts apparently see just the opposite. We also have the cop testifying that he thought Tamir was going for a gun. We also have the cop testifying that he was never told that the gun might be a toy and a dispatcher testifying that he never passed along the "child with a toy gun" information. Okay, fair enough, there is evidence which, IF BELIEVED and IF CONSTRUED IN A LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE COP would support an acquittal.
Here are three questions for any supposed Democrat claiming there is no basis for believing the cop murdered Tamir Rice with no legal justification whatsoever.
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THE COP?
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THE DISPATCHER?
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THE "GOING FOR HIS GUN" VIDEO EXPERTS OVER THE "NOT GOING FOR HIS GUN" EXPERTS?
Couldn't you just as reasonably have believed the experts who said the video shows that Tamir Rice made no threatening gestures? Couldn't you just as reasonably concluded that evidence of dispatcher communications not containing the "toy gun" information does not prove the non-existence of other unrecorded and/or undisclosed communications that DID contain that information (in other words, it does not conclusively demonstrate the cop's lack of knowledge)? Couldn't you just as reasonably have concluded that the cops driving right up to within just a few feet of Tamir was not merely evidence of "poor decision-making," but evidence that they really didn't believe that Tamir had a real gun at all and therefore KNEW he posed no danger to them whatsoever? Couldn't you just as reasonably have concluded that THE COPS WERE LYING?
I ask these questions not just because the answer to them is obviously "yes" and under the standard used by grand juries this cop can easily be indicted for violating Tamir's federal civil rights. I also asked them because why on god's green earth would ANY supposed Democrat give the benefit of the doubt to a system designed to subjugate and kill people of color and the cops it empowers to do just that?
When did we become the party of the already empowered?
= new reply since forum marked as read