After No Tamir Rice Case Indictment, Bernie Sanders Calls For Federal Investigation

[Scuba]

Despite DU's resident constitutional scholar stating (while failing to back up) the DOJ has no authority to investigate, Bernie is calling for just that. Funny no one else has mentioned how DOJ doesn't have such authority.

http://www.ibtimes.com/after-no-tamir-rice-case-indictment-bernie-sanders-calls-federal-investigation-12-2242354

After No Tamir Rice Case Indictment, Bernie Sanders Calls For Federal Investigation Of 12-Year-Old's Killing

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has criticized an Ohio grand jury's decision Monday not to indict two police officers in connection with the death of 12-year-old Tamir Rice. “I think we need to have a federal investigation to take a hard look at that. But I will also tell you that we need, nationally, to take a hard look at the use of force,” Sanders told MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry Monday.

Rice was shot in November 2014 by Officer Timothy Loehmann, who has said he believed the child was a threat due to his size and because the toy gun Rice was carrying looked real. After the shooting, Loehmann and fellow officer Frank Garmback realized the gun was a toy.

Sanders, who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, has spoken out about police shootings before and has made criminal justice reform an important aspect of his platform. Earlier this month, he called for an investigation into the Chicago Police Department after a video of police officers shooting 17-year-old Laquan McDonald was released in November. The Vermont senator also called on Chicago officials to resign if they were involved in suppressing the video, and questions continue to arise about how long Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel knew the details of the video.

[daleanime]

1. Hopefully other join him in that soon.....

[Helen Borg]

4. Like Hillary, for example?

[Katashi_itto]

2. May the one from the Democratic Dark Side join him soon.

[Android3.14]

3. We have a resident Constitutional scholar?

That's great. I'm sure that person is supporting Bernie Sanders, because no lover of the Constitution could support the anti-democratic campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Right? That person does support democracy and a fair election process?

Hello?

crap.

[brooklynite]

7. How is Clinton's campaign "anti-Democratic"?

I hope you're not going to say she opposes more debates, since that's apparently "following the rules"

[Android3.14]

8. Let's not be obtuse, shall we?

That dog won't hunt.

[Dan de Lyons]

5. Perhaps Tamir Rice's civil rights were violated?

A person has a right to equal treatment under the law. That's a federal right.

One might research first on what legal basis the federal government is already going into Baltimore, Cleveland, and now Chicago, telling police departments how they need to become professional and even-handed. Before one renders a scholarly opinion that they can't.

Tamir's killing reflects systemic disdain for people of color. Pro-actively expressed.

[rladdi]

6. With a corrupt law enforcement in OH, I believe the JD has the right to investigate this case.

With the corrupt prosecutor Mc Ginty presenting a fraud case to the grand jury that should be invalidated. NOW we find corrupt Attorney Generals and prosecutors using grand juries to make the decisions for them, when they know they have a valid case to charge. Our Justice System is packed with conservatives who, if you look at criminal individuals, get away without being charged.
Senator McConnell has stopped all of Obama court nominations from being passed. Republicans are smart in knowing that if they select and vote for conservatives, all decisions will be in their favor. Democrats, for some reason, when they have the votes or power, fail to do this.
We just need to look at decisions being made in GOP controlled states. The rulings are not made according to law(S). but for politics.

[Uponthegears]

9. I see

Last edited Wed Dec 30, 2015, 11:21 PM - Edit history (1)

the defense of any Democratic presidential candidate unwilling to promise federal intervention in Ohio's whitewash of the murder of 15 year-old Tamir Rice at the hands of government officials has already begun. Pardon my cynicism, but I suspect that this may be because the supporters of certain candidates are already aware (even though only one candidate has come forward with a position either way on the question) that their candidate of choice WILL BE unwilling to ruffle the downy feathers of those people who, on one hand, are offended by the suggestion that people of color are being targeted by law enforcement and/or the judicial system solely due to their race, but, on the other hand, are the very "moderate" voters they see as the "heart" of the Democratic Party.

Let me say, "Shame on them" if that is the motivation for their specious claim that there are no possible federal civil rights violations implicated in Tamir Rice's murder. If a candidate cares more about appeasing moderate voters (so they can still win a presidential election after throwing traditional Democratic constituencies under the bus) than standing up for people at the "fringe" like Tamir Rice, they should be willing to say so. HOWEVER, if the claim that there are no possible civil rights violations is based upon the grand jury findings OR McGinty's "evaluation" of the evidence, it is time to have a serious about what this party represents.

As I will explain in a reply to this post, there is NO QUESTION but that a police officer (a government actor) intentionally depriving Tamir Rice of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights would commit a Federal criminal §1983 violation. Moreover, the conclusion that such a violation did not occur here depends entirely upon the preconceived notion that law enforcement officers neither target people of color, nor lie about it when they do.

Is that seriously what the "core" of our party believes?

[Uponthegears]

10. Explanation

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?

[libdem4life]

11. Good analysis. And Good on Bernie for stating a federal investigation should be considered.