Image 01 Image 03

Cleveland Tries Out Baltimore Justice, Ignores Facts in Tamir Rice Shooting

Cleveland Tries Out Baltimore Justice, Ignores Facts in Tamir Rice Shooting

Fearing Normal Legal Process Won’t Satisfy Them, Activists Find Bypass

It appears that black activists in Detroit are so impressed with how Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby is doing in Baltimore that they’ve adopted the same strategy in Cleveland, based on reports by

Exactly a week ago we provided an update on the case of Tamir Rice, a black 14-year-old who was shot and killed by Cleveland police officers responding to a man-with-a-gun call:  VIDEO: Shooting of Tamir Rice by Police Goes to Grand Jury.”

Residents had called 911 because Tamir was walking around a public park with an apparent gun and pointing it at people.  When police responded to the scene, Rice immediately reached for the “gun” in his waistband and was killed by police gun fire.

All that happened back in November 2014, and just last week the police finally wrapped up their investigation. The conclusion?  The evidence did not warrant charges against the one officer who actually fired shots, Officer Timothy Loehmann.  Further, if there was not sufficient evidence to charge the Loehman there would certainly not be sufficient evidence to charge to second officer, Frank Garmback, who had merely driven the patrol car.

This certainly seems consistent with the actual video evidence available (embedded below the fold), as covered at length in our previous post on the subject but re-embedded here for your convenience:

Indeed, the surveillance video (below the fold, and annotated by the author) clearly shows Rice openly handling an apparent pistol (seemingly spinning it on his finger cowboy-style at the 1:20 mark), placing and removing it from his waistband (e.g., at 2:00 mark), and even apparently pointing the gun-like object at passersby. There are at least 10 occasions captured by the grainy footage of the surveillance video in which Rice is openly displaying the apparent gun in some fashion.  To an actual observer at the scene, the handling of the gun would have been far more apparent.

When police pulled up to his location, they say Rice immediately reached for the apparent gun in his waistband (highlighted in the photo below, and seen at the 7:27 mark in the video), and they engaged him with defensive fire.

Anyone with any legal experience or even just common sense having seen that video would know that the prospects of getting even an indictment, much less a conviction, on Officer Loehmann was slim, and this was buttressed by the investigators coming to the same conclusion after 6 months of effort.

And that’s in a state, indeed the only state, in which a defensive use of force must be proved by the defender by a preponderance of the evidence rather than disproved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.

To a group of community activists, that could not stand.  Accordingly, using an obscure Ohio rule that allows anyone claiming “knowledge of the facts” of a case to request a judge to find probable cause of a crime, they did just that.

And in the person of Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Ronald B. Adrine the find a man happy to oblige.

This afternoon Judge Adrine claimed in a court order to have found probable cause for a whole raft of charges against both officers.  Judge Adrine describes himself in explicitly activist terms, stating in his official court profile:

I ran for judge in protest, after experiencing how poorly many people were treated in the court system.

Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Ronald B. Adrine

Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Ronald B. Adrine

In the case of Officer Loehmann, who fired the fatal shots, Judge Adrine found probable cause for charges of murder, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, and dereliction of duty.

In the case of Officer Garmback, who you will remember merely drove the car, Judge Adrine found probable cause for negligent homicide and dereliction of duty.

And what was the “knowledge of the facts” claimed by the petitioners for these charges? Nothing more than the surveillance video embedded above. Period.

Anybody out there still want to become a police officer? Anybody?

In fact, this all appears to be little more than political theater, changing nothing substantively.  Judge Adrine himself notes that in his “Judgement Entry”:

At the beginning of this review the court is mindful that despite any conclusions it draws form the evidence found in the affidavits [of people whose “knowledge of the facts” was limited to the surveillance tape–AFB], its role here is advisory in nature. The actual issuance of misdemeanor complaints by the City of Cleveland, following the court’s review, may be based upon the court’s determination that such charges should issue. That decision is completely within the discretion of the City’s prosecuting authority.

The City Prosecutor may also decide to issue felony complaints in the Cleveland Municipal Court based upon his acceptance of the court’s determination that there is probable cause to believe certain accusations found in the affidavits posited against these Patrol Officers. However, those felony charges and perhaps some, or all of the misdemeanor charges must ultimately be delivered to the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney and, will then be subject to his [sic] discretion, and resolved in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.

Resort to this [obscure Ohio–AFB] statute does not provide an “end around” either the City or the County Prosecutor.  [ . . . ] That statutory schema does not, however, provide the court the ability to require that its determination be substituted for the discretion of either the City or the County Prosecuting authorities.

[ . . . ]

In point of fact, close examination of the applicable statues [sic] and criminal rules reveals that the trial court does not have the option of unilaterally issuing a warrant on its own initiative in these private citizen initiated cases.

Here’s the “Judgement Entry” in full:

The matter thus remains  under the auspices of the prosecutor in whose hands the case had been placed last week now that the police investigation was over.

And then it is likely still the grand jury’s decision as to whether the officers should face any charges whatever, and if so what those charges should be.

I’m not sufficiently familiar with Ohio law to know if felony charges can be based upon a mere affirmation, as was done in the case of George Zimmerman in Florida, in order to bypass the Grand Jury entirely. (OH criminal defense lawyers, please stand up.)

It doesn’t take the keenest eyesight to see the parallels between the conduct here of Judge Adrine finding probable cause for this plethora of charges at the behest of a group of dissatisfied community activists where the police investigation had found grounds for none, and the conduct of Baltimore Marilyn Mosby in bringing her plethora of charges against the six officers associated with Freddie Gray’s death in order to placate a burning, looting mob ravaging the city.

Both acts reek of the foulest political theater, sacrificing due process and presumption of innocence for personal political satisfaction.

But, heck, it’s not like I had plans to go to either Cleveland or Baltimore any time in the near future. Or ever.

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

NEW! The Law of Self Defense proudly announces the launch of its online, on-demand state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training.  These are interactive, online versions of the authoritative 5-hour-long state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars that we give all over the country, but from the convenience of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, and on your own schedule.  Click over for more information on our state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training, and get access to the ~30 minute Section 1. Introduction for free.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



If if were not for the racial healing brought about by the election of a black man to the office of President of The United States, I would be worried that this country is going to get more and more divided by race and less and less about equality, justice and opportunity.

So this was Judge Adrine stroking the political pukes in his constituency?

Well… You break over like that when you are a who-er, suppose.

    MattMusson in reply to Ragspierre. | June 12, 2015 at 9:45 am

    How much do you suppose these liberal lurkers are being paid to click down our messages? Do you suppose they get paid by the hour or by the click? Bonuses for posting idocy?

      Gremlin1974 in reply to MattMusson. | June 12, 2015 at 2:43 pm

      I think the 2 automatic one that pretty much every post gets these days are probably done by bots. The others are probably Kos Kiddies that read a comment asking them to thumbs down a link and never actually bother to read anything. Then again it could be M1 from mom’s basement just being extra industrious.

    Unfortunately I don’t think so. That would be the easy explanation, that he is simply guaranteeing that he gets re-elected by the black, low/no information crowd who sees him as “standing up to the white cracker po-lice who is keeping the black man down.”

    No. I think that it’s worse than that. I think that the “Honorable” Ronald B. Adrine probably believes that there actually IS probable cause here. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed.) defines probable cause as “A reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is committing a crime or that a place contains specific items connected with a crime.” Judge Adrine is obviously wrong: Probable Cause requires a “reasonable” ground for bringing a charge (in that there may have been a crime committed AND there are no OBVIOUS mitigating factors).

    We have BOTH parts of that here: there MAY have been a crime (a person IS dead) BUT there is an OBVIOUS mitigating factor (he was waving a gun around in an obviously threatening and unlawful manner). Thus, no probable cause against the officers. He seems to have remembered the definition, but not how to apply it properly.

      Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | June 12, 2015 at 1:35 pm

      Well, we agree, Chuck, but I think my comment still stands as his motive.

      He became a judge to “make a difference”. Which is cool, up to a point.

      And, as a judge, he can be politically active…carefully, within the ethics governing him.

      But he here allowed his office to be used in a way that…to me…is crass racial propaganda. Rather, HE used his office as a political tool, rather than what it was intended to be.

Gremlin1974 | June 11, 2015 at 7:55 pm

So let me get this straight. Basically all this does is give the prosecutors something to hang a case on if they should chose to do so, but other than that carries no actual weight since even the judge says he can’t force charges?

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 11, 2015 at 11:19 pm

    Yep. He’s found probable cause even though he wasn’t asked to by the prosecutor. See, he knows ‘cuz he watched a video. It’s tantamount to the judge admitting he’s a member of the thug mob rioters and looters. Rice’s mama wants an arrest for her civil suit. I don’t know if this gets her anywhere or not. Andrew?

Erase the thin blue line and the voters in these cities and their children will be ruled by the most brutal of the thugs.

Is this an impeachable offense for a judge in Ohio? He seems to be representing civil wrongful death plaintiffs from the bench.

Cleavland Police Department Is Now Hiring: Sign Up Today!

For Progressives, Rule of Law means whatever the hell they say it means.

    n.n in reply to Sanddog. | June 11, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    Pro-choice doctrine is a many splendored thing.

    gravytop2 in reply to Sanddog. | June 11, 2015 at 11:14 pm

    Note that the Judge’s decision was based on Cleveland law, which Branca dismisses as an “obscure rule.” So, not exactly “whatever [Progressives} say it means.”

    Speaking as an officer of the law, and not a progressive, your criticism is empty and worthless.

      Ragspierre in reply to gravytop2. | June 12, 2015 at 12:34 pm

      Not to quibble, it is a VERY obscure…even pretty unique…OHIO rule.

      It seems so ill-used as to have been used here for the first time…or at least the first time in a long time.

      It also seems a “tits on a boar hog” law, having no apparent use and real effect. Its use here was pure racial propaganda, unless I misunderstand.

      Char Char Binks in reply to gravytop2. | June 13, 2015 at 12:49 am

      It is a law, obscure or not, but that doesn’t mean the judge is using it properly or lawfully.

      Milhouse in reply to gravytop2. | June 14, 2015 at 3:39 pm

      The law allows a judge to find probable cause if it exists, not if it doesn’t. And it allows him to do so on the petition of people with knowledge of the facts, which these petitioners do not have. So if he respected the law he would have dismissed the petition, and if he did consider it he would have found no probable cause. That he entertained the petition and “found” probable cause shows that to him the law means whatever he wants it to mean.

Started to read the actual document.. just can’t do it. I can’t get around the idea of first hand knowledge being a video. It just doesn’t seem right. Next it will be staying a night at the Holiday Inn Express.

Obama won 90% of the vote in Cleveland, home of the Obamaphone lady.

You couldn’t pay me enough to live, or work, in an area like that.

Fearing Normal Legal Process Won’t Satisfy Them, Activists Find Bypass
Well lookie at page 4, the last paragraph..”resort to this statutory process does not provide and “end around” either the City or the County Procecutor” So Judge Adrienne is saying this whole thing is not a bypass, not an end around.. just more confusion. What if less enlightened people think it is some kind of actual ruling? SMH

    That is ENTIRELY the point.

    This “ruling” makes it possible for the race-bating, rabble-rousing hucksters to go out and “demand” that “justice be done” by arresting, prosecuting and convicting the Officers for “gunning down a poor, defenseless black child, who was just playing in the park, after all.”

    In fact, it is already happening on MSLSD (MSNBC) with their “justice” experts saying that this forces the prosecutor to bring charges, now that there is found “probable cause” and that “justice delayed is justice denied.”

Juba Doobai! | June 11, 2015 at 9:45 pm

Low income Blacks can end these “injustices” stat.: become law abiding.

Is this about the same, on a credability scale, as that stunt where a “Citizens Grand Jury” In Floriduh , “indicted” Angela Corey after the Zimerman trial? That one ,is still all over the place, Google “Angela Corey Indicted” ….,,,

(Although it would of been NICE to see Corey facing criminal charges, but, that’s not the way our justice system works.)

The video is damning. Pulling up to within ten feet of the victim immediately was idiotic, and placed the cops in a position of danger. The police assertions that the suspect was asked to comply several times before he was shot is utterly refuted by the video. The fact is, the shooting occurred immediately after their arrival. Also notable is the fact that the police initially claimed Rice was seated with a group of people, among other misrepresentations.

Personnel records of the shooter cop from a previous position found him unfit for police service. He was said to have cried during shooting trainings, among other things. He was described as emotionally unfit for police work. His own father said that he left suburban police work because it didn’t provide enough action.

I was a child in the 1960s, and there was never any fear that my playing with toy guns in a public park would lead to my death. So many things were done on the law enforcement side here, it’s not even funny.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to gravytop2. | June 12, 2015 at 12:41 am

    Wow, your that special kind of stupid aren’t ya?

    The video is only “damning” to those who are claiming that the police weren’t completely justified.

    The kid pointed the gun in at people on screen or what is presumably people off screen at least 5 times during the video. Also, there are almost 10 minutes of time when he wasn’t on video but with his behavior while on video it would be safe to say that he continued that behavior while off video.

    The “gun” that he had looked real even from distances as close as 5 to 10 feet. How were these officers supposed to know it was a toy? Is one of them the love child of Mrs.Cleo?

    The kid made a tragic error, which you can see from the video, when the cop car pulled up you can see him reach for his waistband, pull the “gun” out and then point it directly at the passengers side of the police car.

    The cop is faced with a young boy, who is pointing what appears to be a real gun at him. How close they came to him upon arriving is irrelevant, we pay police to stand between us and danger. In other words they should have gotten close to him. Also, they were told that it was a youth with a gun and that was pretty much it.

    The officer probably did say several times to put the gun down, you can say “drop it!” 3-4 times in about a second. He had 2 to 3 seconds from the time Rice pointed the “gun” at him and he was out the door and opened fire.

    It’s even more obvious that both officers thought the gun was real when you notice that the cop from the drivers side takes what appears to be 20 foot circle around to disarm Rice.

    Cops can’t make the assumptions that you seem to want them to make. I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s and we used to play cops and robbers, war, and cowboys and indians as well. However, the reality is that it’s not the 60’s, 70’s, or 80’s anymore. We used to play alone outside to, but you really can’t let kids do that anymore either. Also, after about age 5 or 6 we knew better than to point our toy guns at people who weren’t involved in our game.

    Why don’t you take a look at the number of cops shot and/or killed in the line of duty in the past 5 years compared to the entire decade of the 60’s and you will hopefully realize how ignorant that argument sounds. I bet if a police cruiser came rolling up to your group or you when you were growing up you stopped what you were doing and damn well listened to what the cop was saying.

    The tragic truth of this situation is that Rice basically did the one thing that was the absolute most dangerous. A 12 year old with a gun pointed at you is just a dangerous as a 24 year old with a gun pointed at you. As far as the cops know they had a gun pointed at them, there is only one response to that and the cop responded accordingly and appropriately. Yes it is tragic but it isn’t illegal and he was completely justified in opening fire. Don’t let your obvious hatred of police blind you.

      amwick in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 12, 2015 at 2:08 pm

      WR Gremlin, you can’t argue with stupid. But A for effort. 🙂

      Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 14, 2015 at 3:53 pm

      I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s and we used to play cops and robbers, war, and cowboys and indians as well. However, the reality is that it’s not the 60’s, 70’s, or 80’s anymore.

      Really? In what significant way is it different?

      We used to play alone outside to, but you really can’t let kids do that anymore either.

      Um, why on earth not? The streets are safer now than they were then. There’s no reason why people can’t let their kids play alone outside; that they don’t is pure paranoia.

      Also, after about age 5 or 6 we knew better than to point our toy guns at people who weren’t involved in our game.

      Finally. This is the key point; if we had pointed our guns at cops back then, we would probably also have been shot. But we knew better, as this Rice kid should have.

Oh, and the fact that Branca is complaining that the Judge’s decision was based on an “obscure rule.” Obscure rules are called the law. One might think that he has more respect for the law, but apparently not.

    The law’s obscurity is relevant not because it makes the law less valid but because the rarity of use means there’s been little practice built up of its application.

    That makes it particularly vulnerable to misapplication and abuse, as seems to have happened in this case.

    I very much doubt that the law was intended to allow the pursuit of charges by anybody who happened to see a video capture of an event after the fact. Such an interpretation would mean even I could petition for charges, or even you, or even somebody in China, so long as we bother to watch even a moment of the video.

    The notion is absurd on its face.

    See, it’s not rocket science. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    Ragspierre in reply to gravytop2. | June 12, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    “One might think that he has more respect for the law, but apparently not.”

    Speaking only for myself, I don’t give knee-jerk respect for “the law”. Indeed, as a citizen and attorney, I am openly contemptuous of quite a few laws, and will happily participate in destroying them if I can.

    Quite often “the rule of law” is at greatest hazard from BAD law, and people who “respect” it out of mindless support.

    I hope you, on reflection, would say you feel the same.

The video is surprisingly in favor of the police officer given the fact that a snippet from the final portion was played repeatedly at the time and used to demonize the guy.

    Milhouse in reply to Skookum. | June 14, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    It’s not at all surprising. Remember the Rodney King video? The news kept showing a short excerpt that looked damning for the cops, but the full video was the best evidence for the defense.

Deputy Chief Tomba claimed that Loehmann yelled through his open door three times, telling the boy to raise his hands, but Rice did not follow the order.

If the cops felt they did nothing wrong, why did they lie about having warned the boy not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES before they shot him?

If there is nothing wrong, in just screeching up close and shooting a 12 year old with a toy gun, point blank, with no warning, you shouldnt have to make shit up. Making shit up, to make your story sound nicer, shows evidence of a Guilty Mind.
This is why, when you take a selfdefense course, they tell you, if you do have to shoot someone to protect ur life, DONT MAKE SHIT UP, dont lie to the cops, if u are found out, it will just make everyone wonder what else u lied about, and why u lied if u thought u were in the right to begin with.

    Ragspierre in reply to Miller. | June 12, 2015 at 7:52 am

    “Making shit up, to make your story sound nicer, shows evidence of a Guilty Mind.”

    And you do it here several times a day. You’re just a lying SOS.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Miller. | June 12, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    LMAO, did you actually read the article you linked. It plainly says that the cops yelled 3 times for him to put his hands up. Your own article proves you are a liar.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 12, 2015 at 4:31 pm

      No, see, Miller does not read, think, or question when he can further his “hate cops” Ronulan fantasies.

      He didn’t for instance make any distinction between the involved officers saying something and their chief bureaucrat saying they said something. It isn’t even remotely the same thing, but it just never entered his head to question what fit his narrative.

      He didn’t hesitate to tell the flat-out lie that the gun was a “toy”. It isn’t a toy. It IS a very realistic simulated firearm that even police and the military use in training exercises, and functions almost identically to the M1911 automatic it replicates.

      He didn’t question the assertion in the “Mail” piece that one can be bought for $20. He didn’t do a simple Google search to see if that was at all true, which it clearly isn’t.

      This is why Ronulan-type libertarians are a hiss and by-word in American politics. They think they are the thinkers, when they just aren’t. But how do you convince someone who falsely lives by that conceit and those delusions?

      Miller in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 13, 2015 at 7:29 am

      “LMAO, did you actually read the article you linked. It plainly says that the cops yelled 3 times for him to put his hands up. Your own article proves you are a liar.”

      No , the liar is the cop who SAYS they yelled 3 times for him to put his hands up.

      The video, proves, that is a LIE.

      Why did the cops lie, and say that they yelled 3 times for him to put his hands up, when they DIDNT?

      Why would the cops lie about that, if they were confidant that it was “A GOOD SHOOT” even without warning him?


      Cops shouldnt make shit up and lie to the public, that make the killings they do, seem more “JUSTIFIED” … It might make us think, they have something to HIDE, yanno??

      Guilty. Mind.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Miller. | June 13, 2015 at 12:13 pm

        Ok, fun time.

        “The video, proves, that is a LIE.”

        How since the video contains no audio? So you assertion that the video proves anything related to what the officer said, is ignorant and would most likely be laughed out of court.

        I can counter that argument by simply pointing out that the officer could have had his window down and was yelling before the car appeared in frame. I can support this by pointing out that at 7:10 in the video just after Rice stands up he appears to be looking in the direction of the police car.

        “No , the liar is the cop who SAYS they yelled 3 times for him to put his hands up.”

        As Rags points out above there is no proof that the cop actually said this, since a far as I know their statements haven’t been released. Yes, the Asst. Chief said this, but that could be him playing to the crowd or he could have simply been misinformed.

        “It might make us think, they have something to HIDE, yanno??”

        Or it could be the simple understanding that memory in high stress situations is not terribly reliable, especially in the first 24 to 48 hours after the incident. Something that any freshman psych student can tell you.

        Now, just for the sake of argument, lets say that you are correct and the cop never issued any warning whatsoever before opening fire before opening fire, it is still a completely justified shoot.

        As far as I know there is no requirement in law that a civilian or Law Enforcement Officer must issue any kind of warning before employing deadly force in self defense.

        What the officer saw upon driving up is a suspect with a gun in his waistband. Then the officer saw a suspect reach for what he reasonably believed was a real firearm and attempt to draw it from his waistband. The suspects age, size, and color/race are irrelevant because once again a 12 year old with a gun is just as deadly as a 40 year old with a gun. At that moment he is a deadly threat and the officer was justified in using deadly force to stop a reasonable threat.

        Oh, also the fact that the gun was a “toy” as you put it is also irrelevant since it has been released that the 911 operator did not relay the callers suspicion that it “might” be a toy. Not that it matters since no reasonable person would expect the cop to put himself in possible mortal danger on the suspicion of a caller that what looked like a real firearm was a toy.

        So once again don’t let your hatred of police cloud your thinking.

The law and racial politics makes strange Goodfellas.

The black community’s public outcry denies the lawless gangster aspect of many of the suspects, suspects who are magically transformed into poor unwitting ‘victims’ via social media and the “pay their NAACP dues” prosecutors, masters of the Rap sheets.

All while gang-youth continue their shooting rampage in Chicago: > 1050 shootings this year.

Where’s the black community’s outrage in the social media?

I do not think the Ohio Legislature intended to empower private citizens whose knowledge of a “crime” comes only from viewing a surveillance video with the power to initiate a criminal proceeding.

MouseTheLuckyDog | June 12, 2015 at 12:19 pm

Kucinich did that?
Does it suggest that ground based mind control rays are OK?

For the love of God please tell me that “Municipal Court” means something else in Ohio than it does in Texas, and that a “City Attorney” isn’t that powerful up there.

In Texas, “Municipal Court” is limited to the hearing of traffic tickets and Class C misdemeanors (‘crimes’ punishable by maximum $500 fine only). Now, most of the Municipal Court Judges are also “Magistrates” for the purposes of initial probable cause signing of warrants and for reading arrested individuals their Miranda rights, but that gives them no authority to determine guilt.

Here in Texas, a City Attorney is responsible for the City’s civil and municipal docket and is HIRED by the City, not elected (but still “oversees” the Class C Misdemeanor docket, via his/her staff).

Here in Texas, the District Attorney is the individual who brings charges above a Class C Misdemeanor (any crime punishable by jail time).

I wonder what the requirements are to have a Judge dismissed in Ohio for gross abuse of process?

There is going to be a major butt hurt when the jury finds that the cops were not guilty. Be another Rodney King type riot situation. Then Al Sharpton and his butt buddies will take another one in the shorts.

The activist are still smarting over the Trayvon Martin fiasco. So they are looking for anything that will wash that down the drain.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Stan25. | June 12, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    I still wonder if it will ever actually make it to the Grand Jury. That actually may be why the Judge did this, the powers that am realized they couldn’t bring charges because of the video, but this judge just gave them something to hang a case on.

    Char Char Binks in reply to Stan25. | June 13, 2015 at 1:03 am

    The BGI activists win when they lose, maybe even more than when they actually win, and thus delight in unwinnable cases. When they lose, they get more “justification” for their rage, adding to the list of “injustices” they have suffered. Then they get to make more demands, and all the good liberals weep for them, and perform backbends to please them.

MouseTheLuckyDog | June 12, 2015 at 2:48 pm

I was going to respond seriously, but before I do, I have a simple observation.

Why didn’t the people filing just make a Citizen’s Arrest?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | June 12, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    I didn’t think “Citizens Arrest’s” were actually a real thing.

    Milhouse in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | June 14, 2015 at 4:07 pm

    As far as I know, to make a citizen’s arrest you must have actually seen the felony with your own eyes.

      Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 14, 2015 at 4:14 pm

      I guess I should have looked up the Ohio law before replying. “When a felony has been committed, or there is reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been committed, any person without a warrant may arrest another whom he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the offense, and detain him until a warrant can be obtained.” So if these people really think they have reasonable cause then they should try it.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | June 15, 2015 at 2:09 am

      Yea, but it also varies widely from state to state.

MouseTheLuckyDog | June 12, 2015 at 6:53 pm

I think an important question, is whether this ruling should be appealed. Since it’s a nonbinding ruling, the best approach may be for the prosecutor to just treat it for what it is worth and file it in the circular filing cabinet.

But as I pointed out in another thread, there are a glut of lawyers in this country. The result of that is that when you get some stupid action like this you get hundreds of copies. Appealing might be a way of nipping it in the bud, but given the political nature of this case maybe not.

    Ragspierre in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | June 12, 2015 at 7:40 pm

    Poor Mouse. You DID get the part where this is a strange OHIO aberration, right?

    I also don’t expect it to survive the next legislative session up there.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Ragspierre. | June 12, 2015 at 8:38 pm

      You do realize that the glut of lawyers in the country includes a glut of Ohio lawyers? You do realize that every “perceived” crime victim, who feels the system did him wrong, in Ohio is going to go running to one of the lawyers?

      You do realize also that other states may have similar laws, possibly with their own bad wording? Though technically that is irrelevant because we are concerned about Ohio here.

      You do realize that if there is even a slight success in pushing forward a trial, then there will be political pressure ( at least from the BGI ) to not fix this statute?

No, Mouse. I don’t “realize” a lot of your beeeee-zare fantasies.

You are getting further and further down that rabbit hole, son.


This kid brandished a realistic looking Airsoft gun,as well as committing multiple crimes in 2 states Michigan and OHIO.
However,no law enforcement officer felt the need to shoot him.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to m1. | June 13, 2015 at 12:10 am

    Yea, maybe that was because unlike Rice, that kid didn’t point his gun at cops, probably had a little bit to do with it.

    Btw, how is mom’s basement this evening? Still cozy?

Char Char Binks | June 13, 2015 at 1:11 am

Rice didn’t have a fake “gun”; he had a real pellet gun.

Sad situation. You can always say that there might have been something the cops could have done differently, but at the end of the day Rice was walking around with a realistic lookin pellet gun, that he had purposefully altered to make look even more realistic, pointing it at random people in a public park.

I’m 26, so it wasn’t that long ago that friends and I would run around the neighborhood with air soft guns shooting at each other. What we never did was remove the orange tip or point them at random passersby.