City of Cleveland responds to Tamir Rice lawsuit by saying boy's death was caused because of his own actions

http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2015/02/city_of_cleveland_responds_to.html


By Eric Heisig, Northeast Ohio Media Group
Follow on Twitter
on February 27, 2015 at 5:05 PM, updated February 28, 2015 at 2:24 PM


CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The city of Cleveland on Friday responded to a lawsuit filed by the family of Tamir Rice with several defenses, including that the 12-year-old died and his family members suffered because of their own actions.

The city, in its response, wrote that Tamir's death on Nov. 22 and all of the injuries his family claims in the suit "were directly and proximately caused by their own acts, not this Defendant." It also says that the 12-year-old's shooting death was caused "by the failure ... to exercise due care to avoid injury."

The response does not explain these defenses in more detail, though 20 defenses are listed in all, including another one that says Tamir died because of "the conduct of individuals or entities other than Defendant."

The city also wrote that it does not have enough information to respond in full because the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office's investigation into Rice's death by police officer Timothy Loehmann is not finished.

The Sheriff's Office has not given a timeline on completing its investigation into Tamir's death and turning the case over to Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty's Office. A spokesman for the Sheriff's Office did not return messages left Friday.

The lawsuit was first filed in December and amended in January after Tamir's family hired new attorneys. Tamir's parents were added as plaintiffs, as was his sister Tajai Rice.

It alleges the city, Loehmann, officer Frank Garmback and 100 unknown 911 operators, police officers and city employees violated the family's rights in the fatal Nov. 22 shooting outside the Cudell Recreation Center on West Boulevard. Officers responded to a report of a man with a gun. The boy was shot less than two seconds after the officers pulled up to the gazebo outside the recreation center.

The boy was holding a pellet gun.

It goes into detail about the moments after the shooting when Tajai Rice, 14, was tackled and restrained as she ran towards her brother screaming "my baby brother, they killed my baby brother."

The suit also makes references to the Department of Justice's report released on Dec. 4, which found that Cleveland police engaged in a pattern of using excessive force against suspects, and to reports of Loehmann's questionable previous experience as a police officer in Independence and the police's handling of the chase and shooting of Malissa Williams and Timothy Russell in 2012.

In its filing, the city, as it has done before, denied having knowledge of problems in Loehmann's past police employment history.

Finally, in response to an accusation contained in the suit that the city was using the sheriff's office's investigation as an excuse to withhold information, the city says it is not doing this and is cooperating in the investigation.

Walter Madison, an Akron attorney representing the Rice family, said Friday that he believes "that there's merit in our complaint."

"I do believe that a 12-year-old child died unnecessarily at the hands of Cleveland police officers and I do believe that certain officers shouldn't have been entitled to wear the uniform," he said.

A call left for a city spokesman was not returned Friday afternoon.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

showed up?

Not only is that defense f'n thin, it doesn't make any sense

whatever their opinion is of the family and victim

if the cops never show up

that boy is still alive today.

The cops have to show up when they are called about someone with a gun

I think a more useful angle would be to question the idea that these cops are mindless automatons that arent capable of a critical thought. Like it was predetermimed that when they got there they were just gonna start blasting, because that is how they are programmed and no deviation from that is permitted.

They are taking the element of personal accountability and completely disregarding it.

and that's one of my biggest issues with alot of these cases

if a LEO can't say that this was handled wrong

then I really have a hard time allowing you to have access to lethal force.

at this point in the litigation the city likely hasn't decided if it will push this case to trial or not. however, just in case there is a trial the city needs to list all of its potential defenses so that none are lost. so that's why the defendant's response may include ludicrous claims and potential defenses. just in case.

This kid was in a park with no one close by
The police dept lied
The murdering cop was dropped from another dept that flagged him as unfit, trigger happy, and making bad decisions
Kid was refused medical attn
Sis, bro, and mom got arrested, beat, threatened

And holder had just released a report confirming the whole dept was corrupt


Not that trayvon, mike Brown or garner wasnt deserving of the marches and rallies

But man, this case was horrible. And didn't seem to get enough attn

I think family sued for 3M, shoulda been $30M

and the police tactics were so horrible that had they actually done that to an armed and dangerous person, they would likely have gotten shot/killed themselves.

Internal investigation rarely find fault with the LEO thats only on telelvision.

This is the part that really really burns my throat:

"The boy was shot less than two seconds after the officers pulled up to the gazebo outside the recreation center."

WHAT CAN WE DO>>!!!
*****************************************
huh

that boy should NOT have been shot. in context, i realize that this is a response to a civil suit.


"If you wanna help us, fine. Sit down with your kids and make 'em study at night...otherwise, shoot THIS mothaf*cka!" (c) Morgan Freeman,

that is standard language you will find in most responses to a complaint to a similar civil suit

That is a fairly typical response to the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint.

whoever wrote this article is either completely unfamiliar with the litigation process or was just trolling for clicks/outrage (or both).

We should not take offense to such talk, because it's par for the course. Ok. We can all go home now.

Please!



.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

That filing doesn't new the city won't settle later. It's just a filing. Nothing to get mad about, really.

This is the issue when we play politics and legal strategy with issues like this. Trying to discredit the victim is still BS even if it's a standard practice for crappy lawyers.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

It's typical. The response in and of itself doesn't upset me bc I have seen so many of them I can read them without getting in my feelings.

>It's typical. The response in and of itself doesn't upset me
>bc I have seen so many of them I can read them without getting
>in my feelings.

Well, they day I get complacent enough to accept injustice at any level within the process is the day they call my time of death.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

there is nothing "above it all" about stating that something is par for the course and much less inflammatory than it is being portrayed by people unfamiliar with an area.

First thing to establish, the city has apparently been sued. They can either completely submit and settle or respond. There is no municipality in the world that will not respond to a suit, even if they intend to settle (which is likely the case here).

So, they respond to the complaint, as anyone who has been sued does.

in brief
in a civil suit, a plaintiff files a complaint* (which is a paragraph by paragraph telling of their side of the story and their allegations).
the named parties respond to each paragraph, and include their defenses to each allegation.

not having seen the complaint in this case, it is fair assumption that they plaintiffs are alleging negligence (among many other things).

it's a common defense to negligence that the plaintiff did not exercise due care. that is to say, that the plaintiff is AT LEAST partially at fault for the outcome.

moreover, when responding to a complaint, it is common to state all possible defenses, so that you don't waive them in future.

for example. at this point, most of us have seen the tape. it's tragic and looks very damning for the police officers. that said, the tape is not the entire story. that's what a trial is for. if facts are later revealed establishing that the plaintiff shirked a responsibility of care, then the City will have wanted to establish this defense at the very beginning.

in other words, as a respondent, you lay out all possible defenses at the beginning, so you don't lose the opportunity of using them later.

If I sue Case_One for falling down his rickety steps
it is logical for Case_One to say, "yes, maybe the steps were rickety but why were you running down them?"

the bottom line is that a boy was killed and should not have been.
but all the parties are still entitled to defend their corners and attribute fault equally where it is deserved.


*Sidebar: I wish it was more publicly appreciated that a Complaint is just one a set of allegations made by one side. Not necessarily a document of complete unbiased fact. Too often, people on the internet act like a lawsuit is evidence in itself.

refuse to accept the comments as standard and normal. So, you can play legal eagle and embrace that BS, I'm not and other's refuse to settle for the status quo.


.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

LOL

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

>LOL

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

This must be part of that Standard "No need to get Worried or be Outraged" practice that those two OKP lawyers were talking about. .... NOT!


City Of Cleveland Apologizes For Blaming Tamir Rice For His Own Fatal Shooting


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/02/cleveland-apologizes-blam_n_6787600.html


An ongoing federal lawsuit filed by the family of Tamir Rice prompted a response from the city of Cleveland last week arguing that the 12-year-old was responsible for his own death.

The city’s claims caused outrage from family and community members -- and perhaps led to a public apology from Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson who shared the city's regrets for the language they used.

"This is not the character or personality of the city of Cleveland to be that insensitive to the family or even the victim," Jackson said at a news conference on Monday, according to local news station Fox 8.

A series of defenses filed on Friday show that the city claimed Rice’s fatal shooting was a result from his failure to “exercise due care to avoid injury” and that the family’s “injuries, losses and damages” were caused by their own acts.

The city’s response to the federal lawsuit, which lists approximately 20 defenses, have left Rice’s family in “disbelief.”

“They were completely and totally outraged by the city’s response,” Walter Madison, an attorney for Rice’s family, told HuffPost Live’s Alyona Minkovski on Monday. “They have just begun to pick up the pieces after having lost a loved and then to be blown to pieces yet again about this incredulous claim that this 12-year-old is at fault for his death.”

Rice died on Nov. 22 after officers responded to a call about a person holding a firearm near a recreation center. Officer Timothy Loehmann, a rookie cop who has received poor performance reviews in the past, fatally shot Rice almost immediately upon arrival. It was quickly revealed that Rice had been carrying a non-lethal toy gun with plastic pellets -- the incident also was captured on video.

“You can look at that video and see for yourself, in 1.7 seconds, they shot this young child without any respect or deference to give him time to comply,” Madison said. “I do not believe that should be absolved and the family certainly is hopeful that justice is done.”

In further defense of the officer’s actions, Steve Loomis, the president of the Cleveland Police Patrolman’s Association, suggested that Tamir’s height and stature also played a role in his death.

“Tamir Rice is in the wrong,” Loomis told Politco in a piece published last week. “He’s menacing. He’s 5-feet-7, 191 pounds. He wasn’t that little kid you’re seeing in pictures. He’s a 12-year-old in an adult body.”

In response, Madison slammed this theory and expressed his thoughts on how Loomis' comments were another example of victim-blaming.

“That’s ridiculous. We know from all the incidents before that that’s just a common response, that’s the playbook, the seems to be the script, to victim blame,” he said.

“Now, however, we’re talking about blaming a 12-year-old for his own death. Essentially, what they’re telling the world is that we’ve created a new standard for 12-year-old children nationwide that they’re going to be responsible for consequences that we don’t expect 12 years to really appreciate.”

HuffPost Live have asked the Cleveland Police Department to comment. They have yet to respond.



.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

the city's law director, Barbara Langhenry said:

“We will assert all available defenses.” If the city does not mention the defenses in the court documents, then they cannot use them later, Langhenry says. That’s the reasoning behind the strong language in the complaint.

http://fox8.com/2015/03/02/cleveland-mayor-to-discuss-tamir-rice-lawsuit/

^^ which is exactly what we said this morning, btw.

but Mayor Frank Jackson seems like he's leaning toward settling this case:

“There is no way that a 12-year-old should die,” Jackson said. On the lawsuit: “Today is about apologizing to the family that we have caused some hurt, some harm to.”

if the city wants to fight the case then the language in that response is typical and necessary. if the city doesn't wanna fight b/c it doesn't wanna blame the decedent for his own actions (which would be pretty abhorrent but them's the breaks) then they're likely gonna have to settle.

At least that's what I've been told.



.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

They have to put forth some defense here, however flimsy, if they are going to go forward or pretend to go forward for the time being.

This is a stunt, later I bet they will settle it.