Police Gave Boy No Aid After Shooting in Cleveland

[SlyPokerDog]

The two Cleveland police officers involved in the fatal shooting of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy who was carrying a pellet gun, stood by without rendering medical aid as the boy lay wounded next to their patrol car, a newly released extended surveillance video shows.

Then, about a minute and a half after one officer had shot Tamir, the other officer tackled the boy’s 14-year-old sister as she tried to reach her brother. Tamir was shot Nov. 22 after someone called 911 to report “a guy” who had been pointing a “probably fake” pistol outside a community recreation center on Cleveland’s west side.

The video, obtained by the Northeast Ohio Media Group, provided fresh detail about a shooting that roiled Cleveland and quickly became the latest shooting to be absorbed into a broader national narrative about police violence in African-American communities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/u...-fatal-shooting-did-not-give-medical-aid.html

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The surveillance tape also seemed to clarify an issue in the shooting investigation: that the officers provided no immediate medical assistance to Tamir, who was not pronounced dead until more than nine hours later at a Cleveland hospital. An autopsy by the Cuyahoga County medical examiner later found that Tamir died from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. In addition, it confirmed the account that Tamir’s mother, Samaria Rice, gave in the weeks after the shooting, that the police had tackled and detained her daughter as she rushed out of the recreation center, trying to reach her brother’s side.

Continue reading the main story Video

Play Video|29:56
Tamir Rice Shooting Aftermath
Tamir Rice Shooting Aftermath
The Cleveland Police Department released surveillance footage showing the aftermath of the shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, in which his sister can be seen running toward him.

Video by Cleveland Police Department on Publish Date January 8, 2015.
After the second Cleveland officer, Frank Garmback, subdued Tamir’s sister — he pushed her to the ground back-first, tumbling on top of her in the process — the girl was handcuffed and put in the back of the police cruiser, a few feet from her brother.

The officers stood by without tending to Tamir, the extended video showed. It was not until four minutes after the shooting, the video showed, that Tamir received medical assistance when another man was seen bent down next to him. According to Benjamin Crump, the Rice family’s lawyer, the man who provided the first medical assistance was an F.B.I. agent who was in the neighborhood. Paramedics arrived eight minutes after the shooting, and Tamir was taken away on a stretcher about five minutes later, the video shows.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/u...-fatal-shooting-did-not-give-medical-aid.html

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The police are not going to provide aid if the boy refuses to obey their orders to stop bleeding. No one wants to get blood on their uniform, it's very unprofessional and dry cleaning is expensive.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

This story gets worse and worse for the cops involved.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Are cops supposed to provide medical aid?

 

[MARIS61]

Are cops supposed to provide medical aid?

Absolutely, as are all good human beings. I guess that's the difference right there.

PROTECT AND SERVE?

Premeditated Murder, refusing medical aid, preventing others from administering aid, hate crime...

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

That could be above their paygrade.

Think about it, if the guy dies, and they administer first aid, suddenly they are hiding evidence or planting drugs on the body or contaminating the scene.

I reserve judgment until standard protocol is outlined.

 

[Cryptkeeper]

Something something cops suck something ignorant comment something

 

[Denny Crane]

Ohio has had a Good Samaritan law since 2006. The law protects any individual who gives emergency aid to injured people from lawsuits.

https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-477.aspx

Ohio’s “Good Samaritan” Law Protects Volunteers


Q: What is the “Good Samaritan” law?
A: The “Good Samaritan” law provides certain protection from lawsuits to people who give first aid or other emergency care or treatment to someone suffering an injury or sudden illness. This statute is listed in the Ohio Revised Code, Section 2305.23.

Q: Under what circumstances does the Good Samaritan law apply?
A: The care or treatment must be given at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor’s office, or other medical facility. The law protects volunteers who help when someone becomes ill or is injured in places such as on the street or highway, in parks, restaurants, businesses, even private residences. If someone is already at a hospital or other medical facility, the law does not apply

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

the Police have a different set of rules as in this capacity they are not ordinary citizens. And it isn't a "lawsuit", its a crime scene in which they were involved. Anything they could do could be construed as contaminating the scene.

 

[Denny Crane]

the Police have a different set of rules as in this capacity they are not ordinary citizens. And it isn't a "lawsuit", its a crime scene in which they were involved. Anything they could do could be construed as contaminating the scene.

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/evidenc1.html

Potentially, any police officer can be put into the position of first responding officer to a crime scene. The first officer on the scene of a crime should approach the scene slowly and methodically. In some eases this is not altogether practical. The first officer may also be involved in arresting an uncooperative suspect or performing life saving measures on an injured victim.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sorry, but I cannot find any reason at all the cops should deny immediate first aid to someone they shot.

The exception would be if it were to endanger the life of the cop or others nearby.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I'm not sure what they could have done unless they know what they are doing. Like hold a rag to the wound?

Personally I would have held him and appologized and tried to soothe him as he died, but I'm no doctor, I really wouldn't know what to do medically

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/evidenc1.html

Potentially, any police officer can be put into the position of first responding officer to a crime scene. The first officer on the scene of a crime should approach the scene slowly and methodically. In some eases this is not altogether practical. The first officer may also be involved in arresting an uncooperative suspect or performing life saving measures on an injured victim.

If they shot the boy, they are not a responding officer or the first officer on a crime scene. They are the officers that were actively involved in the shooting itself. Like I said, if the officers rendered aid, the boy died, people would be blaming them for trying to kill the boy or planting evidence.

The proper protocol is likely to get a third party involved, otherwise, you're going to be changing the dynamics of the scene itself. Its a conflict of interest.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

They would be accused of trying to kill him? Wtf man

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

They would be accused of trying to kill him? Wtf man

Yes. Of course they would, don't be naive. Its a no win situation.

The only duty an officer would have is to call for medical assistance. It is beyond their scope of duty to administer medical care, especially to someone that they had shot in the commission of a crime. The neglect would be if they were not to call for help.

Here are some cases. In many of them, the officers weren't even involved in anything yet they go to court.
http://www.aele.org/law/2009all08/2009-08MLJ101.pdf

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I'm not saying they could have done anything, but if its a "no win situation" anyways, might as well help the kid if you can.

That might be the hypothetical "win". The boy NOT dying.

That said, these cops might not know an abdomen from an abalone, so I can't really say.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

How about comforting him, praying for him, not handcuffing and taking his sister into custody?

Did any of you watch the video?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I'm not saying they could have done anything, but if its a "no win situation" anyways, might as well help the kid if you can.

That might be the hypothetical "win". The boy NOT dying.

That said, these cops might not know an abdomen from an abalone, so I can't really say.

They probably would have been in a worse position if they administered aid versus not doing so. The reason being, if they made a best effort to summon medical assistance, that would have probably been the situation with the smallest amount of liability and legal complications. Like I said, if they were to help him, the scene would have been tainted and as participants in the shooting, it would not bode well for them. I imagine that it is standard protocol to NOT administer aid or do anything other than to call backup or for an ambulance due to conflicts of interest.

This is only coming out to make this an emotional trial versus a rational one.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes. Of course they would, don't be naive. Its a no win situation.

The only duty an officer would have is to call for medical assistance. It is beyond their scope of duty to administer medical care, especially to someone that they had shot in the commission of a crime. The neglect would be if they were not to call for help.

Here are some cases. In many of them, the officers weren't even involved in anything yet they go to court.
http://www.aele.org/law/2009all08/2009-08MLJ101.pdf

None of those exonerate the coops in this case.

In fact, your own PDF contains:



And scenarios like arresting the sister is discussed as well:



This bit is good, too:

 

[Denny Crane]

That actually highlights my point.

If your point is the cops were at least negligent and should be sued, then we agree And agree with your PDF.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

There isn't anything to exonerate. The cops have no duty to provide aid, if they called for medics, that is sufficient.

Having a 14 year old girl screaming and running towards her brother isn't preventing care of the victim. She was likely not qualified to administer any aid.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

If your point is the cops were at least negligent and should be sued, then we agree And agree with your PDF.

In terms of providing medical care:

Not doing anything (which is what the cops did) has no negligence whatsoever. Negligence only occurs if the officers actively PREVENTED care from being administered.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

We'll see what happens, but chances are I'm right, as I have been right in what was the best course of action in all of these recent shootings that have been discussed on this board. You can talk about what was the moral thing to do, but as far as what was the correct legal thing to do, they limited their liability by doing what they did.

If they called 9/11 immediately, that's all that they needed to do. Keeping the sister away, again, is probably preventing more injuries by having an unqualified person doing God knows what to the shooting victim.

 

[Denny Crane]

There isn't anything to exonerate. The cops have no duty to provide aid, if they called for medics, that is sufficient.

Having a 14 year old girl screaming and running towards her brother isn't preventing care of the victim. She was likely not qualified to administer any aid.

Read your own PDF The cops can't stop anyone from providing care. Who are they to judge her ability to do so?

And they do have an obligation to provide aid. It's a constitutional right of the victim, even. 4th amendment right to due process. Once they made it a crime scene, they are responsible for the safety of the victim.

 

[MARIS61]

the Police have a different set of rules as in this capacity they are not ordinary citizens. And it isn't a "lawsuit", its a crime scene in which they were involved. Anything they could do could be construed as contaminating the scene.

http://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/7982463-Celebrating-15-cops-who-saved-lives-in-2014/

 

[Denny Crane]

This bit from the opening article suggest the police department hired someone they shouldn't have and gave him a gun.



Seems he had another dangerous loss of composure.

The cops really need to stop shooting black boys.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Read your own PDF The cops can't stop anyone from providing care. Who are they to judge her ability to do so?

And they do have an obligation to provide aid. It's a constitutional right of the victim, even. 4th amendment right to due process. Once they made it a crime scene, they are responsible for the safety of the victim.

They have no such obligation to provide aid. It isn't part of due process, show me where it says that.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2014_pierce_v_springfieldtwpoh.shtml

However, the distinction that the Sixth Circuit found relevant on this issue was the difference between custody in the Fourth Amendment context and custody in the Fourteenth Amendment context.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a person is “in custody” when a police officer restrains a person’s liberty such that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.

Further, regarding the officers duty to provide medical aid to Drummond, the court also noted that the officers had no special training, beyond basic first aid, in treating gunshot wounds. The court then stated that, because of the officer’s lack of training in this area, “any failure to treat would be, at most, negligent

A state is not subject to liability under DeShaney's state-created danger exception unless it takes an"affirmative action that exposed decedent to [a] danger to which [he] was not already exposed." Sargi v. Kent City Bd. of Educ., 70 F.3d 907, 913 (6th Cir. 1995). [vii]

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Last sentence:

The Sixth Circuit then held that, based on the above principals, the Township and officers are not liable under the Fourteenth Amendment for preventing Drummond’s relatives from providing aid.

As such, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court.​

and

The Sixth Circuit then held that in this case, since Drummond was merely being covered by officers with weapons drawn after he shot himself, but not “incarcerated, institutionalized or subject to a similar restraint,” Drummond was not in custody for liability to attach under the Fourteenth Amendment and Deshaney.

Further, regarding the officers duty to provide medical aid to Drummond, the court also noted that the officers had no special training, beyond basic first aid, in treating gunshot wounds. The court then stated that, because of the officer’s lack of training in this area, “any failure to treat would be, at most, negligent and thus not actionable under Section 1983.” [vi] The Sixth Circuit did not speculate whether the officer’s would have had a different duty if they had more advanced medical treatment.​