Home / General / If only Mrs. Till had taught her son not to speak to white women

If only Mrs. Till had taught her son not to speak to white women

Comments
/
/
/
854 Views

Tamir Rice’s family has reached a settlement with Cleveland. Naturally a local police union seized the opportunity to remind everyone that head of a police union is a great job for someone who was thrown out of a gang of fascist goat-strangling bikers for being too scuzzy.

The head of the Cleveland rank-and-file police union says the family of 12-year-old Tamir Rice should use money from a $6 million settlement to educate children about the use of look-alike firearms.

Here’s the education: Ohio is an open carry state. Supremacist dickheads like Steve Loomis don’t believe the law applies to black people, but they do believe in killing them and then blaming them for their deaths.

So eat your veggies so you can grow up big and strong and overthrow the society that allows supremacist dickheads within a light year of a position of influence!

Something positive must come from this tragic loss. That would be educating youth of the dangers of possessing a real or replica firearm.

We look forward to the possibility of working with the Rice family to achieve this common goal.

A perfectly spun “If you don’t work with your oppressors to further their agenda, you’re the real problem and you don’t care about the children.” 10/10.

In response, an attorney for the Rice family filed a Summary Motion to Go Fuck Yourself:

Subodh Chandra … said that the comments “reflect all that is wrong with Cleveland’s police division — he managed to (1) blame the victim, (2) equate the loss of the life of a 12-year-old child with the officers facing scrutiny, and (3) demand money from the victim’s family and counsel.

“Loomis’s continued posturing shows he and the union still don’t comprehend that the police division needs a cultural change — not hiring incompetents, better training, and greater accountability.”

And now, the punchline.

Loomis also sits on the Cleveland Community Police Commission, a board made up of representatives of residents and law enforcement that is tasked with making policy recommendations to the police department. The commission was formed as part of a settlement the city reached with the U.S. Justice Department over police use of force

Unless he’s representing the red-faced violent bloviator faction, this really should not be.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Rob in CT

    Saw this yesterday (via Ballone Juice I think) and was just flabbergasted.

    I mean, obviously there’s the lack of basic decency. But gross stupidity also. He said this, not only right out loud, but intended it to be a public statement. It’s the sort of thing “moron” was invented to describe.

    Also, I think moderate Loomises need to denounce extremist red-faced violent bloviator Loomises!

    • JustRuss

      While Loomises come in many flavors, I don’t think “moderate” is one of them.

      • I here you can find ketchup flavored Loomis in Canada.

    • DrDick

      Loomis represents everything that is wrong with law enforcement in this country.

      • rea

        Are we sure this is a real person and not, say, a badly misconceived comic book super-villain?

        • IM

          a long lost evil twin of our Loomis?

        • Origami Isopod

          In the last 10-15 years or so, I’ve started having trouble distinguishing between the two, at least when it comes to right-wingers.

          • DrDick

            My thought exactly!

  • sleepyirv

    We live in a society where we REQUIRE 12-year-olds to show better judgment, discretion, and self-control than police officers.

    • Steve LaBonne

      And they’ll pay with their lives if they don’t, whereas cops won’t even pay with their jobs.

    • Thirtyish

      I’ll never forget when this case first came down. A lot of my Facebook connections were all over it, many of them appropriately expressing outrage. But one commenter said something along the lines of, “Well, the kid had a toy gun, and he was waving it around. You can’t do that and logically expect cops to not react. What did he expect?” I typically avoid engaging in comment sections, particularly those on Facebook, as I consider it a waste of time trying to educate the uneducable. But I broke my rule in this instance, and fired back the following comment:

      “He didn’t ‘expect’ anything, you authoritarian sod. He was 12 years old. He was a kid, playing with a toy. He was on a fucking playground, playing, like a kid. He didn’t ‘logically expect’ anything.” Then, IIRC, I spiked my morning coffee.

      • DrDick

        “Well, the kid had a toy gun, and he was waving it around. You can’t do that and logically expect cops to not react. What did he expect?”

        According to that, I and every other middle class white kid I knew growing up in the 50s and 60s ought to be dead.

        • Lurking Canadian

          We used to have shiny cap revolvers that made real BANGs and emitted real powder smoke. Yet somehow we managed to avoid summary execution.

          • DrDick

            Yep!

        • Tyto

          This. What could possibly account for the difference in treatment?

      • Origami Isopod

        Authoritarians gonna authoritarian. Sometimes you can wake them the fuck up, but odds run against.

    • Henk

      Excellent analysis. Unfortunately the same can be said for many of our politicians. We expect more from 12 year olds than we do from them.

  • Steve LaBonne

    To call Loomis a piece of shit would be an insult to shit.

    • Pseudonym

      This should go on the rotating tagline, once they bring it back, which they will, right?

      • Steve LaBonne

        Guess I should have specified STEVE Loomis…

        • NO RELATION!!!

          • ThrottleJockey

            Sure would be some family reunion is he was–UFC style!

          • ThrottleJockey

            I didn’t see your post on black support for Clinton’s ’94 crime bill until late last night. Thanks for posting on the topic. There’s a generational debate within the black community over this, and its a worthwhile debate. I’m going to leave a few links below for you to peruse at your leisure, but there’s a mountain of evidence to support the fact that blacks have historically been big supporters of tough sentencing. To state otherwise is revisionist. In fact, if you look at University of Chicago’s General Social Survey, during yours and mine entire lifetime, a majority of blacks have thought that “local courts were not harsh enough when dealing with criminals”.

            Reportedly, Clinton’s Crime Bill was more popular among minorities than among whites, with ~58% of minorities supporting it compared to just 49% of whites. From that same article (which is an excellent piece of writing):

            To young activists like Mr. Farmer, Mr. Clinton’s legacy on crime is paternalistic and damaging. But many older black voters who raised families during the crack epidemic — an era many young people do not remember — remain steadfastly loyal to the Clintons.

            Ms. Brock said she had been a social worker in charge of the removal of children from dangerous homes in the South Bronx and Spanish Harlem in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crack tore a path of destruction through those neighborhoods.

            “I saw it all,” Ms. Brock said. “Moms would give birth and leave the hospital to get a hit. My car got broken into every week. People were scared to walk down to the bodega, afraid they’d be followed and robbed.” She said she was relieved when the crime bill passed.

          • ThrottleJockey

            Despite whatever more comprehensive package of crime prevention tactics the Congressional Black Caucus supported, key figures within the CBC, such as Charlie Rangel–a founder!–supported strong interdiction and sentencing–again, for the entirety of your and my lifetimes.

            1971. March 25. The Congressional Black Caucus secures a closed-door sit-down meeting with President Nixon in the Cabinet Room. During the session, the group demands more action to stop the flow of narcotics into urban neighborhoods. Members acknowledge that they are risking their credibility meeting with Nixon. The session is secretly recorded by the President.

            Rep. Charles Rangel, a newly-elected Democrat from New York City and a former Federal prosecutor, urges Nixon to do more to fight drugs without waiting for further congressional action, warning that support might soon build for drug legalization. “You do have the power and we implore you to use it as you would if this were a national crisis and I think we’ve reached that,” Rangel insists. Before departing, the Black Caucus presented Nixon with a manifesto of sixty priorities for the African American community. It included the demand that “drug abuse and addiction be declared a major national crisis” and a call to use “all existing resources” to stop the trafficking of drugs.

            Sidenote: There’s nothing mutually exclusive about supporting strong crime laws along with preventative efforts like improved education, after school programs, and, to mention a favorite of mine, weekend basketball. As far as that Crime Bill was concerned Blacks were “All of the Above”.

          • ThrottleJockey

            Finally, this:

            An emotional, unscripted speech Mr. Clinton gave in 1993 about the toll of violence on black youth has been called one the best of his presidency. He delivered it from the pulpit of the church in Memphis where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. preached his last sermon.

            “The other day on the front page of The Washington Post was a story about an 11-year-old child planning her funeral,” Mr. Clinton told the congregation that day, 10 months before he signed the crime bill.

            The freedom to die before you’re a teenager is not what Martin Luther King lived and died for.”

            Black churchgoers gave him sustained applause and named him an honorary member of their congregation. A columnist in The Washington Post said the speech “embodied what has always been the promise of Clintonism.” “Only Clinton could say it, and only now,” read a column in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

            My parents were at that speech of Clinton’s. They instantly raved about it and rave about it still.

            But what would the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. make of the new tragedies that haunt black America?

            Trying to imagine what Dr. King would say, Clinton offered this: “I did not live and die to see the American family destroyed. I did not live and die to see 13-year-old boys get automatic weapons and gun down 9-year-olds just for the kick of it. I did not live and die to see young people destroy their own lives with drugs and then build fortunes destroying the lives of others. That is not what I came here to do.

            • Nobdy

              Man…that seems to serve as evidence that Clinton of the 1990s would seem as tone deaf as he seems today if he were transported forward 20 years. Maybe he hasn’t changed, we have.

              A white politician claiming to speak for Martin Luther King Jr. is…not a good look.

              At the time it was less problematic because hey, at least Clinton, unlike the Republicans who came before him, seemed to listen to and give a damn about the black community.

          • Joseph Slater

            This is going to cause some fantastic confusion for people searching LGM threads in the future.

      • Manny Kant

        Even Erik Loomis’s own blogmates apparently can’t stand him. “To call Loomis a piece of shit would be an insult to shit,” said Scott Lemieux, co-founder of the blog Lawyers, Guns and Money, where Loomis posts regularly.

        • Thirtyish

          According to one controversial rumor by one of the blog’s more contrarian, semi-regular commenters, Loomis is indirectly responsible for denying a fellow academic a place in America’s higher education, forcing the hapless, unnamed commenter to seek employment in a repeatedly-named sub-Saharan African country.

          • Murc

            You have a great future waiting for you at Vox, Thirtyish.

        • Pseudonym

          I think it’s time we demanded Loomis’s head on a stick.

    • Jhoosier

      I’ll bet he’s a ketchup and vodka man, that one.

      • DrDick

        Wouldn’t that be a Bloody Mess?

  • sibusisodan

    That would be educating youth of the dangers of possessing a real or replica firearm.

    That it causes excessive politeness?

    Just ugh.

  • Barry Freed

    Head of a police union: we now know what Donald Trump would have been if he hadn’t inherited daddy’s millions.

    • ThrottleJockey

      I’m just about at the point where we should ban police unions. They serve no public purpose.

      • Linnaeus

        The problem runs much deeper than the actions of police union leadership. You could bust every police union local in the country, and you’d still have the problem of far too many cases like Tamir Rice’s.

        Simply put, the American public is too tolerant of police brutality and violence, especially when it’s directed at marginalized populations. The main wellsprings of this tolerance are racism and classism, and I think this problem has also been exacerbated by the “tough on crime” attitude that’s been assiduously cultivated for decades now because, in light of that attitude, people are more willing to see cases like Tamir Rice’s as, at worst, unfortunate excesses of a few that are an acceptable cost of necessary aggressiveness in law enforcement.

        • royko

          Yeah, the law gives police an enormous amount of latitude, and juries give them even more latitude. Even if we did take away their right to unionize, I don’t think you’d see more accountability for things like this. The department, the DA, and the public (or part of it, anyway) shield cops way more than their union does.

          • Linnaeus

            Yes, and that was pretty clear in some of the high profile cases in the past few years. I don’t defend Loomis’s odious remarks in any way, but my concern is that too much focus on police unions and their leadership will leave other factors that contribute to the problem unexamined.

            • IM

              he did put the focus on himself, though.

              He could have said simply nothing – after all none of his members was directly involved in the lawsuit.

              • Linnaeus

                Oh, he’s definitely not helping himself or his organization here.

      • Hogan

        Not having a police department turned into a patronage mill is a public purpose.

  • gogiggs

    What he should have said was: nothing.
    What he said was…
    Have you seen the video? The cops roll up on a child, jump out of their car and just straight up murder that child.
    It’s one of the worst things I’ve ever seen. It’s one of the worst things I’ve ever seen and I live in a town where Ariel Castro abducted 3 women and held them as sex slaves for a decade, where Anthony Sowell filled his yard with the the corpses of murdered women and the police told the neighbors who complained that the smell came from a sausage plant.
    I live in a town where a cop can jump on the hood of a car, empty his clip into the driver, reload and then empty that clip and get off because it’s not sure that the victim wasn’t already dead from the 100 other rounds fired at him.
    I…
    I’ve got nothing.

    • yet_another_lawyer

      At least Ariel Castro had the modicum of decency to kill himself, which was a surprisingly helpful act of pest control. I suspect no such luck will be forthcoming here.

    • royko

      The whole thing makes me sick.

      You know, after the Eric Garner killing, someone actually said to me, “Hey, this was not a good guy. Why doesn’t anybody think of the convenience stores that were losing money because he was selling loose cigarettes?” Yes, why, oh, why won’t anyone think of the poor cigarette merchants? Surely this man had to die!

      I’m horrified that there are trained police officers who will behave this recklessly, this insanely. But I’m more horrified by the way some people will find _any_ excuse to blame an unarmed black victim.

      • Linnaeus

        But I’m more horrified by the way some people will find _any_ excuse to blame an unarmed black victim.

        Yep. In the wake of the Tamir Rice murder, it was more than once that I heard something along the lines of, “gee, it’s really too bad what happened to him, but the police were only doing what they were trained to do.”

        • Snarki, child of Loki

          “gee, it’s really too bad what happened to him, but the police were only doing what they were trained to do.”

          Sounds much better in a thick German accent, just sayin’.

  • gang of fascist goat-strangling bikers

    Does Mickey Kaus know about this?

    • Pseudonym

      Was he specifically a fan of capriderotic asphyxiation?

  • LosGatosCA

    A non trivial number of police persons and virtually all of their Union spokespeople continue to be an embarrassment to humanity.

    • A lot of that is police recruitment. It’s been thirty years since they started openly using the warrior cop image (think tactical gear for everyone) to get guys to sign up. You do that long enough and even the higher ups can’t remember a time when taking doors and shooting first for “officer safety” weren’t routine parts of the job.

      I don’t know how old Steve Loomis is, but he looks to be 40s-50s, which would mean he came on right as things were getting militarized in the 80s (a/k/a the “super predator” era). There are a lot of guys like him, and they’re going to be a huge impediment to meaningful police reform/de-militarization.

      • I don’t know how old Steve Loomis is, but he looks to be 40s-50s, which would mean he came on right as things were getting militarized in the 80s (a/k/a the “super predator” era).

        And, sure enough, we got us police forces full of super predators!

      • The L.A.P.D., at least, loves to hire veterans.

        The L.A. Sheriff’s Dep’t. public transit division has squads of three or four oafs in regular uniforms but full (probably surplus) desert colored tactical gear, often w/ a dog, standing around in subway stations. One of these days (when I’m tired of freedom & life) I’m going to ask them if they’re having a flashback & think they’re in Fallujah.

  • witlesschum

    The only possible way to interpret that statement is “Ha, we told you black lives don’t matter.”

    If what that motherfucker did to Tamir Rice is legal, the law needs to change. If police tactics are such that this cop did what he was supposed to do, those tactics need to change. If this is who is chosen to be head of the police union, the membership needs to change. If politicians aren’t willing to change these things, they need to be replaced with those who will. If these things are inevitable in a segregated, economically unfair and structurally racist society, than society needs to change.

    • ChrisTS

      That pretty much wraps it. Sadly, I don’t know where to start.

    • elm

      If this is who is chosen to be head of the police union, the membership needs to change.

      A highschool classmate of mine was recently chosen to head the police union in my hometown. Prior to being elevated to the position, he was under suspicion of numerous abuses of authority and what I was hearing was that his fellow officers were trying to figure out a way to get him fired without violating their own union rules. So how did end up with the job? Apparently, literally no one else was willing to do it. If a police force of about 300 officers can’t find someone else to be their union head, I guess you’re right that the membership needs to change.

      • Nobdy

        That doesn’t seem like a problem with the union membership (who wanted to get a corrupt officer fired) but more with the structure/incentives of the union. In some way it’s a thornier problem.

        The easiest fix I could see would be to have non-cop (though maybe retired cop) labor people run the cop unions. Being a good union chief does require rapport with those you represent but not necessarily that you currently be one of them. The sports unions do well with this model.

    • DrDick

      It is called “blue privilege.”

  • Nobdy

    Serious question: Do Police union chiefs strategically say outrageous things to draw attention towards themselves and away from their officers? That’s the only reason I can think of why we keep getting police union leaders saying things so objectively despicable they could come from the mouth or keyboard of an LGM commenter.

    Well, not the only reason, but the other reason (police unions are generally dominated by deranged fascists) is so scary that I’d LIKE to believe it’s an intentional strategy to draw media scorn away from the rank and file being represented.

    It would be one thing if the union chief just spoke generally about the need to teach kids not to play with toy guns. That would be missing the point of what happened and gruesomely inappropriate. But to demand that the victim’s family pay for it just seems willfully cruel and bullying to the point of obscenity.

    They lost their twelve-year-old who did nothing that 90% of adolescent boys haven’t done. Leave them alone. Even if Rice HAD been a violent criminal who the police had no choice but to shoot to prevent an imminent threat…his family would STILL deserve the right to grieve in peace.

    Even a police union chief must know this, right? I would really like to believe that this objectively despicable comment has some intended purpose besides causing more pain to a family who already lost their child to an extremely violent act by the people who were sworn to protect him.

    • Peterr

      Serious answer: in far too many cases, the person elected to be the head of the police union promises to stick up for and protect his (and I can’t think of a single woman in this job) members NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.

      Period.

      It has nothing to do with a well crafted 11 dimensional PR strategy. It is simplly “You can’t say that about one of Our City’s Finest and get away with it. We. Do. No. Wrong.”

      • Nobdy

        You can stick up for your union members without attacking victims.

        Also, and I’ll admit this is a dumb point, you don’t do your union members any favors by driving up distrust in the communities they are policing. Policing goes much better when there is local buy in and cooperation with the cops. Shooting innocent young people and then blaming them for their own deaths seems like a bad plan to build community rapport.

        You’d think that the head of a police union in a major metropolitan area could learn how to support the officers he represents without attacking dead kids and their families.

        • DrDick

          You and I can, but the police clearly cannot. Blue Privilege at work.

          • Blue Lives Matter.

            • LosGatosCA

              Blue pay checks matter.

        • witlesschum

          Logically, the head of the police union should be screaming at the top of his or her lungs every minute of the day about their membership being asked to provide policing in a society that allows the level of inequality and structural racism we do. Your membership being given literally unachievable tasks would seem like it’d be a concern to a union leader and something they’d complain bitterly about.

          But people are not all that logical.

        • Hogan

          You can stick up for your union members without attacking victims.

          Criminals kill victims. Cops kill criminals.

    • gorillagogo

      The city sent the victim’s family a $500 ambulance bill. I absolutely believe these comments were willfully cruel

      • Manny Kant

        that might have been incompetence rather than malice. The mayor immediately disavowed it as soon as it hit the media.

    • Cheap Wino

      Sadly, I’d bet Loomis thinks he’s proffering a helpful, benevolent piece of advice.

      • Gregor Sansa

        Luckily our Loomis doesn’t have such hangups.

    • JL

      I suspect that people who seek office within police unions are a self-selected bunch.

  • Peterr

    Steve Loomis sounds like he’s taking a page from the Cardinal Law School of service. “Protect your own, and to hell with anyone who criticizes you or demands accountability.”

    I continue to be amazed at union leaders (and similarly positioned folks like bishops) who think the best way to protect their membership and organization is to cover up, downplay, or otherwise paper over the misdeeds their members commit. Sorry, but if you want to protect your members, you come down hard on those who screw up. Trust me — folks outside your membership will think much better of you for doing so.

    • Linnaeus

      It depends on what you mean by “come down hard on” and “screw up”, but this can be dangerous ground for a union to tread upon.

      • Peterr

        To go back to the parallel with the Catholic Church, “come down hard on” means calling the secular authorities, taking the abusive priest out of the parish where he abused kids, and being up front with the parish and the community about why he was removed. None of this “the kid was asking for it” crap, nor the “it was a simple mistake” nonsense, and especially not “let’s keep this quiet for the sake of the institution and the family.”

        It is incumbent on those with power (priest or cop) not to misuse that power, and it is doubly incumbent on those who supervise to hold their subordinates publicly accountable for their use of that power.

        Some of the angriest folks in Boston at the end of Cardinal Law’s tenure as Archbishop were the local priests. “Because you tried to hide this, Cardinal, you made all the rest of us into pariahs in the eyes of the community.” It wasn’t local political pressure that got Law “promoted” back to Rome — it was the pressure from the local priests that made its way to certain ears in Rome.

        • Linnaeus

          The flaw I see in this parallel is that the priests in question were working for the Church and the Church, as the priests’ employer, was in a position to discipline them, but did not even after it knew about the crimes the priests were committing.

          A union doesn’t have that kind of authority. If a union somehow was able to join with management in disciplining one of its members, that runs the risk of increased erosion of employees’ rights under the contract, favortism in representation, collusion between union leaders and management, and so forth. That may not seem to be an issue in spectacularly bad screw-ups like the Tamir Rice case, but most disciplinary situations are much less clear-cut, and it undermines trust in the union among membership if they can’t be sure their union will represent them.

          I could also see antiunion organizations loving a situation in which a union came down hard on member because that presents a nice opportunity for them to sue the union for failure to provide fair representation (yes, they do this).

          • solidcitizen

            Duty to provide fair representation is a little different than that, at least in my state. Yes, unions have a duty to treat everyone fairly, but that mainly means not discriminating against a bargaining unit member on protected grounds, including on the basis of union membership.

            There are a lot of reasons for a union not to bring a case forward (generally to arbitration) – cost, risk of losing and setting a bad precedent, preferring to clarify contract language through bargaining rather than through a third party. Another great reason is because the member in question actually violated the rules. Unions can – and should – uphold the contract, which can mean acknowledging when the member fucked up.

            I know you acknowledged this seems a clear cut case, which makes the union’s actions so frustrating, but I wanted to give some context to the duty of fair representation.

  • The family of Tamir Rice should use the money however they damn well please.

    Perhaps Loomis should demand that the police department spend funds training its officers to not shoot 12 year old children.

  • JustRuss

    Funny how we’re hearing crickets from the NRA when the police killed someone for exercising his right to open-carry.

    • NonyNony

      Honestly this incident tells you everything you need to know about the NRA and its membership.

      If they were just an organization dedicated to protecting the right to bear firearms they would be all over this story. Here’s a kid who was shot for carrying a toy weapon. let’s assume it was a real weapon – so what? He hadn’t shot anyone, wasn’t given the option to show the cops a license, nothing. They just rolled up and shot him for holding a gun.

      The fact that they haven’t weighed in with their massive PR machine on the side of the victim here and demand that Ohio put into place strict police training to teach them how to deal with people being allowed to legally carry firearms tells you exactly what kind of organization they are. They’re the kind of organization whose members only want white people to carry guns and are perfectly happy having cops shoot anyone who isn’t white who might be carrying a firearm even if they’re carrying it legally or its a toy.

      • sneezehonestly

        This is essentially what the 6th Circuit has already said about open carry in Ohio in Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Department. Here’s a quote:

        While open-carry laws may put police officers (and some motorcyclists) in awkward
        situations from time to time, the Ohio legislature has decided its citizens may be entrusted with
        firearms on public streets. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 9.68, 2923.125. The Toledo Police Department
        has no authority to disregard this decision—not to mention the protections of the Fourth
        Amendment—by detaining every “gunman” who lawfully possesses a firearm. See Ohioans for
        Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 896 N.E.2d 967, 976 (Ohio 2008) (holding that Ohio’s statewide
        handgun policy preempts contrary exercises of a local government’s police power). And it has
        long been clearly established that an officer needs evidence of criminality or dangerousness
        before he may detain and disarm a law-abiding citizen. We thus affirm the district court’s
        conclusion that, after reading the factual inferences in the record in Northrup’s favor, Officer
        Bright could not reasonably suspect that Northrup needed to be disarmed.

        • Snarki, child of Loki

          …looking forward to its application in Cleveland, during the GOP convention.

          It may be Cruz’s only chance, at this point.

        • rea

          it has long been clearly established that an officer needs evidence of criminality or dangerousness before he may detain and disarm a law-abiding citizen.

          Well. clearly, because they could not legally detain and disarm the boy, they very properly shot him.

  • Thirtyish

    So eat your veggies so you can grow up big and strong

    WHAT?! What the hell kind of commie, Michelle Obama-matriarchy kind of talk is this? Real, gun-totin’ men (but I repeat myself) live exclusively off of MEAT and processed fried cheese products.

    • Nobdy

      Also, I’d like to point out that one of the reasons given why Tamir Rice was shot was because of his alleged size (Like Trayvon Martin and strangely no white boys I can think of he was alleged to be a boy in a man’s body, or just a man…but younger. Wish we had a term for that.)

      It seems to me that eating your vegetables and growing up big and strong puts you in imminent danger of assassination by the police.

      There’s only way to handle this situation.

      I am calling for Tamir Rice’s family to donate all the money to a fund to educate black boys NOT to eat their vegetables.

      It is the only reasonable and fair use of the money.

      • rm

        There is a term for that, equating young black men to deer, but it derives from the worst of our racist cultural legacy and is too uncomfortable to type aloud. We could use a term that diagnoses the specific prejudice, like “mansplaining” diagnoses a specific behavior. Cracker goggles. Racist panic. I dunno.

        • twbb

          “There is a term for that, equating young black men to deer, but it derives from the worst of our racist cultural legacy and is too uncomfortable to type aloud.”

          Though it wasn’t too uncomfortable for our 40th President to say out loud in campaign speeches.

          • rm

            Like I said, out of the most shameful and evil parts of our history.

  • Hogan

    Reached for comment, Patrick Lynch said, “Dude might want to dial that shit back a little.”

  • twbb

    Pretty standard for police union heads in terms of obnoxiousness.

  • DAS

    Ohio’s an open carry state? You wouldn’t know that from much of the media coverage of the Tamir Rice shooting, even though that fact seems somehow … relevant.

  • royko

    Something positive must come from this tragic loss. That would be educating youth of the dangers of possessing a real or replica firearm.

    We look forward to the possibility of working with the Rice family to achieve this common goal.

    It’s amazing to me — even putting aside the wanton misconduct of the officers, which obviously Loomis will never admit to — that he doesn’t even shift blame to the replica toy guns themselves (even though, in an open carry state, that still wouldn’t really help.) He doesn’t say, “Cops can’t tell the difference between these toys and true guns, so we have to ban these toys.” No, the blame still goes to the children for playing with children’s toys. He wants to spend money to “educate” them that by choosing to play with a certain type of toy, they might get blown away by Cleveland’s finest.

    “Sure, you can play with toys that look like real guns. And adults can legally carry real guns. But just be warned that doing either gives cops a license to shoot you without warning under any circumstances. So be sure to make the right choice, 12 year olds! Here’s a pamphlet to help you make the right decision. It says: ‘When can we kill you? Whenever we damn well want.'”

    Fuck that asshole.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      Fuck that asshole.

      Y’know, it’s rare when one considers abducting someone, dosing them with LSD and other mind-altering substances, ‘decorating’ them with blackface, and releasing them in Cleveland with a toy gun superglued to their hand.

      But sometimes, it’s just appropriate. Strange.

  • SeattleCyclist

    The sad thing about this is that there is potential common ground between the libertarian right and progressives, which could lead to more rational, effective, and cheaper policies on crime. But the right won’t talk about the stupidity of having a police force behaving like occupiers trying to crush the resistance, and what passes for the left here in America can’t admit that it got suckered into believing Milton Friedman’s theories about crime and punishment. The Council of Economic Advisers released a report which basically says that the 1990s experiment with longer sentences instead of increased chances of getting caught is a failure, and the underlying model of human behavior is wrong. Tweakers don’t take time to do a realistic cost-benefit analysis before they do the crime… who’d of thought?????? Even Alex Taborrak, a libertarian academic, acknowledges the failure of Gary Becker’s economic model here. Warning, it’s almost certainly not worth reading the comments on that site. But the contrast between the ability of the academic right to say “our hero was wrong” and Democrat’s inability to say that our criminal justice policies have failed because they are based on what turned out to be a wrong belief is depressing.

  • Well looka here. Guess the Rice family has been derelict in their expected duties:

    A 13-year-old boy was shot by Baltimore Police officers in East Baltimore who said he was carrying a “replica” weapon, Police Commissioner Kevin Davis said Wednesday evening.

    Police said two detectives saw the youth with what looked like a firearm and gave chase. One of the officers fired, wounding the boy. His injuries were not considered life-threatening, police said.

    The crime scene was in the area of the 1100 block of E. Baltimore St., near the McKim youth center and basketball courts. The street is closed from Lloyd Street to N. Central Avenue.

    Davis said he had “no reason to believe that these officers acted inappropriately in any way,” saying the officers did not know whether the weapon was a gun or a replica.

    Davis also confirmed that the boy’s mother was taken in for questioning. He told reporters at the scene that “she knew” that he had left their home with the replica weapon.

    The shooting occurred around 4:15 p.m., as an event was underway in West Baltimore with Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake to mark the one-year anniversary of the riot that followed the funeral for Freddie Gray, who died of injuries sustained in police custody. Six officers have been charged in Gray’s arrest and death.

    “Police officers don’t take days off,” Davis said when asked about the shooting occurring on the anniversary of the unrest.

    • so-in-so

      Seems a number of them should have days off, a great many days, in fact.

      The rest of their theoretical careers, in fact. Maybe with free room and board (of a sort) at state expense.

  • Pingback: Bathroom nightmares and other links (#SFWApro) | Fraser Sherman's Blog()

It is main inner container footer text