• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Tamir Rice's Family be made to pay $500 Ambulance/Mileage Bill?

Should Tamir Rice's estate pay overdue medical bill?

  • Yes - the family should pay

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • No - the family isn't responsible/don't pay

    Votes: 24 82.8%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
13,011
Reaction score
5,740
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Found this article from USAToday.com and was floored!

Although Tamir was still alive when he was taken to the hospital after being shot by local police in Cleveland, OH, he died the next day. The state's Assistant Law Director has filed a claim which bills the Rice's estate for the medical bill.

Should they pay or should the city/state be responsible?
 
Why not?

If they can successfully sue the state then they will get more than enough to cover up that cost.

Still, none of this **** would have befallen them if their son wasnt waving a realistic looking M1911 toy around.
 
Even the Cleveland Police Union stated it thinks it is ridiculous the family was billed for that.
 
What "estate" did that kid have?
 
Found this article from USAToday.com and was floored!

Although Tamir was still alive when he was taken to the hospital after being shot by local police in Cleveland, OH, he died the next day. The state's Assistant Law Director has filed a claim which bills the Rice's estate for the medical bill.

Should they pay or should the city/state be responsible?

Wasn't the kid charged with a crime or did the police just say whoops let's just call it a justified shooting (without need for any arrest?) and no longer our problem. I would consider the kid to have been in police custody at the time and bill the PD.
 
Why not?

If they can successfully sue the state then they will get more than enough to cover up that cost.

Still, none of this **** would have befallen them if their son wasnt waving a realistic looking M1911 toy around.

I find it rather interesting that you would engage in victim blaming, particularly in reference to a firearm-like toy, when you have previously espoused a large amount of desire for the abolition of most firearm related regulations.
 
Why not?

If they can successfully sue the state then they will get more than enough to cover up that cost.

Still, none of this **** would have befallen them if their son wasn't waving a realistic looking M1911 toy around.

Come on, now. It was a kid! Shot within 2 seconds of police arriving on the scene per reports. Clearly, the police officer shot first and asked questions later. But that has nothing to do with the question asked.

From my point of view, since this wasn't a situation where it was a stand-off between the victim and the police, the family shouldn't be held liable for the medical cost. The argument I'm sure the Asst Law Director is using is the fact that the victim lived through the night. And since medical treatment was provided to try and save the kid's life, the family should be made to pay despite this ultimately being declared an "accidental shooting". But if that truly is the case (and I admit I haven't read the final report from the case hearing), wouldn't such an admission deem this the city's fault especially given that the police office did a terrible job at policing by shooting first and asking questions later? On a kid!!

Sidenote: I don't live in Cleveland, so I don't know the climate there as far as, areas of hostility (i.e., are there a number of incidents involving gangs using public parks for shoot-outs). Since I don't know the situation there, I can't speak to why the cop would have had such a quick trigger finger. Still, it's was a kid! Very sad and tragic situation.
 
What "estate" did that kid have?

If the kid had any kind of estate (a checking account, title to certain items, "ownership" of property), then the petition could be made to take money from that estate. However, if the kid died without any real estate - which is the more likely scenario given that a child that young can not usually sign contracts and his other possession actually belong to his parents - then the charge will just go as a tax write off most likely. The parents would not be liable for any amounts that the child's estate is unable to pay.
 
Found this article from USAToday.com and was floored!

Although Tamir was still alive when he was taken to the hospital after being shot by local police in Cleveland, OH, he died the next day. The state's Assistant Law Director has filed a claim which bills the Rice's estate for the medical bill.

Should they pay or should the city/state be responsible?

No, the parents should not have to pay it.
 
What "estate" did that kid have?

If the kid had any kind of estate (a checking account, title to certain items, "ownership" of property), then the petition could be made to take money from that estate. However, if the kid died without any real estate - which is the more likely scenario given that a child that young can not usually sign contracts and his other possession actually belong to his parents - then the charge will just go as a tax write off most likely. The parents would not be liable for any amounts that the child's estate is unable to pay.

Let me try to clarify this since I probably confused readers in my OP commentary. Per the OP poll article:

The city of Cleveland is asking the estate of a 12-year-old boy who was shot by a police officer in 2014...

So, this would be...

The parents' estate.

...as Luftwaffe put it. Still, ttwrtt78640 makes a very good point.

Wasn't the kid charged with a crime or did the police just say whoops let's just call it a justified shooting (without need for any arrest?) and no longer our problem. I would consider the kid to have been in police custody at the time and bill the PD.

I don't know if the kid was charged with a crime or not. What I do know is the Cleveland police were responding to a public call of a child waving what appeared to be a real gun at a public park. So, if no charges were ever filed (despite the fact that a police report covering the event exists) does this mean the police were just doing their job and that the city is responsible to pay the medical expenses? Or does the city have the right to turn that bill over to the surviving relatives (parents in this case)?
 
I find it rather interesting that you would engage in victim blaming, particularly in reference to a firearm-like toy, when you have previously espoused a large amount of desire for the abolition of most firearm related regulations.

Behind that wall of faux sophistication lies a **** load of hilariously wrong assumptions.

I'll leave you to figure out why.
 
Come on, now. It was a kid! Shot within 2 seconds of police arriving on the scene per reports. Clearly, the police officer shot first and asked questions later. But that has nothing to do with the question asked.

From my point of view, since this wasn't a situation where it was a stand-off between the victim and the police, the family shouldn't be held liable for the medical cost. The argument I'm sure the Asst Law Director is using is the fact that the victim lived through the night. And since medical treatment was provided to try and save the kid's life, the family should be made to pay despite this ultimately being declared an "accidental shooting". But if that truly is the case (and I admit I haven't read the final report from the case hearing), wouldn't such an admission deem this the city's fault especially given that the police office did a terrible job at policing by shooting first and asking questions later? On a kid!!

Sidenote: I don't live in Cleveland, so I don't know the climate there as far as, areas of hostility (i.e., are there a number of incidents involving gangs using public parks for shoot-outs). Since I don't know the situation there, I can't speak to why the cop would have had such a quick trigger finger. Still, it's was a kid! Very sad and tragic situation.

From my understanding, it was a ****show on both sides.

Looking at it morally... Should the people of cleveland pay for his expenses or the parents? I reckon the parents should.
 
I believe that emergency services should be 100% tax-funded, but I also know that that's not the case anymore. That being the case, if it's standard procedure, then we should go with the billing. The emotion behind the circumstances shouldn't make a difference. It is what it is, and this is what "we" as a collective society, via our elected representatives, have decided. If "we" don't like it, then "we" need to change the law.
 
Absolutely. They incurred the bill by using the service, they should pay the bill. Maybe they should have just left his body on the side of the road then, how would they feel about that?
 
Absolutely. They incurred the bill by using the service, they should pay the bill. Maybe they should have just left his body on the side of the road then, how would they feel about that?

I hope you were being sarcastic.

As stated previously, I don't know that much about this case. So, I've begun to do some research to see what I could learn about it.

First up, the video of the shooting. I came across this 30 min video (also see below) and was stunned at what I saw within the first 17 seconds! You can see Tamir Rice sitting alone on one of the three picnic tables in the gazebo minding his own business. (That's him on the far left.) He gets up off the bench and calmly walks around to the far side of the gazebo. All of this takes place from the 0:00 mark until 0:15 seconds into the video. At this point, a Cleveland City police car pulls up to the back of the gazebo where Tamir is standing inside. At 0:17 seconds...

...O:07 SECONDS...



...a Cleveland police office gets out of the passenger side of the car and shots him once. His partner then exits the police car from the driver's side.

No warning. No demands that this child comply with police instructions of any sort. No effort made by the on-scene officers to gauge whether or not this child did, in fact, poss a threat to the public. One shot within 2 seconds of engaging this kid in any meaningful way and he's shot on sight.

There were no threatening gestures made by Tamir Rice. That much is evident in the video. Moreover, Tamir was the only person in that area of the park on this cold, wintry day. (I stress this because around the 1:41 mark a second person runs towards the gazebo, but the police quickly subdue him and places him in cuffs. You see him sitting there in the snow wearing a white jacket and pants, black boots and a black skull cap.)

As I said earlier, I don't know the history behind this area. But even if it was known to be a hangout for delinquent behavior or a haven to gang violence, none of that was happening at the time this boy was shot!

Getting back to ttwtt's earlier question about the kid being charged with a crime, unless they wanted to charge him for vagrancy, I really don't see how the parent's or anyone else in a similar situation could be handed the medical bill in this situation.
 
From my understanding, it was a ****show on both sides.

Looking at it morally... Should the people of cleveland pay for his expenses or the parents? I reckon the parents should.

But how is this the parent's responsibility or fault that their child got shot while playing innocently in a public park? Please explain?
 
Didn't the family get a buttload of settlement money?

Doesn't matter. Just because they won a wrongful death lawsuit doesn't mean that they should turn around a pay for something that wasn't their's nor their child's fault. If anything, the city of Cleveland should have taken that expense off the top when they settled.
 
Doesn't matter. Just because they won a wrongful death lawsuit doesn't mean that they should turn around a pay for something that wasn't their's nor their child's fault. If anything, the city of Cleveland should have taken that expense off the top when they settled.
Didn't the family get a buttload of settlement money?

Yes, or no?
 
Didn't the family get a buttload of settlement money?

Yes, or no?

IDK....did they? :shrug:

I'm still doing research about this. So, you tell me?

Even if they did, I still don't see how the family should be made to pay. It wasn't their fault their kid was wrongfully and recklessly shot by local law enforcement.
 
Doesn't matter. Just because they won a wrongful death lawsuit doesn't mean that they should turn around a pay for something that wasn't their's nor their child's fault. If anything, the city of Cleveland should have taken that expense off the top when they settled.

They haven't won yet, and a hearing will happen in June this year to see if the lawsuit will proceed. The city has already dropped the bill and the mayor apologized that it was sent. What happened, while regrettable, was indeed the fault of the Tamir and his parents.
 
They haven't won yet, and a hearing will happen in June this year to see if the lawsuit will proceed. The city has already dropped the bill and the mayor apologized that it was sent. What happened, while regrettable, was indeed the fault of the Tamir and his parents.

How so?
 
Back
Top Bottom