Apparently, a great many readers took offense — no, were outraged — by the City of Cleveland’s response to the amendment complaint filed by the family of Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old executed in a park by rookie cop Timothy Loehmann.  The City’s answer to the complaint was the problem:

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.”

To the unaware, this seem callous and false, a lie by the City to try to shift fault from its own violent officer, a cop who never should have been hired and who lacked the competence and guts to let a child live.

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.”

Untwist your bloomers.  This is routine stuff, the way every civil complaint is answered, with a laundry list of defenses, all stated without detail, often in a single sentence representing an established defense or affirmative defense in a civil cause of action.  There is nothing unusual about this, and nothing to get worked up about.

This is how litigation is done.  The plaintiff alleges in its complaint the basis for liability and damages, and the defendant denies it, tossing in any potential defense because if they fail to do so, they waive the defense.  It puts the issue on the table.  It isn’t a personal accusation. It doesn’t mean anything more than that the City’s lawyers have done a yeoman’s job responding to the complaint.

If you need an analogy, because concepts give you a headache, consider the defendant everyone knows is guilty pleading not guilty at arraignment.  People will sometimes view this as a lie, how dare the defendant plead not guilty when we all know he is.

But every defendant pleads not guilty at arraignment for the purpose of establishing a basis to go forward. Even if a deal has already been cut, he pleads not guilty and then, moments later, will withdraw his plea and enter a guilty plea to the bargain.  If he didn’t plead not guilty first, there could be no plea to the bargain as he would already be guilty. It’s screwy, but perfectly normal.

When the City of Cleveland denies liability and damages, they do so for the purpose of engaging in further litigation. Their option is to concede liability and have the case go to inquest, an assessment of damages.  This eliminates all possibility of fighting the case, of determining a division of liability, of negotiating a resolution and reaching a settlement.

In the killing of Tamir Rice, there are issues for civil liability.  There is little doubt that Loehmann’s killing of Rice could have been avoided had the cops not driven up so close that Loehmann felt he had no choice but to leap from the car and mow the young man down.  Or had the 911 operator transmitted more accurate information, so the cops would have realized Rice was a kid, and likely had a pellet gun. Or any number of other variables along the way that could have produced an outcome where Tamir Rice was still alive today.

But that doesn’t mean there was no contributory conduct involved by Rice and family.  In criminal cases, the end result is a binary choice, guilty or not.  In civil litigation, there is a broader spectrum of options which can take into account the relative negligence of every person involved.

That Tamir Rice shouldn’t have been shot doesn’t mean it was a bright idea to let him play with that gun in the park or to remove the red cap from the gun.  These may not be questions that justify the ultimate outcome, but in a civil action for his wrongful death, they are properly in play.

So the City of Cleveland raised these defenses?  Big deal.  Had it not, its lawyers would have been incompetent buffoons.  They had to, and doing so shouldn’t cause anyone to bat an eye.  This is just run of the mill.  That it feels all wrong to non-lawyers is understandable, but that’s only because you’re not familiar with how the sausage is made. Nobody who likes sausage should ever see how it’s made.

Had the City gone outside the box, like accusing Tamir Rice of committing suicide by cop in a deliberate act to draw fire, that would have been significant.  But that’s not what happened here.  There is much to be outraged about with the killing of Tamir Rice, and there will be much to answer for in this wrongful death action.  But that Cleveland responded with the usual defenses isn’t one of them.  This is what they should do, and what everyone does. It’s just not a big deal.

Now, if you want something worth getting your bloomers in a twist about, consider what the value of a 12-year-old’s life is worth when the City negotiates a resolution after sucking wind over the fact that its cop killed Tamir Rice.  Hint:  Not nearly enough, as the value of a life is based upon economic loss, and 12-year-olds just don’t earn enough money to provide significant value to their death.

What will end up being more interesting is how much extra the City will be willing to pay in settlement of this case in order to avoid the outrage of an economic analysis showing the value of Rice’s life to be $72 plus a box of Cracker Jacks.  If you want to get angry about something, this would be a particularly good place to start.