More than six months after a two second encounter, the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department released its “findings” about the murder of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, because “’Transparency is essential for an intelligent discussion of the important issues raised by this case,’ said Timothy McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor.”

Transparency does not come from the video of Tamir’s death. It doesn’t come from the decision of Judge Adrine that probable cause appears for prosecution.  According to the New York Times, it comes from the sheriff’s report.

But the sheriff’s investigation provided the clearest picture yet about what happened on Nov. 22 outside the neighborhood recreation center that Tamir frequented, and where just before the shooting he had been using a newly acquired fake gun that looked strikingly like the real thing.

Even the description in that one sentence, a “fake gun” rather than an Airsoft pellet gun, that looked “strikingly” like the real thing, because Police Office Timothy Loehmann took the time to study it before killing Tamir.  What it looked like after he pumped two bullets into Tamir really doesn’t matter.

The expectation of some was that the report would have a big, red “GUILTY” or “INNOCENT” across the top. That was never going to happen, and should not, It’s not up to the sheriff to offer a legal conclusion, and that’s what distinguishes findings of fact from holding of law.

And yet, the findings, and how they’re characterized, will certainly provide an open window into the “facts” as they’re portrayed to the public. You know, transparency. From Fox8 Cleveland:

The shooting happened after a 911 caller advised police there was a male at the rec center waving a gun. The 911 caller told sheriff detectives that he described the male as “probably” a juvenile waving a “fake” gun and said the male was pulling the gun in an out of his waist band and pointing it at people.

Constance Hollinger, the dispatcher who gave the call to police, did not relay all the information to officers who responded. She refused to answer detectives’ questions per her attorney about not relaying specific information to officer.

While this demonstrates a level of failure on the part of the dispatcher, it also shows that Loehmann lacked a critical piece of information that might have altered his grasp of what he was about to encounter.  CDP might be at fault for incompetence, but Loehmann can’t be responsible for something he wasn’t told.

When officers arrived, they saw Tamir Rice, and police said Officer Timothy Loehmann told Rice to put his hands in the air but instead the 12-year-old reached for his waistband. Rice had an airsoft pistol that police say looked like a real gun.

Some witnesses interviewed were unclear if commands were given prior to the gunshots being fired.

But this isn’t quite accurate, as there was no lack of clarity about whether a command was given prior to Loehmann’s killing Rice. The witnesses were clear that no warning was given.

The report suggested that no witnesses heard any warning before shots were fired at Tamir, and it quoted one witness as saying a verbal warning had come only after two shots were fired.

The witness, who was not named, said she heard “bang, bang,” and then heard someone yell, “Freeze! Show me your hands,” according to a summary of her interview with a detective. After that, she then heard one more “bang.” The sheriff’s report said Officer Loehmann only fired twice.

The only “witness” who claims otherwise is Loehmann, but then he never spoke with investigators, and the Cleveland police fed his narrative to the Sheriff’s office. From this, the report finds it “unclear” whether Tamir was warned before Loehmann fired.

What is significance about such lack of clarity is that criminal conduct must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and it’s left to the Cuyahoga District Attorneys to reach its own conclusion as to whether it can make a case for the murder of Tamir Rice.  Suddenly, the word “unclear” goes from a conflict between independent witnesses and the person who did the killing to lack of evidence to prove that Loehmann failed to warn before killing.

Then come the ancillary details:

The Sheriff’s Department report states that Loehmann was about 4 ½ feet to 7 feet away from Tamir Rice when he fired his weapon.

It wouldn’t seem particularly difficult to determine the distance, given that they have  the position of the zone car and the position of a body on the ground, but either way, Tamir was very close.  This points to the poor decision of Officer Frank Garmback, who pulled the car up as close to Tamir as possible, despite being told he had a weapon.

At the same time, it puts Loehmann in a position where he was too close to do anything more than fire.  Curiously, the Times characterizes the zone car as “sliding to a halt on the grass.” which is dramatic and adds an element of urgency to what followed.

Other officers responding to the scene, thought the airsoft pistol was real and said they thought Tamir was 20.

This is the sort of silliness tossed in for public consumption of those who prefer not to ponder irrelevant details.  The impressions of officers responding afterward aren’t relevant to anything. That the gun looked real to them has no bearing on how the gun might have looked to Loehmann in the second before he killed Tamir, had he even seen the gun.  One detail that seems to escape scrutiny is what Loehman claims happened upon arrival:

When officers arrived, they saw Tamir Rice, and police said Officer Timothy Loehmann told Rice to put his hands in the air but instead the 12-year-old reached for his waistband. Rice had an airsoft pistol that police say looked like a real gun.

In other words, there is no claim that he saw a gun, any gun, before firing. What he claims is that Tamir “reached for his waistband,” not that he displayed a gun.  Whether the gun was the realest looking gun ever in the history of the world doesn’t matter. If Loehmann didn’t see it, it didn’t matter.

And as for Tamir’s age, it seems police regularly struggle to figure out the age of 12-year-olds, most often in internet chatrooms involving unsavory flirtations.

And one final tidbit, similarly irrelevant to whether a crime was committed but one that will leave an impression as to the credibility of the report itself:

Other highlights of the report include, an officer on scene saying that when Tamir’s sister came near the scene she slipped on grass and was not “slammed” to the ground by Officer Loehmann.

Who you gonna believe, the Sheriff or your lying eyes?  It’s hard to disagree with the Times’ assessment that this is the clearest picture yet, though not so much as to what happened, but as to what’s going to happen.  As these facts are offered to the prosecution to guide its charging decision, the clarity seems painfully obvious.