Family of 12-year-old killed by police urges for investigation conclusion

CLEVELAND, May 5 (UPI) -- The family of Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old boy shot and killed by Cleveland police, asked a judge not to grant a stay in their civil rights lawsuit and for the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department to finish its investigation.

Tamir's family and their lawyers expressed frustration at a news conference in front of a courthouse on Monday. The boy died more than five months ago and the criminal investigation into Tamir's death is ongoing.

Last month, the officer who shot and killed Tamir and the officer's partner asked a judge to halt the civil rights lawsuit until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. A Sheriff's Department spokesman said he would not comment on when it may conclude, according to The New York Times.

"In less than a second my son is gone," Tamir's mother, Samaria Rice, said. "And I want to know how long I've got to wait for justice."

Tamir was shot to death while playing with a pellet gun in a park last November. Responding to a 911 call about a "a guy with a pistol" that was "probably fake," police officer Timothy Loehmann fired several shots at Rice two seconds after arriving on scene.

Tamir's body has not been buried, pending further possible medical examination.

"Tamir Rice not being finally laid to rest prevents emotional healing and incurs a daily expense," according to a court document filed by family attorney Walter Madison. "The foot-dragging of this investigation has now spanned three seasons."

Samaria Rice and her daughter Tajai had to move out of her home, where Tamir was shot about a block away, and into an emergency shelter "because she could no longer live next door to the killing field of her son," according to the document.

The city of Cleveland issued a response to the family's lawsuit in February, saying the 12-year-old caused his own death.

Tamir's injuries "were directly and proximately caused by the failure of Plaintiffs' decedent to exercise due care to avoid injury," further stating that the "plaintiffs' decedent's injuries, losses, and damages complained of, were directly and proximately caused by the acts of Plaintiffs' decedent, not this Defendant."