Buddha Beam
Banned
I figured this was coming earlier this week when the Cleveland PD were talking about closing streets off, doing outreach to various gangs about maintaining calm, etc.
With the weak case the prosecutors brought before the judge, I can see why there was no conviction for this cop.
But let's not pretend this chase and its results were anything other than a complete fiasco for the Cleveland Police Department. There were sixty-two police cars involved in the chase before it ended in a hail of gunfire. Five police supervisors involved with the chase have been charged with dereliction of duty, and for damn good reason.
And considering the Department of Justice investigation of Cleveland's police (which started in the aftermath of this incident) found that "investigators conducting reviews admitted that their goal was to paint the accused officers in the most positive light," and that the police officers in this incident reported that shots were being fired by the people in the vehicle during the chase even though they had no gun, and I'm at least a little skeptical of their story.
According Wiki, there a "Victims rammed a police car and drove toward police office on foot." between "Due to 'gunshot...'" and "Police open fire."
No. There needs to be a threat at the time of the decision to use lethal force too. So the original gunshot and police chase justifies the officers having their weapons out. However a second justification would be required to put the trigger. Which could have been anything from another backfire, attempting to run over or ram police, etc...
So, the first shots where most cops fired were justified. But this officer needed a third justification for going up to the hood and firing.
that would certainly change the way this incident is viewed, although i can't find a source other than wikipedia (which really doesn't even qualify as a "source") that states that the victims' car first rammed a cop car, then targeted on foot police officers, before the shooting started.
Is there any explanation why 20 minute car chase happened ?
That quote from the fucking lawyer:
He just defended a guy who sprayed 49 bullets (alongside his other aggressive and dumb police force) to passengers who were unarmed. No fucking words.
Pretty much where I'm at with this but it's just more apparent to me that cops can't stay levelheaded enough during this to actually disable the damn car. I get they can't shoot a gun out of someone's hands in a tense situation, but can't they shoot out tires?? Or is the target too difficult as well?
Just another day in America where police can murder innocent people.
Still wondering what prompted the shooting after the car stopped. Was there another backfire of the car?
What kind of asshole would defend this verdict? You would have to be a special kind of shitheel to defend this... hope no one is this thread is like that.
What kind of asshole would defend this verdict? You would have to be a special kind of shitheel to defend this... hope no one is this thread is like that.
Two scenarios:
a) Cleveland police force can curve bullets
b) The bullets came from above
.
seems pretty clear to me
A Cleveland police officer who stood on the hood of a car and fired his gun 49 times through the windshield at two unarmed passengers has been found not guilty on two counts of voluntary manslaughter.
Are there any crime scene diagrams? I'm curious how close their car was that they "drove towards officers on foot" to represent a danger but were far enough away that cops could just unload hundreds of shots without shooting each other. Did the car roll to a stop? Did the cop leaping onto the hood put himself in the line of friendly fire?
• The officers' first round of gunfire was permissible because they had reason to believe they and the public were at risk, in part because other officers told them the pair had weapons, that one of them had fired, because Russell led them on a chase for so long, and because of the ramming.
• Brelo's second round was permissible because a reasonable police officer could decide that, even after the 100 shots, the threat might not have been over in part because the pair might still have been moving.
• Evidence shows Brelo's gunfire caused at least one wound each to Russell and Williams that would have killed either of them. But they suffered other lethal wounds, probably from other officers' guns.
• Since evidence doesn't prove Brelo's shots were the ones that killed the pair, he can't be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
• Brelo also is not guilty of a lesser possible charge, felonious assault, because it wasn't necessarily clear the threat was over.
If that's what's considered within cops' legal rights, then clearly the law was built against black people.
As if US History hasn't said exactly that millions of times.
Its not black people its criminals.
What about all the white people killed by blacks? Or blacks killed by blacks? I don't see any outrage there.
If people can defend 137 shots and a cop jumping on a hood and unloading 49 rounds into someone unarmed. as a black man I truly fear for my life.
I just got this reply from a "friend" regarding the matter:
I'm just going to walk away.
Cuyahoga County judge John P ODonnell said prosecutors failed to prove without a reasonable doubt that bullets fired by officer Brelo were the cause of death of Malissa Williams and Timothy Russell,
i think it's important to look at this occurrence in the proper temporal and informational contexts.
if you were hanging out with your friends in some parking lot, and a car suddenly rammed into one of your friends' cars and then targeted them, would you consider that to be a threat to your own personal safety, or to the safety of your friends?
the officers were under the assumption that the victims were armed, and they had just been led on a 20 mile chase. when the victims' car showed an act of aggression, the officers responded in a way that most of us would probably respond if were were put in that situation.
The simple answer is, "those people go to jail."I just got this reply from a "friend" regarding the matter:
I'm just going to walk away.
But shouldn't cops be training their minds to respond more appropriately? I mean, I don't want cops to be just another citizen with a gun. I want them to be able to be level headed enough to respond in moments of aggression without a hail of gunfire.
What kind of asshole would defend this verdict? You would have to be a special kind of shitheel to defend this... hope no one is this thread is like that.
Trying to hit someone with a car is considered assault with a deadly weapon. It would be nice if the story had more details like if that actually happened.
You say potato
Perhaps had other officers not taken the 5th, we'd have more details
Yeah, that's bs that they can do that. As witnesses they should be required to testify.
Pleading the fifth sucks, means we wont get any information. (on a side note it makes me think of that skit with Dave Chappelle) Basically cops messed up, and the only way I can see this as a lesser issue is if we could know without a doubt that the vehicle was being used at a point to harm police. so all in all , I reserve judgement for the victims until we know what happened, but the cops messed up with those extra over excessive bullets.Perhaps had other officers not taken the 5th, we'd have more details
Do you know how hard it is to coordinate 100 people trying to tell the same lie?
Bout to join you brah if I can make it...
I'll be staying out of the country for the foreseeable future