• 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!

Cleveland officer found not guilty in killings that followed car chase

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,034
Reaction score
38,583
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Brelo, 31, was accused of manslaughter for jumping onto the hood of a car and unleashing a fatal barrage of gunfire at Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams. On Nov. 29, 2012, Russell led police on a 20-mile chase after he allegedly fired a gun at officers near the city's downtown justice center.

During the 22-minute chase, more than 100 officers pursued Russell, firing dozens of shots. Russell's car was stopped after two police cruisers trapped it in a school parking lot. At that time, prosecutors contend, Brelo jumped on the hood of Russell's car and fired at Russell and Williams 15 times from point-blank range.
Firing at Officers. Massive car chase, Officer, has balls as big as xxxxx. Charged, found not guilty.
What am I missing here?

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-83542106/

link added
http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/loca...-officer-michael-brelo-starts-today/25352091/
 
Last edited:
Fix the link? I get an error when I go there.

However, if what prosecutors said is true, that Brelo waited until the occupants of the car were unarmed (not sure what that means exactly) and then he basically executed them by firing into the car - he should have been found guilty. It would have been different if the occupants were still armed.... if the occupants still had guns but were out of ammo when Brelo shot them that's also different. Cops had no way to know he was out of ammo. The details however are a bit sketchy from the LA Times article and I wish there was something a bit more definitive around the testimony and actual facts leading up to the shooting. Perhaps a different article...
 
LA Times


Firing at Officers. Massive car chase, Officer, has balls as big as xxxxx. Charged, found not guilty.
What am I missing here?

This one was quite shocking. It was chaos...dozens of police cars joined in the chase and fired 137 rounds into the car. One of the victims was shot over 60 times. He was found not guilty of manslaughter is because the court was unable to prove which shot actually killed them. Many were firing rounds. This particular one, jumped on the trunk of the car and blasted. Prior to that, a similar incident occurred with a teen. Cops fired multiple rounds into his parked car. I think what has people outraged, is they feel the couple did not have a chance to surrender once stopped. Here is the courts decision transcript.

Read the judge's full decision in the Michael Brelo case (document) | cleveland.com

Memorial Day Weekend is a big deal in Cleveland, lots of activities down town, plus a Cav's game. I hope the protester's are respectful to the intent of this weekend.
 
How is it possible to jump on to the hood of a car and fire 15 rounds at the occupants without being responsible for the deaths of those occupants?
 
How is it possible to jump on to the hood of a car and fire 15 rounds at the occupants without being responsible for the deaths of those occupants?

Sounds as if it could not be proven that those shots killed them.
 
Sounds as if it could not be proven that those shots killed them.

That's what it sounds like.
When a couple of people are shot full of holes, it can be difficult to prove which of the shots actually killed them.
 
This isn't surprising. The shooting was justified regardless of whichever one of the dozens of officers was the designated scapegoat.
 
First, the two victims didn't fire at police. Police officers near the chase after it started heard loud noises they presumed were gunshots, but investigators now believe it was the sound of the car backfiring. The homeless man and woman were unarmed when police riddled them with bullets.

I find the standards of justice disturbing. In this case, because it can't be proven that this particular officer fired the fatal shot, he was acquitted despite unloading his clip at close range at two unarmed citizens. However, in the state of Ohio, you can be convicted of murder if anyone is killed during the commission of a felony. It's called the felony murder rule. Why was this not applicable in this case?

Again, we different standards of justice. Thus the protests.Our system is broken.
 
Summon the animal rioters again!

Time to burn a city down!
 
It's hard to blame black folks for feeling that they are treated poorly by the system, because they are treated very poorly, as this acquittal demonstrates. A disgusting shame from that jury.
 
It's hard to blame black folks for feeling that they are treated poorly by the system, because they are treated very poorly, as this acquittal demonstrates. A disgusting shame from that jury.

Really? Hundreds of millions of tax dollars are spent on low income black families across the nation. Number two on the list is Balitmore. Its in ashes. 'splain that.
 
Really? Hundreds of millions of tax dollars are spent on low income black families across the nation. Number two on the list is Balitmore. Its in ashes. 'splain that.

I was talking about this acquittal, ya know?
 
First, the two victims didn't fire at police. Police officers near the chase after it started heard loud noises they presumed were gunshots, but investigators now believe it was the sound of the car backfiring. The homeless man and woman were unarmed when police riddled them with bullets.

I find the standards of justice disturbing. In this case, because it can't be proven that this particular officer fired the fatal shot, he was acquitted despite unloading his clip at close range at two unarmed citizens. However, in the state of Ohio, you can be convicted of murder if anyone is killed during the commission of a felony. It's called the felony murder rule. Why was this not applicable in this case?

Again, we different standards of justice. Thus the protests.Our system is broken.

When was the last time you heard a car backfire?
 
Disaster on the streets of Cleveland in 5... 4... 3...
 
Firing at Officers. Massive car chase, Officer, has balls as big as xxxxx. Charged, found not guilty.
What am I missing here?

LA Times

link added
Trial of Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo underway

There were a total of 136 shots fired into the car and the judge aquitted the officer because he could not determine if said officer fired the fatal rounds.

I'm glad the cop's okay. Those two in the car are dead because they ran from the cops.
 
It's hard to blame black folks for feeling that they are treated poorly by the system, because they are treated very poorly, as this acquittal demonstrates. A disgusting shame from that jury.

No, there;'s not telling who fired the fatal shots. That's what happened.
 
How is it possible to jump on to the hood of a car and fire 15 rounds at the occupants without being responsible for the deaths of those occupants?

They're already dead. Then the most you got is desecrating a corpse.
 
How is it possible to jump on to the hood of a car and fire 15 rounds at the occupants without being responsible for the deaths of those occupants?
You mean besides the fact that the other Officers were firing as well?

The video is available showing him on the hood firing.
You could find it and watch it. :shrug:





First, the two victims didn't fire at police. Police officers near the chase after it started heard loud noises they presumed were gunshots,
Leading to a reasonable belief that they were armed, not just with a deadly vehicle but with a gun as well.


I find the standards of justice disturbing. In this case, because it can't be proven that this particular officer fired the fatal shot, he was acquitted despite unloading his clip at close range at two unarmed citizens. However, in the state of Ohio, you can be convicted of murder if anyone is killed during the commission of a felony. It's called the felony murder rule. Why was this not applicable in this case?
Because the Officer was acting in good faith in the performance of his duties, not acting with intent to commit a felony.





It's hard to blame black folks for feeling that they are treated poorly by the system, because they are treated very poorly, as this acquittal demonstrates. A disgusting shame from that jury.
This acquittal demonstrates no such thing.
 
There were a total of 136 shots fired into the car and the judge aquitted the officer because he could not determine if said officer fired the fatal rounds.

I'm glad the cop's okay. Those two in the car are dead because they ran from the cops.

Running from the cops is not justification to be shot.

shooting at cops is justification to be shot.
 
When was the last time you heard a car backfire?

Is that relevant? I can tell you I've never assumed someone was shooting at me just because I heard a loud noise. The officers came to a flawed conclusion and acted with deadly force based on faulty presumption.
 
Leading to a reasonable belief that they were armed, not just with a deadly vehicle but with a gun as well.


Because the Officer was acting in good faith in the performance of his duties, not acting with intent to commit a felony.

What? Is just driving a car now a threat to police? It seems no matter how small the provocation, some believe the police should be allowed to escalate without accountability.
 
Running from the cops is not justification to be shot.

shooting at cops is justification to be shot.

No, it's not justification to be shot: the suspect car backfired which led the cops to believe that they were armed...

Secondly, cops go instantly into "fight or flight" when someone runs. Your chances of being injured or killed as a result of running (especially in a car) go up to around 100%. As I said, those two are dead because they decided to run, just like that 50 year old in S. Carolina.
 
What? Is just driving a car now a threat to police? It seems no matter how small the provocation, some believe the police should be allowed to escalate without accountability.
Just driving a car?
:doh
iLOL
:lamo:lamo:lamo


You must not have seen the video.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom