• 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

They did not shoot at anyone. According to the police and the police alone... The car backfired. That is why they put over 100 bullets into them. SO much for shooting to stop huh?

I am going by what the report said. that he had allegedly fired a gun at police officers.
 
Two more police and a guard, well no reason for them not to lie. :doh

Again blah blah blah grain of salt man.
Oh look, another lame reply with an aspersion that has no evidence to back it up. So typical.

:lamo

You have nothing as usual.
 
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.

No, what I said is that even if there were no gun, the high speed car chase on public roads justifies the shooting.


running from police is NOT a capital offense...
 
Oh look, another lame reply with an aspersion that has no evidence to back it up. So typical.

:lamo

You have nothing as usual.

Well I have nothing now because to be honest I need nothing. The only reason the cops got off was because they don't know who fired the lethal bullets. That's it. So we know for a fact they were in the wrong, period.

So you are left wrong as usual. Or do I need to bring up the other hmmmm... 3 threads now where you backed the wrong player. :lol:
 
running from police is NOT a capital offense...

One could argue that driving a speeding 1 ton vehicle on a public road while trying to evade police is attempted murder.
 
One could argue that driving a 1 ton vehicle on a public road is attempted murder.

In that case anytime someone gets into a car and drives, it's attempted murder.
 
I am going by what the report said. that he had allegedly fired a gun at police officers.

I see. Well if you want to believe fiction, thats cool with me.
 
In that case anytime someone gets into a car and drives, it's attempted murder.

When they drive faster then the recommended speed limit, or when the conditions permit, it is a felony. Wreckless driving is a serious crime. When exceeding the speed limit to a certain point is not equal to attempted murder, running from the police while doing so could be considered attempted murder. You are not only willfully evading police, but you are doing so at high speeds. The only way to evade police at high speeds are to do so in a manner that puts lives at risk. You can't simply drive sensibly at 80 plus MPH and expect not to get blocked in. You have to willfully make many evasive manuvers around police as well as civilian vehicles in order to evade capture. This, in my mind, is no different then pointing a firearm at someone and threatening to kill them. Weather or not you intend to kill them or not, the threat is still there. And if someone were to point a firearm at you and threaten to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself and kill them. Police are no less human then any other human and have the right to defend themselves.
 
Well I have nothing now because to be honest I need nothing. The only reason the cops got off was because they don't know who fired the lethal bullets. That's it. So we know for a fact they were in the wrong, period.

So you are left wrong as usual. Or do I need to bring up the other hmmmm... 3 threads now where you backed the wrong player.
Wrong all the way around.

You obviously didn't read or listen to the Judges decision.

And no they were not in the wrong. Their actions were predicated on a reasonable belief which makes them not wrong.

And as for me, I haven't backed the wrong player ever. :lamo Your problem is you have not understood the arguments made. Which I believe was previously pointed out.
Yet here you are stilt spewing the same sort of nonsense. Truly sad.
 
I see. Well if you want to believe fiction, thats cool with me.

Go read the article on the first page then get back to me. I swear. so right now you are the only one making up fiction.
 
No, what I said is that even if there were no gun, the high speed car chase on public roads justifies the shooting.
I find "either-or arguments" hard for some folks to grasp.
 
Last edited:
I find "either or arguments" hard for some folks to grasp.

Well the crazy thing is that when you actually look at it, it is more dangerous to evade police in a heavy chunk of metal at high speeds then it is to fire a nearly aimless weapon out a window of a moving vehicle. You might as well throw a handfull of rocks out your window then fire a firearm out of an evading, speeding vehicle if you wish to injure or kill someone.
 
Go read the article on the first page then get back to me. I swear. so right now you are the only one making up fiction.

There was no gun, why do you think they said "allegedly" because the police claim they had one. Yet again, no powder on the victims and no gun.

So please fill me in on what part of my statement is fiction?
 
Well the crazy thing is that when you actually look at it, it is more dangerous to evade police in a heavy chunk of metal at high speeds then it is to fire a nearly aimless weapon out a window of a moving vehicle. You might as well throw a handfull of rocks out your window then fire a firearm out of an evading, speeding vehicle if you wish to injure or kill someone.

Yes it can be.

I find it odd that those on the other side of the issue haven't bothered to read the courts Decision.

http://documents.latimes.com/michael-brelo-ruling/
 
There was no gun, why do you think they said "allegedly" because the police claim they had one. Yet again, no powder on the victims and no gun.

So please fill me in on what part of my statement is fiction?

Guns are very lethal weapons when the target is relatively stationary. Or, if the firearm is a machine gun. A hand gun is probably even less lethal then a person who is well trained on how to use a knife. I have seen people who could not hit a stationary target 20 feet away with a handgun.
 
From the Judges decision.
From the bottom of page 32 to 33.

[...]

So, I reject the claim that 12 seconds after the shooting began it was patently clear from the perspective of a reasonable police officer in Brelo's position that the threat had been stopped, and therefore find that Brelo's entire use of deadly force was a constitutionally reasonable response to an objectively reasonably perceived threat of great bodily harm from the occupants of the Malibu, Russell and Williams.

Summary

          The state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Michael Brelo knowingly caused the deaths of Timothy Russell and Melissa Williams because the essential element of causation was not proved for both counts. I therefore find the defendant not guilty of counts one and two as indicted.

          The state did prove the lesser included offense of felonious assault on both counts by demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly caused serious physical harm to both victims. But the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is legally excused from liability for those crimes because he caused the serious physical harm to the Victims in a constitutionally reasonable effort to end an objectively reasonable perception that he and the others present were threatened by Russell and Williams with imminent serious bodily harm. I therefore also find the defendant not guilty of felonious assault, the lesser included offense on both indicted counts.

IT IS SO ORDERED:


http://documents.latimes.com/michael-brelo-ruling/



It is clear the Judge recognized the reasonable belief of the threat that the two posed.
 
Last edited:
There was no gun, why do you think they said "allegedly" because the police claim they had one. Yet again, no powder on the victims and no gun.
Doesn't matter one bit.
Reasonable belief existed that they posed a threat of great bodily harm.

As the Judge said: " and therefore find that Brelo's entire use of deadly force was a constitutionally reasonable response to an objectively reasonably perceived threat of great bodily harm from the occupants of the Malibu, Russell and Williams."
 
Cleveland seems to be protesting in peace tonight...only one display of ignorance where a chair was thrown through a restaurant window and injuring a innocent bystander. The big question is why the driver of the car ran...and he could have been stoned on coke according to the autopsy. Coke was found in the system of both victims. Both had a prior police record, so when the plates were ran this popped up. The driver also drove over 20 miles at times clocking 100 miles per hour.

Timothy Russell, Malissa Williams Shooting: Cleveland Community Wonders Why 137 Rounds Fired
Timothy Russell, Malissa Williams, Used Cocaine Before Fatal Car Chase, Autopsies Show

I know a lot of folks do not believe in shooting a person if they run...but times are different now with the amount of guns circulated in society and I think we better get used to this if we want to sustain the 2A. LE just do not know if a person is armed or not and will not take the chance if or not they are.
 
I generally agree with you, but the claim that the car backfired strikes me as BS. I think I have heard a car backfire one in my life. The odds that this one backfired at that particular instance just doesn't strike me as believable. If true, however, these two suspects have to be the most unlucky people on the planet.

Hey, that's what the cops said in their report. It seems very very very unlikely to me that 136 rounds were unloaded into a fleeing car because they thought it was a safety precaution. And yeah, they ran: a threat to a cop with a wife and kids who wants to go home after his shift.
 
Obviously, it must mean that blacks are at fault. They are clearly inferior to whites, or all those tax dollars would have lifted them out of poverty by now. Therefore, standing on the hood of a car and firing fifteen shots at point blank range is perfectly acceptable.

Because black lives really don't matter. Most blacks are killed by other blacks anyway, remember?





sarcasm? You thought that was sarcasm?





Well, you were right.
No, I thought that was ignorance.
 
Cleveland seems to be protesting in peace tonight...only one display of ignorance where a chair was thrown through a restaurant window and injuring a innocent bystander. The big question is why the driver of the car ran...and he could have been stoned on coke according to the autopsy. Coke was found in the system of both victims. Both had a prior police record, so when the plates were ran this popped up. The driver also drove over 20 miles at times clocking 100 miles per hour.

Timothy Russell, Malissa Williams Shooting: Cleveland Community Wonders Why 137 Rounds Fired
Timothy Russell, Malissa Williams, Used Cocaine Before Fatal Car Chase, Autopsies Show

I know a lot of folks do not believe in shooting a person if they run...but times are different now with the amount of guns circulated in society and I think we better get used to this if we want to sustain the 2A. LE just do not know if a person is armed or not and will not take the chance if or not they are.

So if I kill your child, and run. Thats it. Dont pursue. Please.
 
I'm glad the cop's okay. Those two in the car are dead because they ran from the cops.

Correction....

Actually, getting shot a few dozen times is what killed them. People run from cops all the time and don't die.

Just say'in
 
Last edited:
At least the city government and LEO has stood up and said 'protest all you want, no violence, no destruction of property, we'll arrest you'.

So at least Cleveland won't be having the riots. (crossing fingers).
 
Back
Top Bottom