• 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!

cleavland shooting of 2 unarmed suspects in car

Was Cleavland cop really scared for his life


  • Total voters
    22
The moral to this story is, Don't speed away from the cops when they are trying to pull you over!
When my kids were teen drivers, I always told them to always be polite and respectful to the police
in a traffic stop. If there is a real problem with the ticket, that is a court discussion, not a roadside one.


excellent advice. I told my son and other children of friends

the street is where the cop rules

Court is where I or other attorneys rule

don't challenge a cop on his own turf
 
After more than 100 bullets into the car, with multiple bullets going into the 2 people inside the car, at the moment the rest of the police officers stopped shooting, all they had to do was wait and see for a second but from what I have read, this police officer is the only one who continued to shoot.

And if the car was still a weapon, then why jump on the hood of the car to shoot them sitting in the car. That shows that the car was no longer a weapon.

Like I said, you were not there. I would also, rather be on a hood if the car moves forward then in front of it or to the rear. Or even the sides, if it catches a wheel well and spins side ways under hard throttle.
But hey, you were a cop for how long? You have been involved in how many shoot to live situations?
 
You think. And I believe that you honestly believe that. In actuality, you use it to prove you have no point.
Because you say so? Or is your tactic just to get the debate off the issue and on to me?
 
Like I said, you were not there. I would also, rather be on a hood if the car moves forward then in front of it or to the rear. Or even the sides, if it catches a wheel well and spins side ways under hard throttle.
But hey, you were a cop for how long? You have been involved in how many shoot to live situations?

Sorry, but all police officers except one thought it safe enough to stop shooting after more than 100 bullets into a car.

You know what, if only police officers are allowed to comment on stupid and insane actions/crimes of police officers than no bad apples in the police force will be forced out. I think that nowhere in the Western world, there is a police force so violent as the US police force, none. Where police shootings in other countries are a rarity, in the US it is as common as is possible. And I understand that the high number of guns is a reason that police officers need to be much more careful than police officers in other countries are but even after high speed pursuits it is very rare that someone is shot.
 
Again, what's your issue? The people were already dead by your description.

Most likely, but the officer should have known that after 100 bullets, these people are no longer a threat. This is overkill and maybe they could have been saved (unlikely) but shooting into the car like that standing on the hood is just overkill/dirty harry complex and I think the police force does not need to have that kind of bad publicity/that kind of police officers.
 
Sorry, but all police officers except one thought it safe enough to stop shooting after more than 100 bullets into a car.

You know what, if only police officers are allowed to comment on stupid and insane actions/crimes of police officers than no bad apples in the police force will be forced out. I think that nowhere in the Western world, there is a police force so violent as the US police force, none. Where police shootings in other countries are a rarity, in the US it is as common as is possible. And I understand that the high number of guns is a reason that police officers need to be much more careful than police officers in other countries are but even after high speed pursuits it is very rare that someone is shot.

Maybe they were in the middle of a mag change. Or out of ammo. Who knows.
 
Maybe they were in the middle of a mag change. Or out of ammo. Who knows.

Or maybe it is like the prosecution said, the rest of the officers knew that after more than 100 bullets, the threat was over.
 
Then how did he prevail in court?

As OJ can testify to:

A skillful jury selection, combined with a talented defense attorney, and the right social climate can work wonders. Of course, if I was facing criminal charges after engaging in dumb fire arms usage, I would want that exact same attorney.

Maybe they were in the middle of a mag change. Or out of ammo. Who knows.

All possible. Of course, maybe the FBI was really been trying to assasinate Native American poltical opposition leaders in the 1970s. Maybe those two agents were part of a hit squad. Maybe Leonard Peltier did not fire the executing shots, but was simply walking towards them with what only looked like a weapon to sell them some Lakota handicrafts....

Or maybe Peltier is a punk who ran an extortion / robbery crew (thinly disguised as a leftist political movement) on an Indian resevation, who then murdered two FBI agents who had chased his friend driving a stolen car into the encampement .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peltier

My point is that giving socio economic group 'A' very broad benefits regarding justified force and not giving it to socio econiomic group 'B' is a receipe for alot more trouble. As a side note, I favor the "punk" explanation for Peltier.
 
Last edited:
As OJ can testify to:

A skillful jury selection, combined with a talented defense attorney, and the right social climate can work wonders.

Ah, so the court system is failing. I get it. Total victimization. Cops are bad, judges are bad, juries are bad, prosecution is bad, stenographer is bad, god is bad.
Criminals just cant get a fair shake in todays bad world.
Tell you what, how about we disband all of it and you provide your own security 24/7/365. Start carrying a gun, turn your home into a fortress, train all your family to shoot to kill at the drop of a hat.
 
Ah, so the court system is failing. I get it. Total victimization. Cops are bad, judges are bad, juries are bad, prosecution is bad, stenographer is bad, god is bad.
Criminals just cant get a fair shake in todays bad world.

Actually I reject both the:

- All cops and proscutors are good guys theory and
- criminals are victims of society theory.

This allows me to have no trouble voting to indict Officer Wilson of Fergurson fame for involuntary manslaughter while not shedding any tears for Michael Brown (budding thug who had he not been unalwfully killed by Officer Wilson, had a decent chance of getting killed sooner or later by somebody who looked, acted and thought just like... Michael Brown)
 
Actually I reject both the:

- All cops and proscutors are good guys theory and
- criminals are victims of society theory.

This allows me to have no trouble voting to indict Officer Wilson of Fergurson fame for involuntary manslaughter while not shedding any tears for Michael Brown (budding thug who had he not been unalwfully killed by Officer Wilson, had a decent chance of getting killed sooner or later by somebody who looked, acted and thought just like... Michael Brown)

To indict Wilson means there is no justifiable self defense in your mind.
 
Chances are this cop was just over zealous. Being that the suspects fled and basically tried to the kill the cops, lol at a 5 ton vehicle not being a weapon (aka making someone unarmed), I don't have much pity here. The community was protected. That's all that matters to me.
 
Then how did he prevail in court?

I do not know, maybe because there is a big problem with judges and jury's in finding police officers guilty of something. Maybe because he was prosecuted for the wrong thing.
 
The vehicle was at a complete stop and riddled by a hundred bullets, so the car and the inhabitants where almost certainly not a danger.

The shooting took place because they mistook an engine backfiring as gun fire and shot and killed 2 unarmed inhabitants of that car.
You are not paying attention to what you quoted.


It was believed they were armed.
Do you not understand that made them a lethal threat?
The knowledge at the moment is what matters.
What it later turned out to be does not matter to that predication.


The vehicle was used as a weapon.
Do you not understand that made the driver a lethal threat and contributed overall to the threat they were.


It is reasonable for anyone who is confronting them to be scared for their life in such circumstances. Even Officers.
Nothing you said counters this.

You really should have paid attention to the Judge's ruling.


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.


So the only argument you can make is that it is a wrong decision under the law, which I know you can not do.
But please, give it a try.
 
Last edited:
The two criminals were not shot "100 times". Most were misses that hit the car. Wrong again.

I am sorry, but do I, a Dutch person who is non-English speaking, have to explain someone what "shot at" means? ;)

So, not wrong then.
 
I am sorry, but do I, a Dutch person who is non-English speaking, have to explain someone what "shot at" means? ;)

So, not wrong then.

True, you did say "shot at". My bad. But there are many that do say, and I should not assume, that they were shot 100+ times. When in reality they were only hit a few times.
 
True, you did say "shot at". My bad. But there are many that do say, and I should not assume, that they were shot 100+ times. When in reality they were only hit a few times.

No matter, I know a lot of people may have concluded that 100 shots fired means 100 shots went into the suspects, which would be something that should be looked into because that is something that would sound like an execution. Not even in front of a firing squad would you be hit that many times ;).

That is why I tried to be careful saying:

shot at

and:

more than 100 bullets into a car

and:

After more than 100 bullets into the car, with multiple bullets going into the 2 people inside the car,

and

the vehicle was at a complete stop and riddled by a hundred bullets


As someone who ran a customs warehouse (from a customs point of view that is), I have always been a stickler for details.
 
Back
Top Bottom