View Poll Results: Was Cleavland cop really scared for his life

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes he thought his life was in absolute danger

    5 22.73%
  • He wanted credit for the kill

    4 18.18%
  • dont know

    13 59.09%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: cleavland shooting of 2 unarmed suspects in car

  1. #41
    Sage

    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    13,147

    Re: cleavland shooting of 2 unarmed suspects in car

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    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.
    #StayStrongAppie

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: cleavland shooting of 2 unarmed suspects in car

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    I do not know,
    The end.

  3. #43
    Sage

    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    13,147

    Re: cleavland shooting of 2 unarmed suspects in car

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    The end.
    Sadly for justice and the 2 people who were shot at well over 100 times, it is indeed the end.
    #StayStrongAppie

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: cleavland shooting of 2 unarmed suspects in car

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    Sadly for justice and the 2 people who were shot at well over 100 times, it is indeed the end.
    The two criminals were not shot "100 times". Most were misses that hit the car. Wrong again.

  5. #45
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,686

    Re: cleavland shooting of 2 unarmed suspects in car

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    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 by Excon; 05-27-15 at 11:14 PM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  6. #46
    Sage

    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    13,147

    Re: cleavland shooting of 2 unarmed suspects in car

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    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.
    #StayStrongAppie

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 02:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: cleavland shooting of 2 unarmed suspects in car

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    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.

  8. #48
    Sage

    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    13,147

    Re: cleavland shooting of 2 unarmed suspects in car

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    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.
    #StayStrongAppie

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •