• 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

Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong here - but unless the car they were driving uses a carburetor, it's very unlikely it backfired as most cars are now fuel injected and would have a very small likelihood of backfiring. It's still possible but rare as I understand it.
 
JANFU said:
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
Click to expand...

I am just curious why charges were ever filed at all. Was there not proof that shots were fired at officers during the chase. Im sorry, but if you are firing a weapon at officers during a high speed chase, you're going to get shot and killed. That should be the expectation! Why are we trying to set a social precedent that if you are involved in a high speed chase and fire at officers, to expect to be able to carry on without being harmed. I can only think of one group of people who would expect this. A group of people who should have been discredited and called ignorant a long time ago. But of course, both crowds, the criminals, and the appologists, make the media TONS of cash. So lets just keep this charade going as long as people are willing to pay to argue about it.
 
Capster78 said:
I am just curious why charges were ever filed at all. Was there not proof that shots were fired at officers during the chase. Im sorry, but if you are firing a weapon at officers during a high speed chase, you're going to get shot and killed. That should be the expectation! Why are we trying to set a social precedent that if you are involved in a high speed chase and fire at officers, to expect to be able to carry on without being harmed. I can only think of one group of people who would expect this. A group of people who should have been discredited and called ignorant a long time ago. But of course, both crowds, the criminals, and the appologists, make the media TONS of cash. So lets just keep this charade going as long as people are willing to pay to argue about it.
Click to expand...

#1 That is just racist nonsense.
#2 No one fired at the police.

Sort of makes your whole argument just a racist rant.
 
Black Dog said:
#1 That is just racist nonsense.
#2 No one fired at the police.

Sort of makes your whole argument just a racist rant.
Click to expand...

#1, assuming that I feel this way because the victim of the shooting was black is in itself racist. I would feel the same way if the criminal were white, mexican, chinese, thai, indian, and or Liechtensteinian.. but everyone else can fu*k off. Wait.. maybe I am racist.. no.. I think i covered everyone....

#2, Even if they did not fire at police, they were still driving a vehicle on a public road at high rates of speed that could have gotten a completely innocent bystander killed. Also, forcing several other vehicles, while in persuit, to put their lives and the lives of innocent bystanders at risk. This in itself, is as bad as firing a weapon if not worse. Try firing a weapon out of a vehicle while traveling at high speeds. You would have a better chance at hitting a jackpot on one of the gas station scratch off tickets then hitting and killing anyone. However, a 1 ton vehicle traveling at high speeds has quite a bit more accuracy when it comes to killing someone then a firearm.

So in essence, your an idiot.
 
Black Dog said:
Would you like to point out the law that says it's OK to shoot unarmed people running from police?
Click to expand...
Your "unarmed" argument does not fly, as it was reasonably believed they were armed and had fired on Officers.
 
Excon said:
Your "unarmed" argument does not fly, as it was reasonably believed they were armed and had fired on Officers.
Click to expand...

I take your input with a grain of salt because that is about all it's worth. It was not "reasonable" but then again you think firing blindly into garages is justified. So grain of salt.
 
Excon said:
:doh
They reasonably thought they had a gun.
Click to expand...

I see! So if a cop thinks someone has a gun and the thought is 'reasonable,' even if they do literally no follow up work to make sure that a gun is actually there, they can just go ape**** and blow people away. Got it!
 
Capster78 said:
So in essence, your an idiot.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums up your argument. I mean seriously if you are going to call someone an "idiot" you might want to get the correct "you're" in there. :lamo
 
Black Dog said:
This pretty much sums up your argument. I mean seriously if you are going to call someone an "idiot" you might want to get the correct "you're" in there. :lamo
Click to expand...

Well, I thought if I spelled it incorrectly, you would understand what I was saying.
 
Capster78 said:
Well, I thought if I spelled it incorrectly, you would understand what I was saying.
Click to expand...

Is that your argument then? Ad hominems and poorly worded fallacy arguments?

Take your silly racism someplace else... Casper. If you have nothing to say about the actual points I brought up like...

No gun.
 
Excon said:
Your "unarmed" argument does not fly, as it was reasonably believed they were armed and had fired on Officers.
Click to expand...

Grain of salt...

Bye.
 
Black Dog said:
Is that your argument then? Ad hominems and poorly worded fallacy arguments?

Take your silly racism someplace else... Casper. If you have nothing to say about the actual points I brought up like...

No gun.
Click to expand...

Well, I am not convinced that there was no gun. But I did reply. I made the point that a speeding 1 ton vehicle on a public road is a lot more lethal then a firearm waving out the window of a speeding vehicle. That alone, should be enough to allow police to take action against anyone, even if it means using lethal force. A vehicle weights 1 ton and is generally more then 2 feet wide. Do the math. It is much more lethal then a bullet that is less then a half inch wide and weighs less then an ounce.
 
jet57 said:
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.
Click to expand...

and you are wrong they did not die because they ran they died because they shot at cops.
you can run all day long that is no excuse for cops to use deadly force.
 
Capster78 said:
Well, I am not convinced that there was no gun. But I did reply. I made the point that a speeding 1 ton vehicle on a public road is a lot more lethal then a firearm waving out the window of a speeding vehicle. That alone, should be enough to allow police to take action against anyone, even if it means using lethal force. A vehicle weights 1 ton and is generally more then 2 feet wide. Do the math. It is much more lethal then a bullet that is less then a half inch wide and weighs less then an ounce.
Click to expand...

There was no gun found. No powder residue on the body's. So what does it take to convince you?

So anyone who breaks the speed limit and drives through traffic is open to being shot? :lamo
 
Black Dog said:
I take your input with a grain of salt because that is about all it's worth. It was not "reasonable" but then again you think firing blindly into garages is justified. So grain of salt.
Click to expand...
No you are only speaking of yourself as it is your opinion that isn't even worth a grain of salt.
And firing in the direction of the intruder in your garage is not firing blindly. Your continued claim of such is asinine. Which I will also add has nothing to do with the facts of this case. Your inability to understand that speak to how much your opinion is worth. :doh

Finally, nothing you said discounts what I pointed out.
Your "unarmed" argument doesn't fly.


Black Dog said:
Grain of salt...

Bye.
Click to expand...
Yes. We already established the worth of your opinion, so it is wise of you to bow out now.




Mr. Invisible said:
I see! So if a cop thinks someone has a gun and the thought is 'reasonable,' even if they do literally no follow up work to make sure that a gun is actually there, they can just go ape**** and blow people away. Got it!
Click to expand...
:doh

There was reasonable belief.
The Officer called it in that he had heard the shot from the passing vehicle.
A gun was also supposedly seen during the chase.
All other Officer's predicate their actions on this information.

The sound of a gun shot was also heard by three others in a building.

As for follow up work? :doh
How?
They were fleeing and used the vehicle as a weapon. Deadly force was more than justified.
 
ludin said:
and you are wrong they did not die because they ran they died because they shot at cops.
you can run all day long that is no excuse for cops to use deadly force.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Black Dog said:
There was no gun found. No powder residue on the body's. So what does it take to convince you?

So anyone who breaks the speed limit and drives through traffic is open to being shot? :lamo
Click to expand...
Another lame argument.
What was found after the fact does not negate the reasonable belief they had at the time.
 
Excon said:
Another lame argument.
What was found after the fact does not negate the reasonable belief they had at the time.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah grain of salt man.

PS just wanted to add... So if the police said they saw a gun and yet no residue on the people. What does this tell you about the cops story?

Oh I know.... Blach blah blah... grain of salt.
 
Black Dog said:
There was no gun found. No powder residue on the body's. So what does it take to convince you?

So anyone who breaks the speed limit and drives through traffic is open to being shot? :lamo
Click to expand...

Where did I ever say that? Can you please point out where I said that speeding should allow police officers to fire into your vehicle? No! What I said was that if you are running from the police at high rates of speed on a public road, police should be allowed to use all available means to end it. If that means that person gets shot, then it is justified. Of course, lets not be ignorant here. Police should use all other means first in order to end the chase and should be able to demonstrate in court that they have. In the end, a vehicle is the most lethal weapon outside of military grade explosives and should be treated as such.
 
Capster78 said:
Where did I ever say that? Can you please point out where I said that speeding should allow police officers to fire into your vehicle? No! What I said was that if you are running from the police at high rates of speed on a public road, police should be allowed to use all available means to end it. If that means that person gets shot, then it is justified. Of course, lets not be ignorant here. Police should use all other means first in order to end the chase and should be able to demonstrate in court that they have. In the end, a vehicle is the most lethal weapon outside of military grade explosives and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...

There was no gun. Why do you keep avoiding that? After the car stopped and officer jumped on the roof and proceeded to put 15 rounds into the car. No gun, no powder residue, no reason to shoot as the car was already stopped.
 
Black Dog said:
Blah blah blah grain of salt man.

PS just wanted to add... So if the police said they saw a gun and yet no residue on the people. What does this tell you about the cops story?

Oh I know.... Blach blah blah... grain of salt.
Click to expand...
Lame reply as well as assertion.
It wasn't just an Officer who heard what was believed to be a gun shot. Two detectives and a guard heard it from inside a building as well.
What they find out after the fact does not matter one bit to what was reasonably believed at the time.


Just showing that all you spew is bs "blah" worth less than a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
Lame reply as well as assertion.
It wasn't just an Officer who heard what was believed it was a gun shot. Two detectives and a guard heard it from inside a building as well.
What they find out after the fact does not matter one bit to what was reasonably believed at the time.


Just showing that all you spew is bs "blah" worth less than a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Two more police and a guard, well no reason for them not to lie. :doh

Again blah blah blah grain of salt man.
 
Black Dog said:
There was no gun. Why do you keep avoiding that? After the car stopped and officer jumped on the roof and proceeded to put 15 rounds into the car. No gun, no powder residue, no reason to shoot as the car was already stopped.
Click to expand...

I addressed this already. Are we going to go in circles here? I can simply cut and paste my previous reply, or you could actually debate it. Your choice. I am here all night.
 
Capster78 said:
I addressed this already. Are we going to go in circles here? I can simply cut and paste my previous reply, or you could actually debate it. Your choice. I am here all night.
Click to expand...

So you're just going to go with "I'm not convinced there was no gun" even though there was no gun. No problem. :roll:
 
Black Dog said:
So you're just going to go with "I'm not convinced there was no gun" even though there was no gun. No problem. :roll:
Click to expand...

No, what I said is that even if there were no gun, the high speed car chase on public roads justifies the shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom