Cleveland officer Michael Brelo found not guilty in fatal shooting of two people

[AUDub 11,148]

"Russell and Williams were killed Nov. 29, 2012, after they led 62 police vehicles on a chase across Cleveland."

"Comply or die"

it is possible. You never know when a backfire might incite gun fire from the 62 units you are eluding.

"Keep your car in working order or die."

how about " never run or many bad things can happen"?

"Comply or die"

You're seriously excusing the officers' conduct in this situation by blaming the victim. I understand your need to defend the police, but this was inexcusable. 137 shots.

not excusing anything. Pointing out how you can avoid playing a part in your own death. It's rather simple really.

You're doing exactly that by minimizing the officers' role in their deaths.

[AUDub 11,148]

[alexava 6,973]

2 and 3 are correct. Like I said it's very simple. 1 and 4 are childish rhetoric.

[AUDub 11,148]

2 and 3 are correct. Like I said it's very simple. 1 and 4 are childish rhetoric.

riiight

[JoeBags7277 734]

2 and 3 are correct. Like I said it's very simple. 1 and 4 are childish rhetoric.

I suppose its a sign of the times that Alex doesn't seem to grasp that it should be seen as an insult for a cop's actions and behavior to be compared to a bear's.

[alexava 6,973]

2 and 3 are correct. Like I said it's very simple. 1 and 4 are childish rhetoric.

I suppose its a sign of the times that Alex doesn't seem to grasp that it should be seen as an insult for a cop's actions and behavior to be compared to a bear's.

injury or death from both are easily avoidable with common sense.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

I may not agree with the ending to this story, but let's not forget eluding police for 22 miles at speeds in excess of 120mph. Anyone acting in such an irresponsible manner is very likely to have a bad day. 2 people died which is a tragedy, but we are very fortunate countless others didn't due to the reckless behavior of a couple drug crazed lunatics. I think the motto is clear: act responsibly and live.

[quietfan 233]

quietfan.....I agree with the big picture. It is crazy. But no one seems to answer the question of why one officer was charged and no one else.

Jumping onto the hood of the car and unloading a clip in through the windshield at unarmed suspects doesn't really look good.

One of the reports I read (can't find it right now to link it because I read so many articles from multiple news outlets that I can't recall on which I read it) said jumping on a hood like that was a violation of police policy. It certainly sounds like a stupid thing to do if you suspect the occupants have a gun and are still capable of using it...which was the only excuse for Brelo's risky action. Of course, jumping on the hood is not proof that this officer was responsible for the actual deaths, what with 137 bullets flying around. As I understand it, that's the reason the judge ruled Brelo not guilty of the manslaughter charge.

However in a criminal endeavor, say a robbery or a drug deal gone bad, if multiple gunmen opened fire, the whole lot can be charged with murder regardless of which shot was the fatal one. I'm not comparing these officers' actions to murder with criminal intent (although some might disagree with me and I can understand why) and the charge was manslaughter not murder, but it does seem to me that other officers were just as culpable as Brelo. I understand there was reasonable suspicion that the victims were armed, given that the car backfire was thought to be gunshots, but I also think the entire incident was an over-reaction on the part of the police and displayed remarkable lack of self-control on the part of the officers. Once the firing erupted, I think they were reacting with more of a mob mentality than with the restraint expected of a duly authorized officer of the law. In my mind,137 shots sounds much more like an intent to kill than an attempt to restrain or arrest.

I wasn't there of course, and I can't say what my reaction may have been in such circumstances. But I also have not had law enforcement training that presumably includes how to remain calm and rational, without panic, under fire or stress.

[quietfan 233]

I may not agree with the ending to this story, but let's not forget eluding police for 22 miles at speeds in excess of 120mph. Anyone acting in such an irresponsible manner is very likely to have a bad day. 2 people died which is a tragedy, but we are very fortunate countless others didn't due to the reckless behavior of a couple drug crazed lunatics. I think the motto is clear: act responsibly and live.

I agree that fleeing in any high-speed chase puts many, including innocent civilians, at risk. But a high-speed chase that has ended is not sufficient cause for use of lethal force.

"Act responsibly and live" is good advise in all walks of life. But irresponsible actions alone do not justify use of lethal force, nor do they excuse irresponsible action on the part of the police.

Regarding your characterization of the victims as "drug crazed lunatics":

Is there evidence that this couple was under the influence of any drugs? I haven't read that in any of the reports I've read, but I concede I may have missed it. In any case, the officers certainly could not have known if drugs were involved when they were firing, and the presence of any drugs in the systems of the deceased could have been determine only upon autopsy.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

I may not agree with the ending to this story, but let's not forget eluding police for 22 miles at speeds in excess of 120mph. Anyone acting in such an irresponsible manner is very likely to have a bad day. 2 people died which is a tragedy, but we are very fortunate countless others didn't due to the reckless behavior of a couple drug crazed lunatics. I think the motto is clear: act responsibly and live.

I agree that fleeing in any high-speed chase puts many, including innocent civilians, at risk. But a high-speed chase that has ended is not sufficient cause for use of lethal force.

"Act responsibly and live" is good advise in all walks of life. But irresponsible actions alone do not justify use of lethal force, nor do they excuse irresponsible action on the part of the police.

Regarding your characterization of the victims as "drug crazed lunatics":

Is there evidence that this couple was under the influence of any drugs? I haven't read that in any of the reports I've read, but I concede I may have missed it. In any case, the officers certainly could not have known if drugs were involved when they were firing, and the presence of any drugs in the systems of the deceased could have been determine only upon autopsy.

Hmmm? You gave the high speed chase one sentence. LOL. While you may state you agree with my high speed premise, you and a few others would rather elaborate on the end result rather than focus on the root cause. It's a scientifically flawed process. Why use it?

I don't know of nor have I seen anyone justifying the actions of the officers. They have to accept their role in this tragedy.

I did read where the victims were homeless drug addicts.

[homersapien 11,373]

I may not agree with the ending to this story, but let's not forget eluding police for 22 miles at speeds in excess of 120mph. Anyone acting in such an irresponsible manner is very likely to have a bad day. 2 people died which is a tragedy, but we are very fortunate countless others didn't due to the reckless behavior of a couple drug crazed lunatics. I think the motto is clear: act responsibly and live.

Do you think the police acted responsibly in this case?

[quietfan 233]

I may not agree with the ending to this story, but let's not forget eluding police for 22 miles at speeds in excess of 120mph. Anyone acting in such an irresponsible manner is very likely to have a bad day. 2 people died which is a tragedy, but we are very fortunate countless others didn't due to the reckless behavior of a couple drug crazed lunatics. I think the motto is clear: act responsibly and live.

I agree that fleeing in any high-speed chase puts many, including innocent civilians, at risk. But a high-speed chase that has ended is not sufficient cause for use of lethal force.

"Act responsibly and live" is good advise in all walks of life. But irresponsible actions alone do not justify use of lethal force, nor do they excuse irresponsible action on the part of the police.

Regarding your characterization of the victims as "drug crazed lunatics":

Is there evidence that this couple was under the influence of any drugs? I haven't read that in any of the reports I've read, but I concede I may have missed it. In any case, the officers certainly could not have known if drugs were involved when they were firing, and the presence of any drugs in the systems of the deceased could have been determine only upon autopsy.

Hmmm? You gave the high speed chase one sentence. LOL. While you may state you agree with my high speed premise, you and a few others would rather elaborate on the end result rather than focus on the root cause. It's a scientifically flawed process. Why use it?

I don't know of nor have I seen anyone justifying the actions of the officers. They have to accept their role in this tragedy.

I did read where the victims were homeless drug addicts.

Two sentences, technically.

But I did not elaborate further because I thought my two sentences were sufficient to state my points:

1. I agreed that high speed chases put others at risk, and in fleeing, this couple put others in danger.

2. Since the chase had ended at the point shooting began (the suspects were blocked in, making flight impossible, and coming to a stop if not fully at rest), the chase was no longer sufficient cause for use of lethal force. If the chase was still the "root cause" for shooting, as you describe it, then in my opinion the officers acted in error by shooting without sufficient cause.

I think I understand your point or concern, however. (except for "It's a scientifically flawed process." ...not sure exactly what you meant there)

As I conceded, I haven't read anything referring to drug use. But I have no basis for disagreeing with you on that point, and will defer to your reading unless/until I read otherwise..

[AUFAN78 3,895]

I may not agree with the ending to this story, but let's not forget eluding police for 22 miles at speeds in excess of 120mph. Anyone acting in such an irresponsible manner is very likely to have a bad day. 2 people died which is a tragedy, but we are very fortunate countless others didn't due to the reckless behavior of a couple drug crazed lunatics. I think the motto is clear: act responsibly and live.

Do you think the police acted responsibly in this case?

Absolutely not! In fact, I question why you would chase someone at those speeds for that distance which was a precursor to the tragic ending.

But Homes, that was not my argument. I simply injected a root cause. Being the devils advocate you are, you should love this debate.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

I may not agree with the ending to this story, but let's not forget eluding police for 22 miles at speeds in excess of 120mph. Anyone acting in such an irresponsible manner is very likely to have a bad day. 2 people died which is a tragedy, but we are very fortunate countless others didn't due to the reckless behavior of a couple drug crazed lunatics. I think the motto is clear: act responsibly and live.

I agree that fleeing in any high-speed chase puts many, including innocent civilians, at risk. But a high-speed chase that has ended is not sufficient cause for use of lethal force.

"Act responsibly and live" is good advise in all walks of life. But irresponsible actions alone do not justify use of lethal force, nor do they excuse irresponsible action on the part of the police.

Regarding your characterization of the victims as "drug crazed lunatics":

Is there evidence that this couple was under the influence of any drugs? I haven't read that in any of the reports I've read, but I concede I may have missed it. In any case, the officers certainly could not have known if drugs were involved when they were firing, and the presence of any drugs in the systems of the deceased could have been determine only upon autopsy.

Hmmm? You gave the high speed chase one sentence. LOL. While you may state you agree with my high speed premise, you and a few others would rather elaborate on the end result rather than focus on the root cause. It's a scientifically flawed process. Why use it?

I don't know of nor have I seen anyone justifying the actions of the officers. They have to accept their role in this tragedy.

I did read where the victims were homeless drug addicts.

Two sentences, technically.

But I did not elaborate further because I thought my two sentences were sufficient to state my points:

1. I agreed that high speed chases put others at risk, and in fleeing, this couple put others in danger.

2. Since the chase had ended at the point shooting began (the suspects were blocked in, making flight impossible, and coming to a stop if not fully at rest), the chase was no longer sufficient cause for use of lethal force. If the chase was still the "root cause" for shooting, as you describe it, then in my opinion the officers acted in error by shooting without sufficient cause.

I think I understand your point or concern, however. (except for "It's a scientifically flawed process." ...not sure exactly what you meant there)

As I conceded, I haven't read anything referring to drug use. But I have no basis for disagreeing with you on that point, and will defer to your reading unless/until I read otherwise..

Had the chase not happened, there is no evidence a shooting would have occured. I personally think these officers were jacked on adrenaline from said chase and thus their reaction. Which BTW, I think was terribly wrong and excessive force used. I am still trying to understand how they were found not guilty of all charges.

The science was basic cause and effect. As noted above, no chase/no shoot.

I'll try and find the drug facts as I am quite certain I read it.

[quietfan 233]

Had the chase not happened, there is no evidence a shooting would have occured. I personally think these officers were jacked on adrenaline from said chase and thus their reaction. Which BTW, I think was terribly wrong and excessive force used. I am still trying to understand how they were found not guilty of all charges.

The science was basic cause and effect. As noted above, no chase/no shoot.

I'll try and find the drug facts as I am quite certain I read it.

Okay, I understand your logic better now. But the case can also be made that the situation could have been one of chase/no shoot. Since the chase did not have to end in shooting, the chase was not a justifiable cause for shooting.

I think we both agree that both the victims and the police were guilty of serious stupidity. I suspect the officers' adrenaline levels were high: If not from the chase, then once the first shot was fired. However, I also believe if properly trained and professional, LEO's are supposed to know how to react properly even with lots of adrenaline in their veins.

Bottom line to me: Both parties acted very stupidly, and the actions of neither party were forced by the other party's behavior. Each party bears full responsibility for it's inexcusable behavior.

........

And don't waste any time looking for the drug report(s). I'm not concerned enough to debate that point, and I expect you have more valuable things to do with your time. I'll take your word that you read it. Appreciate your willingness to look, though.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

Had the chase not happened, there is no evidence a shooting would have occured. I personally think these officers were jacked on adrenaline from said chase and thus their reaction. Which BTW, I think was terribly wrong and excessive force used. I am still trying to understand how they were found not guilty of all charges.

The science was basic cause and effect. As noted above, no chase/no shoot.

I'll try and find the drug facts as I am quite certain I read it.

Okay, I understand your logic better now. But the case can also be made that the situation could have been one of chase/no shoot. Since the chase did not have to end in shooting, the chase was not a justifiable cause for shooting.

I think we both agree that both the victims and the police were guilty of serious stupidity. I suspect the officers' adrenaline levels were high: If not from the chase, then once the first shot was fired. However, I also believe if properly trained and professional, LEO's are supposed to know how to react properly even with lots of adrenaline in their veins.

Bottom line to me: Both parties acted very stupidly, and the actions of neither party were forced by the other party's behavior. Each party bears full responsibility for it's inexcusable behavior.

........

And don't waste any time looking for the drug report(s). I'm not concerned enough to debate that point, and I expect you have more valuable things to do with your time. I'll take your word that you read it. Appreciate your willingness to look, though.

Pretty sure we're on the same page. Just took a little objectivity from both. BTW, A trait that seems lacking around here. Anyway, gotta run....

[alexava 6,973]

i agree. the chase coupled with the backfire had everyone jacked. i still would not fire until i saw a weapon and damn sure would not jump on the hood of a car of people who i thought were shooting. He was out of line. i was referring to root cause too. the two cops that got smoked in Mississippi made the mistake of acting responsibly and they are deceased. benefit of doubt goes to LE for me.

[Weegle777 78]

How many of you guys that are vilifying these cops, are actually cops?

[AUDub 11,148]

How many of you guys that are vilifying these cops, are actually cops?

Best friend is a police officer in Birmingham's North Precinct. Got pictures of him dancing at my wedding in fact.

I don't prefer vilification because they are, by and large, not villains, but there is a tremendous lack of accountability regarding policing in our country.

[JoeBags7277 734]

How many of you guys that are vilifying these cops, are actually cops?

Is this supposed to mean anything? Shut down our argument?

[AUB1974 2]

Why has this taken 3 years to come to trial?

[AUDub 11,148]

How many of you guys that are vilifying these cops, are actually cops?

Is this supposed to mean anything? Shut down our argument?

He's angling for the Courtier's Reply.

You'll get used to this sort of thing if you argue with Weegs long enough.

[Weegle777 78]

How many of you guys that are vilifying these cops, are actually cops?

Is this supposed to mean anything? Shut down our argument?

Means about as much as some of these stupid replies by you whiny little libs.

[JoeBags7277 734]

How many of you guys that are vilifying these cops, are actually cops?

Is this supposed to mean anything? Shut down our argument?

Means about as much as some of these stupid replies by you whiny little libs.

Oh, I got it. You're another one who doesn't seem to understand that we don't all fit into one of two boxes.

[AUDub 11,148]

How many of you guys that are vilifying these cops, are actually cops?

Is this supposed to mean anything? Shut down our argument?

Means about as much as some of these stupid replies by you whiny little libs.

Oh, I got it. You're another one who doesn't seem to understand that we don't all fit into one of two boxes.

He thinks you're a lib.

Weegs, Weagle is a Libertarian and, for all intents and purposes, a pretty fungi. Get back on your meds.