This stuff happens all too frequently. Our police need better training. They get far too excited, endangering the public by racing through the streets, shooting at fleeing suspects. Often, the "crimes" involved are nothing more than smoking pot or running a red light. In some cases, it all starts when somebody is "acting suspiciously." We would all be better off, the citizens and the cops, if we put an end to this insanity.

NOT GUILTY?

Part of the judge's justification for the not guilty verdict was that they couldn't determine which of the 10 or so officers shot the fatal bullets.

So, the moral of this story is to make sure you have enough officers firing enough shots to make sure no one can determine which officer was the "guilty" one.

I think some of the recent cases were not what they've been portrayed to be, but this one and the verdict is ridiculous!

If there were three bank robbers firing shots and they killed a ban teller but there was no determination of who killed the teller, they ALL would be prosecuted, convicted, and jailed.

by the settlement of a federal lawsuit for 2.5 million USD. The officer according to his statement just had to do something....


The Other Case:

Police training has to improve. "If in doubt, shoot..." is absolutely the wrong reaction.

But how will training and police methods be corrected if convictions cannot be obtained?

Slight over kill.

and we are fools if we allow this to be the new normal

Where was the jury? Why did a judge make the ruling?

knowing the judge would find them not guilty.

I am so angry for them, and many other loved ones of other homicide victims by cops. This is so wrong. It seriously makes me apoplectic.

But if your black? Your mostly fucked with either!!

That left it in the hands of the judge.

Juries are there to protect the rights of the defendant against a biased judge. The judge, after all, at least at the federal level, are appointed by the government. And the Constitution is all about protecting citizen rights from government excess. A jury of the defendant's peers is, all things being equal, more likely to take the defendant's assumptions, values, background to heart in deciding guilt. What's justifiable? Well, in a lot of cases that rather depends on who's talking.

In a criminal court, it's the state versus the defendant. The victim is, at best, a witness or a symbol that the prosecutor uses to sway the jury.

Since it's the defendant's right that's being protected, the defendant has the option of waiving his right.

Notice that in a lot of reporting what we hear isn't the defendant's peers but the victim's peers. When there is no one "community," it makes the idea of a single society built on some semblance of social trust and therefore the idea of a jury that's peers to both defendant and victim a difficult thing to achieve. It could be sustained when there was a pretense of striving for a single society. Too often since I was a kid I hear calls for separate societies with enforced equality. While slightly better than separate societies with enforced inequality, that rather misses the point of the Enlightenment and most of its daughter philosophies.

From this. If you were with someone who committed murder even though you didn't do it, if you were present, guess what, you're charged too.
This not okay, and should not be allowed. Any officer who was present and fired into the car should be charged. The people in the car were not armed and are now dead. That is homicide. Period!

they did not deserve to die like this. A murder at the hands all these criminals in blue, hiding behind a badge. So fucking predictable in this day and age. Black and don't do a turn signal, you got 62 police cars after you. Black and unarmed, over a hundred rounds shot at you, with many entering the body. Black and walk in the streets and don't immediately obey a white cop, you're dead. Be looking at a toy gun in a Walmart for a family member and some mean spirited white person calls that you are armed, dead. Sell loose unlicensed cigarettes on the streets of New York, dead. Be a 12 year old child playing, 'probably cops and robbers' in the park with a toy gun, dead. Scared of a white police officer tazing you and runaway, dead, shot 8 fucking times in the back. If a cop stops you for nothing, dead, spine broken in 8 places and trachea crushed. Be a teen walking home from the store with skittles and tea and a wanna be cop tells you to stop and approaches you, you fight back, dead at the hands of white privilege. All of these executions were of unarmed human beings and no threat to an armed executioner of the state. I should also mention that in this time of executions, say since Trayvon Martin, many unarmed black women and a child of 7 years old have been slaughtered by executioners of the state.

Since Amadou Diallo, this travesty of justice and humans rights abuse has been ongoing. If you are black and/or depressed or mentally ill and murdering police officer is white, 9 out of ten times, they will walk free on some bullshit technicality or with an out and out racist decision by more white officials. Keep showing the world what you're made of authorities and privileged citizens in this land of the free and home of the brave

There was no reason to chase them, no reason to shoot over 120 times at them, no reason to climb onto the hood of their stopped and shot up car to shoot more.

Cop heard a backfire so took off after this couple who ran because they were afraid of what the cop would do. Yes, they should've stopped, but not stopping is in no way an offense deserving of death by multiple gunshots. There was no gun in the car, no gun found in the car.

Not stopping when a cop chases you is NOT an offense which gets you the death penalty.. And police are not deemed executioners. People are allowed a trial before getting killed.

same is going for you.... they may arrest them, but they can do whatever they want and never be convicted of a crime....and they know it!

That's fuckin' crazy. That POS cop jumped on the hood of the car and pumped 15 rounds into the driver and passenger AFTER the car was stopped. Probably had high fives all around.

From the Washington Post:

When Russell’s Chevy Malibu finally came to a stop in East Cleveland, 13 officers opened fire, shooting at least 137 rounds into the vehicle. Brelo, prosecutors said, was the only one who continued to shoot after the threat was over. He climbed onto the hood of the Malibu and shot 15 rounds into the windshield, striking Russell, who was driving, and Williams, who was in the passenger seat.

Odd...

Is that what you are saying?

Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to think that a person could not be harmed or even killed if they are run into or over?

Through the windshield.

I probably shouldn't post in heated topics at the end of a 7 day workweek Adios.

And before the issue of the cars being lethal weapons comes up, they all had vehicles.

The car was stopped. It seems like they could have waited this out. The problem I see, other than bad cops or racist ones, is cops are being told to act faster than their reasoning can handle.

The deaths were avoidable, but the adreanline got the LEOs to act in a panic - unless they were looking for someone to shoot.

IDK what the real solution is, but I'm glad there was a trial, although the technicality that released these guys is what seems ODD.

It's a shitty job being a cop as it keeps one in warzone state of mind. That's not good.

They had them cornered. It was obviously a revenge killing, with the police meting out the justice, making sure they were DEAD.

Unreasonable though right?

when it might conflict with their opinion and in this case some are choosing to ignore the fact that it was reckless of the to gentlemen who were shot to flee from the police on a 20+ mile car chase which could (but thankfully didnt) have easily caused the death of a innocent pedestrian.

Not really. The police always get the "guilty until proven innocent" treatment by the "fuck tha police" crowd.

The guy on trial jumped on the hood of the car when it was stopped and fired 15 rounds into the unarmed victims.

... An offender can fire a magazine worth of rounds at police and while he is mid reload, it is unreasonable to fire back because he is not actively shooting at that very moment.

The driver had just attempted to kill officers after behaving in an erratic and violent manner over an extended length of time.

unless the suspects shoot back.

That's not to say that anyone here is defending these guys, it's quite obvious they were putting the public at risk with the chase.

... is not worth lethal force?

Cars? Weapons that don't shoot bullets?

Where is the line?

One is not more or less dead having been run over than they are with a bullet to the head.

because they were afraid of LEOs.

Maybe they had good reason to be terrified of the local police?

where the judge decides guilt or innocence. The defendant Brelo chose to not have a jury of his peers as the trier of fact, which eliminated blacks from the community judging his guilt or innocence. Not much you can do because it's the defendant's right. If it were up to me, I would not have a judge decide such an important matter. In my 32 years as an attorney in California, I have found too many judges who are grotesque, despicable people, tremendously biased, and not ashamed to show it. Every time I've been in court and heard a pompous asshole in a black robe calling it "my courtroom" I've found it tremendously grating on me. It's the people's courtroom and the judge is the caretaker, not the dictator. I've appeared before judges who are drunk on their ass every day of the week and who even sneak into their car during breaks to hit the bottle. Once, my cousin and I were handling a Work comp case where the judge had made a terrible error, screwing the injured worker. We filed a Petition For Reconsideration (a type of appeal). It was just one of many screwed up decisions made by this judge. My cousin and I were confronted in an empty hallway by the presiding judge who said that if we sought to push our case, it could reflect very badly on the particular judge. We asked her 'what about our client, the injured worker'? She said, "fuck your client" She said that if we didn't back down, we would never again get a fair judgement from any judge at the appeals board. She said she would fuck our office with every judge in southern California and she would spread the word. I thought I was hearing from a judge in a corrupt third world country and she was worse than the corrupt judge in the movie "The Verdict". Another judge at that same appeals board boasted that he never approved a lien filed on any injured worker's case. He was very conservative, an ex insurance company lawyer who became a judge a few years before his retirement so he could get a state pension.

Most of the judges in superior court are ex prosecutors and pretty conservative and have a history of working with and befriending the police. I would never want a bench trial because some of these judges are looney tunes and feel they can do anything with impunity. I don't know if that applies to this judge, but I think a jury always comes to a more reasoned decision than an individual judge who is often full of prejudices and bias.

Conservatives often come from the DA's office and run on their record of locking people up.

Democrats often come from the Public Defenders office and say they'll fight for you.

Everyone has the right to a bench trial in lieu of jury, even if that defendant (gasp!) happens to be a police officer.

Geez.

I've had my dealings with corrupt judges as well.
I wonder if you have any opinions on whether this positions should be elected or not.
tbh these are not races which I pay much attention to, although I probably should.

The court of last resort is not the supreme court but the street. I have been very disappointed in the people of cleveland response to the shooting of the 12 year old black child playing with a toy gun in a park. I hoped they would have had larger demonstrations as this seems to be the only response that will make the police stop misbehaving.

138, now that's an excessive use of force.

Concerning the discipline they received because of this incident. Eight white officers and one Hispanic officer claim they received harsher disciplinary judgments than the black officers involved, the whole thing is a mess.

Expect something similar in Baltimore...

Our judicial system is designed to protect the powers that be at any cost. And I fear things will only get worse in the future.