Why did this even go to trial? Oh well good verdict.

[Lewkowski]

http://news.yahoo.com/verdict-reache...122057059.html

"Thirteen officers fired at the car with Russell and Malissa Williams inside after a 22-mile high-speed chase that involved 62 marked and unmarked cars and reached 100 mph. Brelo was the only officer charged because prosecutors said he waited until the pair was no longer a threat to fire his final 15 rounds."

"Authorities never learned why Russell didn't stop. He had a criminal record including convictions for receiving stolen property and robbery and had been involved in a previous police pursuit. Williams had convictions for drug-related charges and attempted abduction. Both were described as mentally ill, homeless and addicted to drugs. A crack pipe was found in the car."

The world is better off without them.

What Yahoo didn't write is that two crack heads attempted to murder the officers by using the vehicle as a weapon, ramming the officers blocking their path at full speed. They deserved what they got and its ridiculous that it even went to trial. Glad that justice was done. Its a pity that the in the previous police pursuit before this one occurred they weren't put down at that time.

High speed chases can result in tragedy for innocents that are just driving to and from work. Clearly we need to stop this nonsense. Mandatory 10 year prison sentences for anyone who flees the police in a vehicle top be always served consecutively as opposed to concurrently with what other crimes they get convicted of. Deterrence doesn't work for everyone, a small percentage of the population are just rabid and need to be locked away from the rest or humanity or just simply be put down.

[RandBlade]

It's not the job of the Police to "put down" criminals. Its the job of the Police to capture criminals and to pass that on to the judicial system.

[Loki]

Lewk, you support executing criminals who are not a threat at the moment of their execution? And doing so without a trial?

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, you support executing criminals who are not a threat at the moment of their execution? And doing so without a trial?

I'm in favor of giving police wide latitude when violently confronted.

[Loki]

Except they weren't being violently confronted at the moment they killed these people. Let's say these two criminals ran into some house (unarmed) and hid under a bed. Would it be ok in your eyes for the police to go into that house and kill them both?

[Lewkowski]

Except they weren't being violently confronted at the moment they killed these people.

Yes they were. They had just rammed a police car with their vehicle.

[Enoch the Red]

Yes they were. They had just rammed a police car with their vehicle.

He was standing on the hood of the car. I have a feeling he wasn't too worried about it moving again.

Let me be clear, that's not just indicative of a lack of real threat, it's telling. Had there been a genuine fear that the occupants still posed a risk, why would an officer jump on the hood of the car, presumably putting himself between the perps and the other police officers? If nothing else it's extraordinarily stupid.

Followup to Loki's hypothetical. At what point is it not okay for a police officer to shoot and kill a criminal?

[Lewkowski]

He was standing on the hood of the car. I have a feeling he wasn't too worried about it moving again.

Let me be clear, that's not just indicative of a lack of real threat, it's telling. Had there been a genuine fear that the occupants still posed a risk, why would an officer jump on the hood of the car, presumably putting himself between the perps and the other police officers? If nothing else it's extraordinarily stupid.

Followup to Loki's hypothetical. At what point is it not okay for a police officer to shoot and kill a criminal?

When the criminal does not resist arrest and surrenders.

[Enoch the Red]

When the criminal does not resist arrest and surrenders.

Can lethal force be utilized for any kind of resistance?

[Loki]

When the criminal does not resist arrest and surrenders.

What if a criminal resists arrest and runs off. The police find him normally walking the streets a year later. Is it fair game to shoot him?

[Timbuk2]

62 marked and unmarked police vehicles

[RandBlade]

22 mile chase at 100mph. I'd hope the Police sent as many vehicles as they could to bring it to an end before someone innocent got hurt.

[Flixy]

62 seems excessive (plus you're going to want police on other things as well) but 'involved' is very vague and probably includes cars blocking roads etc. or even just driving in the direction of the chase.

[Ominous Gamer]

22 miles could take you from one incorporated area (city police) to an unincorporated area (county sheriffs) into the next incorporated area (different city police). If the car managed to hit 100mph the cars in one part of the chase could have been called off and the chase resumed later. Thats a common procedure to reduce the risk of collateral damage/death.

its not exactly hard to hit 100mph either. Al Gore has been ticketed doing over 100 and I've buried the needle in my speedometer in my car a couple of times because its capable of far more than the 120mph that the dial stops at. Its not that uncommon either to see cars pushing 100 when the speed limit is already 75mph in several areas around here. All you need is a couple thousand feet and you can do it in under a minute.

[Khendraja'aro]

All you need is a couple thousand feet and you can do it in under a minute.

That's certainly true for any kind of object - you'll hit terminal velocity pretty fast.

... or did you mean horizontally?

[Ominous Gamer]

either works

[RandBlade]

I agree 100% with OG - in a high speed chase its better to have more cars acting sensibly (some may be just blocking roads or diverting the public) than a couple of chasing cars driving like lunatics.

[Steely Glint]

It's really confusing to me to see otherwise intelligent people repeatedly taken in by such an obvious troll.

[Loki]

Does that include the judge in Cleveland?

[RandBlade]

We don't know the full details of the case. Its perfectly possible the cop wasn't guilty because of a variety of reasons that could have been posited by the defence.

If the case was all that Lewk had described then I'd expect a guilty verdict. But I suspect (and hope) there was more to it.

[Loki]

The judge claimed that the cop on top of the car feared for his life.

[RandBlade]

So that makes it self-defence. That is entirely valid.

Unlike Lewk's contention that the cop "put down" the perp. Killing a dangerous criminal as you feel your life (or others lives) would be in danger otherwise is OK. Killing a captured criminal as you feel they deserve to die rather than be arrested is murder.

[Ominous Gamer]

Its how US cops are trained nowadays. The focus isn't on how to serve and protect, but how to survive. That they are entering a war on the streets and everyone is a potential murderous criminal. This actually carries over to the cop camera thread.

[Loki]

So that makes it self-defence. That is entirely valid.

Unlike Lewk's contention that the cop "put down" the perp. Killing a dangerous criminal as you feel your life (or others lives) would be in danger otherwise is OK. Killing a captured criminal as you feel they deserve to die rather than be arrested is murder.

When I feel threatened, I run towards people I think are armed and jump on top of their car hood. Before you say anything, the other cops kept their distance and started shooting.

[RandBlade]

You're not a cop. I wouldn't automatically assume one was in the wrong because he did something brave.

[Flixy]

Heroism generally means doing something risky in other to do something good.

There appears to have been no reason to stand there if it was risky. The car was cornered, the door blocked, the car had been shot more than a hundred times, they weren't going anywhere. Is it heroism to then stand on the hood on your own or plain stupid?

The chase snaked through Cleveland and ended at an East Cleveland middle school, where police attempted to stop the car, but the car kept heading toward officers, according to the officers' statements.

Officers began shooting at the vehicle. In a span of seconds, they had fired more than 100 shots at the car.

"The Malibu was cornered in a school parking lot with no viable means of escape,'' McGinty wrote. "The passenger was pinned in the vehicle, as her door was wedged against the police cruiser. The other police officers stopped shooting.

"Then Defendant Brelo stood upon the victim's car's hood as he fired into the passenger compartment of the Malibu, killing the occupants.''

[RandBlade]

As I said the judge (and jury if there was one) have the full facts on the case, I'd never heard of this case before this thread so won't pretend to be either a lawyer or an expert.

But we have to act on a first principle that the Police are humans who are in cases like this using human judgement in a life or death situation and not robots acting in a void. The question then becomes were the acts he took reasonable as opposed to ideal. Most of Common Law acts upon a reasonable test, would a reasonable person considering this a reasonable act - not is this an ideal act in an ideal world. Its an important point of principle in all trials that the officer (like all individuals ever accused of murder) must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Presumably the judge or jury has determined the actions of the officer was not completely unreasonable at that time.

[Flixy]

Fair enough, but don't be calling him brave then either if you object to others criticising him. As you said, you don't have all the facts either. Btw he wasn't accused of murder but manslaughter, and the judge mentioned it couldn't be manslaughter anyway because the victims had already been shot fatally by other other police.

[RandBlade]

I didn't simply say he was brave. I said I wouldn't automatically assume he was in the wrong because he did something brave (or foolhardy). Loki said he wouldn't do what the Policeman did, which is why I said it, the Police put themselves at risk sometimes. I wouldn't do what the cop did either, but then I'm not a cop.

I don't know if what he did is right or wrong, though the judge seems to have decided, but I do know that what Lewk proposes is wrong. Killing someone because they're a threat is OK, killing someone to put them down is murder.

[Ominous Gamer]

I didn't simply say he was brave. I said I wouldn't automatically assume he was in the wrong because he did something brave (or foolhardy)

He may not be held responsible under the manslaughter charge but what he did was still wrong and against official operating policy. That much was obvious by the fact that this got to trial at all and that even after being found not guilty, being kept under unpaid suspension and he still faces possible administrative charges.