They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby MSimon » Sat May 23, 2015 7:12 pm

Cleveland Police Officer Michael Brelo Shoots Through Windshield at Unarmed Couple 15 Times: Found Not Guilty

He also determined that Brelo's use of force was constitutionally reasonable given that he and other officers perceived that Russell and Williams posed a threat.

"It is Brelo's perception of a threat that matters," O'Donnell said.

===========================

Well as long as one of these was noticed or felt:

"I feared for my life"
"Acting nervous"
"Furtive movement"
"Reaching for his waistband"
"Failed to follow orders"
"Seemed high on drugs"
"Reached for officer's gun"
"Procedures were followed."
"He made a furtive death twitch!"
"I smelled marijuana"

Good shoot.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/23/cleveland-police-officer-michael-brelo-s

The moral of the story? Never panic when police start shooting at you. That causes the police to panic. And fear for their lives.

Good shoot.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby MSimon » Sun May 24, 2015 5:49 pm

For those keeping score:

Killed by police:

http://www.killedbypolice.net/
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby GIThruster » Tue May 26, 2015 4:02 pm

If you decide to flee the police and evade them for more than 20 minutes, at speeds in excess of 100MPH, you have surrendered your right to life. By placing the lives of innocent citizens at risk, you have earned a bullet. I have no sympathy for criminals, doing crime when they get shot the way this guy did.

If this guy is so innocent, why was he evading police for 20 minutes at high speed? This ridiculous piece of pseudo-journalism doesn't say. What is does in use all manner of slanting through use of emotional language and other rhetorical fallacies to lead people to believe the police were at fault when in fact, is is the guy who got himself shot, who was responsible for this.

The really sad thing here is that people like this writer, and simon, can't tell who the criminals are. They think the police are wrong to use lethal force when assuredly they are not. When you pull this kind of stunt, you deserve to get shot. End of story--save for the details of who was maimed or killed by the criminals leading the police chase at such terrific speeds, in complete disregard for the safety of others.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby MSimon » Tue May 26, 2015 6:59 pm

GIThruster wrote:If you decide to flee the police and evade them for more than 20 minutes, at speeds in excess of 100MPH, you have surrendered your right to life. By placing the lives of innocent citizens at risk, you have earned a bullet. I have no sympathy for criminals, doing crime when they get shot the way this guy did.

If this guy is so innocent, why was he evading police for 20 minutes at high speed? This ridiculous piece of pseudo-journalism doesn't say. What is does in use all manner of slanting through use of emotional language and other rhetorical fallacies to lead people to believe the police were at fault when in fact, is is the guy who got himself shot, who was responsible for this.

The really sad thing here is that people like this writer, and simon, can't tell who the criminals are. They think the police are wrong to use lethal force when assuredly they are not. When you pull this kind of stunt, you deserve to get shot. End of story--save for the details of who was maimed or killed by the criminals leading the police chase at such terrific speeds, in complete disregard for the safety of others.


Well. This particular officer jumped up on the hood of the stopped car and pumped in 15 rounds (IIRC). In any rational justice system he would have at least been charged as some kind of accessory. Because that is what they would have done if they were after a civilian.

Running from the police around there may have been a rational decision. Maybe the occupants of the car feared for their lives. Once the police started shooting that is not an irrational thought.

And don't forget the police are not trained as Peace Officers. They are trained Enforcers. A title formerly reserved for mobsters.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

williatw
Posts: 1832
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby williatw » Tue May 26, 2015 10:24 pm

GIThruster wrote:If you decide to flee the police and evade them for more than 20 minutes, at speeds in excess of 100MPH, you have surrendered your right to life. By placing the lives of innocent citizens at risk, you have earned a bullet. I have no sympathy for criminals, doing crime when they get shot the way this guy did.


One of the shooters, named Michael Brelo, leapt on the hood of the car after it was halted and shot 15 times. The people inside the car, Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams, were, predictably, murdered in this barrage of 137 gunshots all told. They were unarmed.


Yeah they "deserved" those 137 odd bullets, everyone


GIThruster wrote:If you are not doing wrong, you have no reason to fear the police. End of story. No exceptions.


After all they were doing "wrong" by fleeing the police.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby GIThruster » Tue May 26, 2015 11:44 pm

Are you two actually arguing that when people are being chased by the police for 20 minutes and driving more than 100 MPH, the police should not be able to use lethal force? Forget the car backfiring. We have no idea what reason the police were chasing these criminals for. The hopeless piece of pseudo-journalism doesn't say. Obviously, they were not running from the police because they were driving a car that backfires, so the piece at the top of the thread is bullshit.

Given any cause at all, if the police are chasing someone and their response is to drive 100+ MPH, you don't think the police have the right to use lethal force?

Under what circumstances do you think the police ought to be able to use lethal force? Are there any?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

williatw
Posts: 1832
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby williatw » Tue May 26, 2015 11:57 pm

GIThruster wrote:Given any cause at all, if the police are chasing someone and their response is to drive 100+ MPH, you don't think the police have the right to use lethal force?

Under what circumstances do you think the police ought to be able to use lethal force? Are there any?
Gee I don't know GIThruster...what does Ohio/Cleveland law say about the what is the justifiable use of deadly force? What were the Cleveland police departmental guidelines on the use of deadly force? Isn't that what it should be decided by? Not your authoritarian feeling that they had it coming because they fled the police. Usually it (lawful deadly force) is because of reasonable believe of imminent threat of death/serious bodily injury to the officer, or innocent bystanders. How fast/or vigorously a perp flees the cops has nothing to do with whether they're allowed to shoot them. And they were of course shot after they had stopped fleeing, trapped in the car apparently unarmed.
Last edited by williatw on Wed May 27, 2015 12:52 am, edited 3 times in total.

paperburn1
Posts: 2449
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby paperburn1 » Wed May 27, 2015 12:13 am

But Brelo, who fired 49 of those shots, was the only one charged because prosecutors said he stood on the hood of his car and opened fire even after other officers had stopped shooting.
Image

The man victim had a similar shot pattern on his corpse.
Russell and Williams were each shot more than 20 times.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby GIThruster » Wed May 27, 2015 1:28 pm

williatw wrote:. . .And they were of course shot after they had stopped fleeing, trapped in the car apparently unarmed.

I am just responding to the general case about justifiable use of lethal force. If you're going to judge the cop as justified or unjustified, you do indeed need to know the law (something no one here has pretended to) and you need to know the level of threat at the moment when the cop was shooting. You're assuming that they were no longer a threat, but there is no reason to assume such a thing. You're assuming they were unarmed, and that all they were guilty of was driving in excess and evading arrest, but there is no reason to assume that either. They were obviously FLEEING, for some reason and not as this pseudo-journalism states, because their car backfired. That is ridiculous.

Just as with every other US citizen, with the cops there needs to be an presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The cops had 20 minutes to find out what was the background with these folks, and if what the blotter came up with was a warrant for armed robbery for example, and if they refused the order to "show me your hands", then it was indeed a righteous shooting. We don't know, but I am presuming the cops' innocence until proven guilty, and you are presuming the cops' guilt until proven innocent. Now take a guess which of us is working with US law.

Obviously, this pseudo-journalism is calling us to make this completely unfounded judgement, when it says the car backfired and doesn't say why they were fleeing police. Prudence would therefore dictate one be hesitant to presume anyone's guilt past the known facts, which are they were fleeing police recklessly and placing innocent lives at risk.

Let me ask you honestly, how much of this incident, and others here in the boards that form this continual assault against the honor and integrity of the police, fits this description:

1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;

2) deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;

3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;

4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;

5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others;

6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;

7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

I can't help but wonder at times when I see the kinds of justification simon uses and invites others to use, how many of these criteria he fits. Not just in regards to the police hate he's constantly proposing--and lets not kid ourselves, this is hate speech--but the justifications for all manner of unlawful activity, the blaming of others for his position in life, the reckless disregard one notes when he glosses over the fantastical risk involved when someone flees at 100MPH, etc. These criteria above describe the kinds of person who place other people at great risk, and often kill them unintentionally, because they just don't care about others. You guys are inviting us to think this way, and I for one am not going to agree with this kind of world view.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

williatw
Posts: 1832
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby williatw » Wed May 27, 2015 4:47 pm

GIThruster wrote:I can't help but wonder at times when I see the kinds of justification simon uses and invites others to use, how many of these criteria he fits. Not just in regards to the police hate he's constantly proposing--and lets not kid ourselves, this is hate speech--but the justifications for all manner of unlawful activity, the blaming of others for his position in life, the reckless disregard one notes when he glosses over the fantastical risk involved when someone flees at 100MPH, etc. These criteria above describe the kinds of person who place other people at great risk, and often kill them unintentionally, because they just don't care about others. You guys are inviting us to think this way, and I for one am not going to agree with this kind of world view.



Or put more succinctly (& honestly):

GIThruster wrote:If you decide to flee the police and evade them for more than 20 minutes, at speeds in excess of 100MPH, you have surrendered your right to life.



GIThruster wrote:If you are not doing wrong, you have no reason to fear the police. End of story. No exceptions.


With authoritarian nutbags like you around there is only one solution to situations like this:

williatw wrote:I think that cheap readily available video/audio recorders in the hands of the great masses of the people combined with the internet (you-Tube etc.) are shaping up to be one of the greatest engines of social change ever seen. Our would be masters now have to worry about being watch-dogged by witnesses that can't be denied, easily discredited, threatened, killed, or easily silenced; far as I am concerned all cops should be required by law to have body-cams with automatically down-loaded backups.

williatw
Posts: 1832
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby williatw » Wed May 27, 2015 10:11 pm

Justice department Uncovers Absurd Levels of Police Prutality in the Cleveland Police Force





Image



A 59-page report released by the United States Department of Justice on Thursday reveals widespread, excessive use of force by police officers in Cleveland. Cleveland is the city where cops recently killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice while he was carrying a toy gun on a playground, and just before that, Tanesha Anderson died in police hands when cops were supposed to be transporting her for mental health treatment.

In one incident from the Justice Department’s new report, a 300-pound officer sat on a 13 year-old boy who weighed half as much and punched the boy in the face repeatedly while the boy was handcuffed in the back of a police car. In another incident, police used their stun gun on a juvenile suspect, despite the fact that the boy was being held on the ground by two officers. In a third incident, an officer fired upon a man who fled after repeatedly asking the officer to produce his badge in order to prove that he was, in fact, a cop. The cop did not do so.

The overarching conclusion of the report is that Cleveland police “too often use unnecessary and unreasonable force in violation of the Constitution,” and that “[s]upervisors tolerate this behavior and, in some cases, endorse it.” The report points to a “pattern or practice of using unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” including the “unnecessary and


excessive use of deadly force,” similar use of non-deadly force, and “[e]xcessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis.”


Some of the incidents laid out in the report reflect such questionable judgment that they would almost be comic if they did not end so tragically. In one incident, a police sergeant fired upon a hostage who fled a house where he was being held against his will by armed assailants. Although the man fled the building wearing nothing but his boxer shorts, the sergeant fired upon the man because he believed that the man had a weapon when he pointed arm towards the sergeant. According to the report, “[n]o other officers at the scene reported seeing [the man] point anything at the sergeant.”

Another section of the report, which details a high-speed chase involving dozens of officers, is worth quoting at length:



On November 29, 2012, over 100 Cleveland police officers engaged in a high speed chase, in violation of CDP policies, and fatally shot two unarmed civilians. . . . The incident began when Timothy Russell and his passenger Malissa Williams drove past the Justice Center in downtown Cleveland, at which point officers and witnesses outside the Justice Center heard what they believed to be a shot fired from the car. It now appears that what they actually heard was the car backfiring. A massive chase ensued, involving at least 62 police vehicles, some of which were unmarked, and more than 100 patrol officers, supervisors, and dispatchers—about 37 percent of the CDP personnel on duty in the City. The pursuit lasted about 25 minutes, at times reaching speeds of more than 100 miles per hour. During the chase, some of the confusing and contradictory radio traffic incorrectly indicated that the occupants of the car may be armed and may be firing from the car. Other radio traffic did not support that conclusion. No supervisor asserted control over the chase, and some even participated. CDP now admits that the manner in which the chase occurred was not in accordance with established CDP policies. The chase finally ended outside the City’s borders, in an East Cleveland school parking lot, with CDP vehicles located in front of and behind Mr. Russell’s car. In circumstances that are still being disputed in court, thirteen CDP officers ultimately fired 137 shots at the car, killing both its occupants. Mr. Russell and Ms. Williams each suffered more than 20 gunshot wounds. The officers, who were firing on the car from all sides, reported believing that they were being fired at by the suspects. It now appears that those shots were being fired by fellow officers.

Just last week, nine officers involved in this incident filed a lawsuit claiming they were punished more harshly for their participation because they were not African American. Their punishment? Three days of administrative leave, followed by restricted duty for about 45 days, during which they say they were asked to do “menial and unpleasant tasks” and denied overtime pay.

The Justice Department’s report, however, found that these incidents of excessive force may have flourished because the police department’s mechanisms for investigating and disciplining officers who engaged in excessive force were entirely inadequate. Some officers who are “charged with conducting unbiased reviews of officers’ use of deadly force admitted to [the Justice Department] that they conduct their investigations with the goal of casting the accused officer in the most positive light possible.” Indeed, the report found that “[d]iscipline is so rare that no more than 51 officers out of a sworn force of 1,500 were disciplined in any fashion in connection with a use of force incident over a three-and-a half-year period.” When DOJ dug deeper into that 51 incidents, they found that “in most of those 51 cases the actual discipline imposed was for procedural violations such as failing to file a report, charges were dismissed or deemed unfounded, or the disciplinary process was suspended due to pending civil claims.”

A press release accompanying the report announces that “the Justice Department and the city of Cleveland have signed a statement of principles committing them to develop a court enforceable consent decree that will include a requirement for an independent monitor who will oversee and ensure necessary reforms.” A consent decree is an agreement negotiated between DOJ and the city that can be overseen and potentially enforced by a federal court once it is finalized.







http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/1 ... ice-force/

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby GIThruster » Thu May 28, 2015 2:30 pm

Although the man fled the building wearing nothing but his boxer shorts, the sergeant fired upon the man because he believed that the man had a weapon when he pointed arm towards the sergeant. According to the report, “[n]o other officers at the scene reported seeing [the man] point anything at the sergeant.”

You realize the trouble with incidents like this: we have no way to know whether this is a mistake. You, and the author you're quoting, are inviting us to judge incidents like this without the salient details. This is obviously a tragic incident, but is it an accident or sign of a disfunction?

With 370 million people, we are going to have accidents. We have to put up with that. What we don't have to put up with, are systemic dysfunctions. So is this an example of wickedness, or an accident? We have no way to know from this post.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

hanelyp
Posts: 2253
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby hanelyp » Thu May 28, 2015 4:51 pm

"thinkprogress.org", reference FAIL.

"justice department", not a credible authority under the current regime.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

krenshala
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby krenshala » Thu May 28, 2015 6:56 pm

Actually, with what appears to be considered 'normal' by them lately, I would think the Justice Department thinking a particular group is being too aggressive is a telling sign that the group is question may be way beyond acceptable levels.

williatw
Posts: 1832
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: They Posed A Threat - Good Shoot

Postby williatw » Thu May 28, 2015 9:39 pm

hanelyp wrote:"thinkprogress.org", reference FAIL.

"justice department", not a credible authority under the current regime.


And just who would be the "credible authorities" and/or non "FAIL" references in your opinion?

The Cleveland Police force perhaps?

In circumstances that are still being disputed in court, thirteen CDP officers ultimately fired 137 shots at the car, killing both its occupants. Mr. Russell and Ms. Williams each suffered more than 20 gunshot wounds. The officers, who were firing on the car from all sides, reported believing that they were being fired at by the suspects. It now appears that those shots were being fired by fellow officers.


Apparently the cops were shooting at each other supposedly under the impression that it was the unarmed (now dead) alleged "perps" who started the shooting.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests