• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Brelo acquitted

a_unique_person

Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
a_unique_person
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
49,603
Location
Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Cleveland, Ohio: Saying he would "not sacrifice" a Cleveland police officer to appease a public frustrated with law enforcement, a judge on Saturday acquitted Michael Brelo of manslaughter charges after he shot two unarmed people at the end of a wild 2012 car chase, during which officers fired 137 shots.
"I will not sacrifice him to a public frustrated by historical mistreatment at the hands of other officers," Judge John O'Donnell wrote in the opinion.
Television footage showed Mr Brelo, 31, bursting into tears when the judge declared him not guilty. He was accused of manslaughter for jumping onto the hood of the car and unleashing a barrage of gunfire on Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams, the vehicle's unarmed occupants. Police fired so many rounds that a crime scene investigator ran out of rods to mark the bulletholes.


.....

Justice O'Donnell noted the chaos of the pursuit and the police's perception that Russell and Williams had fired upon them, and he ruled that Mr Brelo was justified in using deadly force because he believed the pair presented an imminent threat to his life.
Click to expand...

Don't jump on the bonnet of the car, then. Stand back now that the car is cornered and play it safe.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/clev...tified-in-case-of-137-bullets-20150524-gh8ack
 
looking at the photos of that car, it just boggles my mind that anyone could consider it a 'reasonable' response, given that the occupants were unarmed.
One of the most common online comments I saw was something to the effect of: "If they weren't a threat, then why did they lead police on a high speed chase?" Maybe, just maybe, they were worried that they might get riddled by 100+ bullets. :rolleyes:
Tamir Rice is next...
 
The person most qualified to make the judgment made a judgment.
I'm okay with that.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Can you explain why you think there's a conflict of interest?
Click to expand...

I didn't say there was (although there may be)
I was responding to your assertion that he was 'most qualified'.
Whether or not his association meant the legal criteria for 'conflict of interest', at the very least I think there was a good possibility of bias. Just check the good judge's FB page (which, incidentally, is now loaded with death threats--I certainly don't condone that!) where he proudly announced that the local Policeman's Benevolent Association endorsed him for Supreme Court last year.
Do you think he got money from cops for his campaign? If you don't, I have some genuine photos of Bigfoot I'd like to sell you...
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Can you explain why you think there's a conflict of interest?
Click to expand...

Well there is often an assumption that prosecutor and police work "together" in a locality, and it is a conflict of interest, I heard it for judge too but never agreed to the reasonning.

I think the ground the judge gave are ... Well correct per see in the word for word interpretation, "no proof brelo did the killing bullet" and "it is not the totality judged only brelo action and as such this was not judged overreaction" yet it is quite obvious from the description even by the police that the spirit of the rules were violated. Yet I think simply this is another of those obvious police overreaction leading to death which will simply be.... Left without much negative impact to those who did take part to it. Another reason to lose complete and utter confidence into the police and justice by the locals too.

To be honest I dunno how I would have handled that. But you gotta agree that the overreaction of the police and firing bullet (13) unto unarmed people will again lead to nothing much. And that sound.... Not a good thing.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Anything substantive?
Click to expand...

What, Bigfoot or the judge? :)
FWIW, sure, I think one could probably skillfully interpret the facts here to come up with an acquittal for the charged officer. The problem is the bigger issue, as Aepervius points out, the pattern.

Try some speculation here, trust me, it won't hurt you to do so, and no one will revoke your skeptic's card: Do you think that the officers here would have seen and reported a gun (when there was none) or that Brelo would have 'thought he saw a gun' and thought he was being fired at (when, no, and no) if the suspects had been white?

Nothing wrong with saying 'Yes'; but I would say, most likely--No. Hence, one's background and experience can shape how you evaluate someone's actions and motivations. How a jury would see things and how one judge would see things are two very different things. The defendant's lawyers obviously recognized the advantage of going with the judge.
 
stanfr said:
Sure you are. Why let 12 jurors decide when you can let a person who surely has close ties to local LE make the decision?
Click to expand...

Because the laws of the State of Ohio (and/or the City of Cleveland) allow for that. Why do you not want to follow the law?
 
a_unique_person said:
What part of standard police procedure requires you to run up to a car, jump on the bonnet and shoot people through the windscreen?
Click to expand...

The part that requires you to risk your life to protect people. See North California shootout for more. Crazy **** happens and LEO's are the men and women who stand between us and crazy **** that happens.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
The part that requires you to risk your life to protect people. See North California shootout for more. Crazy **** happens and LEO's are the men and women who stand between us and crazy **** that happens.
Click to expand...

No. Your Life is at risk. You climb on to the car directly in front of the people you are supposedly worried are trying to kill you. They never got out of the car. They were contained as was the car. What part of that makes any sense.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
The part that requires you to risk your life to protect people. See North California shootout for more. Crazy **** happens and LEO's are the men and women who stand between us and crazy **** that happens.
Click to expand...

I think the cops acted prudently at that shootout. Did any of them run up to the middle of the shootout and start firing. Apart from that, this event wasn't a shootout, it was a shootat.
 
UNARMED?

stanfr said:
looking at the photos of that car, it just boggles my mind that anyone could consider it a 'reasonable' response, given that the occupants were unarmed.
One of the most common online comments I saw was something to the effect of: "If they weren't a threat, then why did they lead police on a high speed chase?" Maybe, just maybe, they were worried that they might get riddled by 100+ bullets. :rolleyes:
Tamir Rice is next...
Click to expand...


It wasn't known that the occupants were unarmed. Actually the police were of the opinion that they were being fired upon by the occupants.
 
sept79 said:
Actually the police were of the opinion that they were being fired upon by the occupants.
Click to expand...



Of course they were.



The excuse works for some, since they really did hear gunshots that other police were already firing. But it's not turtles all the way down. At some point, the first cop to shoot, shot without having heard or seen any shooting from the suspects at all that might've been directed at police or anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Posted by sept79: Actually the police were of the opinion that they were being fired upon by the occupants.
Of course they were.

The excuse works for some, since they really did hear gunshots that other police were already firing. But it's not turtles all the way down. At some point, the first cop to shoot, shot without having heard or seen any shooting from the suspects at all that might've been directed at police or anyone else.
Click to expand...


You are obviously one who won't give the police the benefit of the doubt . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom