- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The moral to this story is, Don't speed away from the cops when they are trying to pull you over!
When my kids were teen drivers, I always told them to always be polite and respectful to the police
in a traffic stop. If there is a real problem with the ticket, that is a court discussion, not a roadside one.
After more than 100 bullets into the car, with multiple bullets going into the 2 people inside the car, at the moment the rest of the police officers stopped shooting, all they had to do was wait and see for a second but from what I have read, this police officer is the only one who continued to shoot.
And if the car was still a weapon, then why jump on the hood of the car to shoot them sitting in the car. That shows that the car was no longer a weapon.
Because you say so? Or is your tactic just to get the debate off the issue and on to me?You think. And I believe that you honestly believe that. In actuality, you use it to prove you have no point.
Like I said, you were not there. I would also, rather be on a hood if the car moves forward then in front of it or to the rear. Or even the sides, if it catches a wheel well and spins side ways under hard throttle.
But hey, you were a cop for how long? You have been involved in how many shoot to live situations?
Again, what's your issue? The people were already dead by your description.
Sorry, but all police officers except one thought it safe enough to stop shooting after more than 100 bullets into a car.
You know what, if only police officers are allowed to comment on stupid and insane actions/crimes of police officers than no bad apples in the police force will be forced out. I think that nowhere in the Western world, there is a police force so violent as the US police force, none. Where police shootings in other countries are a rarity, in the US it is as common as is possible. And I understand that the high number of guns is a reason that police officers need to be much more careful than police officers in other countries are but even after high speed pursuits it is very rare that someone is shot.
Maybe they were in the middle of a mag change. Or out of ammo. Who knows.
Or maybe it is like the prosecution said, the rest of the officers knew that after more than 100 bullets, the threat was over.
Then how did he prevail in court?
Maybe they were in the middle of a mag change. Or out of ammo. Who knows.
As OJ can testify to:
A skillful jury selection, combined with a talented defense attorney, and the right social climate can work wonders.
Ah, so the court system is failing. I get it. Total victimization. Cops are bad, judges are bad, juries are bad, prosecution is bad, stenographer is bad, god is bad.
Criminals just cant get a fair shake in todays bad world.
Actually I reject both the:
- All cops and proscutors are good guys theory and
- criminals are victims of society theory.
This allows me to have no trouble voting to indict Officer Wilson of Fergurson fame for involuntary manslaughter while not shedding any tears for Michael Brown (budding thug who had he not been unalwfully killed by Officer Wilson, had a decent chance of getting killed sooner or later by somebody who looked, acted and thought just like... Michael Brown)
To indict Wilson means there is no justifiable self defense in your mind.
There is plenty of justifiable self defense in my mind. This case for example:Utah man who shot would-be carjacker will not be charged | News - Home
Then how did he prevail in court?
The end.I do not know,
The end.
Sadly for justice and the 2 people who were shot at well over 100 times, it is indeed the end.
You are not paying attention to what you quoted.The vehicle was at a complete stop and riddled by a hundred bullets, so the car and the inhabitants where almost certainly not a danger.
The shooting took place because they mistook an engine backfiring as gun fire and shot and killed 2 unarmed inhabitants of that car.
From the Judges decision.
From the bottom of page 32 to 33.
[...]
So, I reject the claim that 12 seconds after the shooting began it was patently clear from the perspective of a reasonable police officer in Brelo's position that the threat had been stopped, and therefore find that Brelo's entire use of deadly force was a constitutionally reasonable response to an objectively reasonably perceived threat of great bodily harm from the occupants of the Malibu, Russell and Williams.
Summary
The state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Michael Brelo knowingly caused the deaths of Timothy Russell and Melissa Williams because the essential element of causation was not proved for both counts. I therefore find the defendant not guilty of counts one and two as indicted.
The state did prove the lesser included offense of felonious assault on both counts by demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly caused serious physical harm to both victims. But the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is legally excused from liability for those crimes because he caused the serious physical harm to the Victims in a constitutionally reasonable effort to end an objectively reasonable perception that he and the others present were threatened by Russell and Williams with imminent serious bodily harm. I therefore also find the defendant not guilty of felonious assault, the lesser included offense on both indicted counts.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
http://documents.latimes.com/michael-brelo-ruling/
It is clear the Judge recognized the reasonable belief of the threat that the two posed.
The two criminals were not shot "100 times". Most were misses that hit the car. Wrong again.
I am sorry, but do I, a Dutch person who is non-English speaking, have to explain someone what "shot at" means?
So, not wrong then.
True, you did say "shot at". My bad. But there are many that do say, and I should not assume, that they were shot 100+ times. When in reality they were only hit a few times.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?