Ohio patrolman acquitted in 2 deaths amid 137-shot barrage

[NeverSure]

I didn't say the magazine was full, LOL.

You also never said the suspects were unarmed but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.

This might have had something to do with the Judge's decision:

From the OP:

"... O'Donnell determined his actions were justified following the chase, which included reports of shots fired from Russell's car, because officers perceived a threat."

The officer(s) had two reasons to believe the suspects were armed. The first is that shots were fired from the car (they could have thrown a gun out during the chase) and the second is the deadly weapon called a car. The potentially deadly driving couldn't be allowed to continue.

Even though it happened a while ago the DOJ is still investigating and the OP doesn't say why the suspects were still in the car.

After a wild, protracted and very high speed chase with shots fired by the perps it's impossible to say why the officers believed it necessary to neutralize the perps. Something as straightforward as refusing to put hands up and get out of the car, thereby causing the car to continue to be a deadly weapon, would be enough after that chase. So would reasonable suspension of a gun.

If shots had been fired by the perps and they weren't cooperating with hands up and out of the car, that would be enough without hesitation. So would the threat of going back to a high speed chase if they wouldn't surrender and obey orders.

[phantomfiddler]

I like that ! "The deaths of black suspects by white officers" ! Could that have anything to do with the fact that most of the crimes are being committed by black perpetrators, coupled with the fact that most of the people looking for a real job are white ?

[GaryB1263]

They may have been acquitted, but this is still going to cost the taxpayers of Cleveland $$$ Millions in the civil trials.

I'd be curious to find out if Ohio state law shields police from civil lawsuits, or if their employment agreement indemnifies them. If not, they could be personally bankrupted, too.

The only way to sue a copper in civil court is to prove that the cop violated their civil rights. I am from Ohio but I believe this is Federal Law and not a state law.

[dave_boo]

Apologies for disrupting the race baiter's train but..."Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police, he said. Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/#ixzz3b5BScU00

Edited May 24, 2015 by dave_boo

[kingalfred]

The "old USofA still in days of the wild west" law officers can shoot first,answer questions later and be cleared.

[GaryB1263]

The "old USofA still in days of the wild west" law officers can shoot first,answer questions later and be cleared.

That is not true.

[ABCer]

Not being an expert in firearms allow me to focus on the Judge.

" Thirteen officers fired at the car with Russell and Malissa Williams inside after a 22-mile (35-kilometer) chase that involved 62 marked and unmarked cars and reached 100 mph (160 kilometers)."

"... 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."

If the above facts were known to the Judge - what was the case about?

[chuckd]

The "old USofA still in days of the wild west" law officers can shoot first,answer questions later and be cleared.

Perhaps you could explain that ignorant remark to this officer's next of kin.

New Orleans Cop Shot Dead in Cruiser

May 24, 2015, 5:38 PM ET

http://abcnews.go.com/US/orleans-cop-shot-dead-cruiser/story?id=31276815

[Anthony5]

The "old USofA still in days of the wild west" law officers can shoot first,answer questions later and be cleared.

Perhaps you could explain that ignorant remark to this officer's next of kin.

New Orleans Cop Shot Dead in Cruiser

May 24, 2015, 5:38 PM ET

http://abcnews.go.com/US/orleans-cop-shot-dead-cruiser/story?id=31276815

So because an officer was killed by surprise, officers should be allowed to shoot first then ask question.

In that line, because we are legally robbed by banks, we should be allowed to legally rob banks.

[Shot]

The "old USofA still in days of the wild west" law officers can shoot first,answer questions later and be cleared.

Did you read the OP?

[Scott]

Please don't bother to respond to troll posts.

[jpinx]

I didn't say the magazine was full, LOL.

You also never said the suspects were unarmed but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.

This might have had something to do with the Judge's decision:

From the OP:

"... O'Donnell determined his actions were justified following the chase, which included reports of shots fired from Russell's car, because officers perceived a threat."

The officer(s) had two reasons to believe the suspects were armed. The first is that shots were fired from the car (they could have thrown a gun out during the chase) and the second is the deadly weapon called a car. The potentially deadly driving couldn't be allowed to continue.

Even though it happened a while ago the DOJ is still investigating and the OP doesn't say why the suspects were still in the car.

After a wild, protracted and very high speed chase with shots fired by the perps it's impossible to say why the officers believed it necessary to neutralize the perps. Something as straightforward as refusing to put hands up and get out of the car, thereby causing the car to continue to be a deadly weapon, would be enough after that chase. So would reasonable suspension of a gun.

If shots had been fired by the perps and they weren't cooperating with hands up and out of the car, that would be enough without hesitation. So would the threat of going back to a high speed chase if they wouldn't surrender and obey orders.

I have not seen any reputable evidence that shots were fired from the car.

[Anthony5]

I didn't say the magazine was full, LOL.

You also never said the suspects were unarmed but let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.

This might have had something to do with the Judge's decision:

From the OP:

"... O'Donnell determined his actions were justified following the chase, which included reports of shots fired from Russell's car, because officers perceived a threat."

The officer(s) had two reasons to believe the suspects were armed. The first is that shots were fired from the car (they could have thrown a gun out during the chase) and the second is the deadly weapon called a car. The potentially deadly driving couldn't be allowed to continue.

Even though it happened a while ago the DOJ is still investigating and the OP doesn't say why the suspects were still in the car.

After a wild, protracted and very high speed chase with shots fired by the perps it's impossible to say why the officers believed it necessary to neutralize the perps. Something as straightforward as refusing to put hands up and get out of the car, thereby causing the car to continue to be a deadly weapon, would be enough after that chase. So would reasonable suspension of a gun.

If shots had been fired by the perps and they weren't cooperating with hands up and out of the car, that would be enough without hesitation. So would the threat of going back to a high speed chase if they wouldn't surrender and obey orders.

I have not seen any reputable evidence that shots were fired from the car.

But what I read in the OP is

that happened after Timothy Russell's beat-up Chevy Malibu backfired outside police headquarters on Nov. 29, 2012.

Could it be that the backfiring initially was mistaken for shots?

If the victims were indeed armed, then I'm sure that one of the 62 cars involved in the pursuit must have noticed if something was thrown out of the window.So where was the weapon?

[GaryB1263]

Not being an expert in firearms allow me to focus on the Judge.

" Thirteen officers fired at the car with Russell and Malissa Williams inside after a 22-mile (35-kilometer) chase that involved 62 marked and unmarked cars and reached 100 mph (160 kilometers)."

"... 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."

If the above facts were known to the Judge - what was the case about?

It's just like the federal investigation, it's just to keep peoples happy.

Edited May 25, 2015 by GaryB1263

[NeverSure]

But what I read in the OP is

that happened after Timothy Russell's beat-up Chevy Malibu backfired outside police headquarters on Nov. 29, 2012.

Could it be that the backfiring initially was mistaken for shots?

If the victims were indeed armed, then I'm sure that one of the 62 cars involved in the pursuit must have noticed if something was thrown out of the window.So where was the weapon?

I don't know. I wasn't there.

The car itself is legally a deadly weapon so the perps weren't unarmed. They had just used that deadly weapon against the general public in a protracted high speed chase. The police had the right a responsibility to see to it the car didn't start moving again.

If the perps were refusing to put hands up and get out of the car they were toast.

We don't know what happened but I'm not going to have a knee jerk reaction in favor of people with long rap sheets that include robbery. That's especially true after a long and potentially deadly high speed chase.

[jpinx]

But what I read in the OP is

that happened after Timothy Russell's beat-up Chevy Malibu backfired outside police headquarters on Nov. 29, 2012.

Could it be that the backfiring initially was mistaken for shots?

If the victims were indeed armed, then I'm sure that one of the 62 cars involved in the pursuit must have noticed if something was thrown out of the window.So where was the weapon?

I don't know. I wasn't there.

The car itself is legally a deadly weapon so the perps weren't unarmed. They had just used that deadly weapon against the general public in a protracted high speed chase. The police had the right a responsibility to see to it the car didn't start moving again.

If the perps were refusing to put hands up and get out of the car they were toast.

We don't know what happened but I'm not going to have a knee jerk reaction in favor of people with long rap sheets that include robbery. That's especially true after a long and potentially deadly high speed chase.

"reasonable" applies to doubt, but not to force?

[geriatrickid]

They may have been acquitted, but this is still going to cost the taxpayers of Cleveland $$$ Millions in the civil trials.

I'd be curious to find out if Ohio state law shields police from civil lawsuits, or if their employment agreement indemnifies them. If not, they could be personally bankrupted, too.

Police are protected. In the absence of criminal intent, the tax paying minority of the city are indirectly on the hook for the damages. (They will pay the deductible and the expected large increases in annual premium to the liability insurance policy.)

This is absolute gross negligence and incompetence. A motor vehicle's "alleged" engine backfire is interpreted as a gunshot. Excellent legal defence that worked. Professional, competent police officers do not fire 130+ bullets at people who are not firing firearms. It seems Americans live in a state of fear.

[NeverSure]

But what I read in the OP is

that happened after Timothy Russell's beat-up Chevy Malibu backfired outside police headquarters on Nov. 29, 2012.

Could it be that the backfiring initially was mistaken for shots?

If the victims were indeed armed, then I'm sure that one of the 62 cars involved in the pursuit must have noticed if something was thrown out of the window.So where was the weapon?

I don't know. I wasn't there.

The car itself is legally a deadly weapon so the perps weren't unarmed. They had just used that deadly weapon against the general public in a protracted high speed chase. The police had the right a responsibility to see to it the car didn't start moving again.

If the perps were refusing to put hands up and get out of the car they were toast.

We don't know what happened but I'm not going to have a knee jerk reaction in favor of people with long rap sheets that include robbery. That's especially true after a long and potentially deadly high speed chase.

"reasonable" applies to doubt, but not to force?

I don't know what you mean. The law says "A person may use deadly force if he has a reasonable belief that he or another person is in danger of serious bodily harm or death."

A reasonable belief is something which can be articulated to a judge in a meaningful way.

The high speed chase put the general public and the officers who were in pursuit in danger of death or serious bodily injury. If, and I say if, the perps weren't surrendering then it would be reasonable and lawful to use deadly force to assure they didn't take off again in a deadly weapon called an automobile.

The perps weren't unarmed. A vehicle has been classed under the law as a deadly weapon when used to endanger people. This is without going into the issue as to whether shots were fired from that vehicle which initially it was reported they were. The police may have had two reasonable causes to fire into the vehicle.

[Seastallion]

The men did not have firearms but their deadly weapon was the car. You have to stop if the cops pull you over. End of Story. It sounds like they were still trying to escape in the car after they crashed into a schoolyard.

So, standing on the bonnet, shooting 15 rounds down into the car....and you think the car had not stopped?

I guess Jason Statham or Duane The Rock might have been able to pull that off.....In the movies!

Edited May 27, 2015 by Seastallion

[Seastallion]

"prosecutor Tim McGinty said he respects the judge's decision and urged others to do so, as well. He said the case illustrated hard truths."

Makes me wonder how hard he tried to get a conviction.

[F430murci]

"prosecutor Tim McGinty said he respects the judge's decision and urged others to do so, as well. He said the case illustrated hard truths."

Makes me wonder how hard he tried to get a conviction.

Did you jump to that brilliant deduction based upon the statement you quoted? Don't know much about lawyers or practice of law, do ya. This ain't the movies and the Internet is, well the Internet and 95 % of it hardly a depiction of reality. Prosecutors try cases to win cases. When they lose, they move on. This was a bench trial and a prosecutor saying anything negative about a judge in front of whom he likely practices daily is not productive. Lawyers are ego maniacs and like to win.

[NeverSure]

The men did not have firearms but their deadly weapon was the car. You have to stop if the cops pull you over. End of Story. It sounds like they were still trying to escape in the car after they crashed into a schoolyard.

So, standing on the bonnet, shooting 15 rounds down into the car....and you think the car had not stopped?

I guess Jason Statham or Duane The Rock might have been able to pull that off.....In the movies!

Whether the car had stopped is irrelevant. Whether there was any chance it would start moving again is relevant. To assure that the deadly weapon called a car didn't start moving again, the perps needed to be surrendering themselves and the car. If they weren't surrendering then the police would take them out just the same as if they were holding a gun they wouldn't drop.

"prosecutor Tim McGinty said he respects the judge's decision and urged others to do so, as well. He said the case illustrated hard truths."

Makes me wonder how hard he tried to get a conviction.

The prosecutor might have brought the case just to clear the air with the public. There could have been a lot of public criticism if the case wasn't pursued to conclusion. If the prosecutor and the defense got all of the facts out before a judge and the public and the judge found no guilt then there is a trial record for anyone to study.

So yes the prosecutor might have brought a case he believed he'd lose, but he would have done his best to get all of the facts out. Airing all of the facts into the public record might also dissuade some law firm from taking the case on a percentage of winnings and filing a civil suit for monetary damages against all of the jurisdictions that participated in the event.

[PHP87]

The facts are that in the US, a Demographic that makes up less than 5% of the population is responsible for approximately 2/3rds or more of the approximate 8,500 murders committed annually with a firearm in the US

Yet many on the left, media, academia, politicians and others continue to call for more and more restrictive gun laws, including outright bans.

We already have well over 20,000 laws regarding the use and possession of firearms, but laws don't stop law-breakers.

While those people continue the intellectually lazy argument of blaming guns for crime, they ignore that it's a complex societal issue, but that doesn't fit the narrative and to even begin to suggest it would have the same people calling you a racist.

About 75% of black children are born out of wedlock and in most cases, grow up without a Father in the home.

This is a big part of the so-called "gun problem."

The US doesn't have a gun problem, it has a violence problem that less says than 5% of the population is responsible for over 50% of violent crimes in the US, but again, it can't even be mentioned without media, academia, politicians and others shouting "racism!"

Let's look further at more facts:

The Color of Crime (Second, Expanded Edition, 2005

Major Findings:

• Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.

Crime Rates

• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Interracial Crime

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

Gangs

• Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
• Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.

Incarceration

• Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139 to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39 million.
• Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than whites. Hispanics are three times more likely.

Source: http://www.colorofcrime.com/2005/10/the-color-of-crime-2005

Over the Memorial Day 3 holiday, we had 9 murders and nearly 30 shootings over the weekend brought Baltimore's monthly homicide toll to its highest point in more than 15 years.

The Memorial Day weekend was also a bloody one in Chicago, where at least 12 people were killed and 44 were wounded in gun violence from Friday night to Tuesday morning.

What we didn't have was massive media coverage, protests about how "black lives matter", rioting, "peace marches/rallies", Al Sharpton and other race hustlers crying about how young black men are being gunned down in our streets, etc..

But many politicians, along with their enablers in the media as well as in academia want more gun laws and even out right bans on guns.

The NRA, its 5 Million members and the 99.9999% of approximately 80 Million responsible gun owners continue to be targeted. No pun intended.

Then their are the evil "Assault Weapons"

Firstly, most gun critics don't know what an "Assault Weapon" actually is.

Second, it is nearly impossible to legally buy an actual "Assault Weapon", but the ignorant people continue to use this term to demonize firearms.

More facts:

Rifles, including those that are erroneously referred to as "Assault Weapons" comprised of 0.6% of firearm murders in 2011.

About 48 deaths per year.

"Nevertheless, on December 17, 2012, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, announced her intention to introduce another Federal Assault Weapons Ban in Congress.

However, Senator Feinstein's own facts do not support her agenda. The truth about assault weapons is that they are underrepresented in gun crimes.

According to Senator Feinstein, so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year. But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.

Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives."

Yet lawmakers that passed the Assault Weapons Bill (AWB) in 1994 did so based on external characteristics of a rifle since actual Assault Weapons are nearly impossible to legally obtain and own. Things like a Pistol Grip or a folding Stock were included, then defined them as "Military Style Assault Weapons"

An actual "Assault Weapon" is one that is capable of firing in fully automatic mode. Again, such a firearm is about impossible to legally obtain and to own and even when they are included in the stats, rifles make up just 0.6% of all firearm murders in the US

The AWB passed in 1994 and expired after 10 years but was not renewed. Despite that, many States created their own laws against owning a rifle based on external characteristics such as a Pistol grip and not the actually functionality of the firearm.

Source: http://www.assaultweapon.info (Quick read and very informative)

A Washington Post editorial contained the following regarding the AWB:

"No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."

While the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution continues to be undermined by many politicians on the left, the ultimate goal is a ban on firearms.

Meanwhile, the demographic that continues to ignore the numerous gun laws that already on the books.

While politicians, along with their enablers in the media and academia won't dare mention the demographic that is responsible for the great majority of firearm violence in the US

Yet who is the targeted by the people that want further restrictions on gun ownership and even outright bans?

The 99.999% of approximately 80 Million gun owners in the US that are responsible and law-abiding citizens.

The bottom line is that Law Enforcement in America has been demonized and Officers can't do their jobs nowadays without being sued and/or having charges filed against them for trying to prevent crimes and/or arrest criminals.

And if a young black man is shot by a white officer, the media goes into a frenzy, but when a young black man kills a white officer, we get silence.

Edited May 27, 2015 by PHP87

[casualbiker]

By far most police that I know about carry a Glock model 17 in .40 S&W caliber and it holds 17 rounds. The article actually says: "Brelo — who fired a total of 49 shots, including 15 down through the windshield."

So he fired less than the capacity of one magazine through the windshield.

Most police who you may "know about" that do carry firearms, are quite conversant in the correct model/caliber/mag capacity.

You may have your Glockenspiel out of whack.

Also fyi, some officers may not always carry a full ammunition load in the magazines.

" Also fyi, some officers may not always carry a full ammunition load in the magazines."

Why?