Skip to main content

Multiple police kill two unarmed people in a car. 

One cop who was standing on the hood of the car shooting into the car was charged with a homicide.

Local police with local investigators helped the local DA's write up a statement the local judge read when the cop was found not guilty of homicide.

The timing of the various shots was down to thousands of a second (.792 I think it was)

A lot of BS in this investigation.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

 

 

"Unarmed"  Seriously?

 

JT, I watched the judge read his verdict this morning around 9am on CNN.  He specifically referred to the car in the manner in which it was being driven as a "deadly weapon."

 

And yes, I can get of a shot every .792 of a second till my magazine runs dry.  Especially if someone is trying to run over me.

 

The man was standing on the hood of the weapon car. If the ones in the car would have had a bottle of water, would it have been called a possible chance of drowning police. After all one bottle full of water could drown someone. The 130 shots were probably to be sure no cops were drowned.

--------------------

Multiple police kill two unarmed people in a car. 

FALSE

-------------------

Best, are you telling me that 10 police did not kill 2 people in a blue chevy?

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

The man was standing on the hood of the weapon car. If the ones in the car would have had a bottle of water, would it have been called a possible chance of drowning police. After all one bottle full of water could drown someone. The 130 shots were probably to be sure no cops were drowned.

--------------------

Multiple police kill two unarmed people in a car. 

FALSE

-------------------

Best, are you telling me that 10 police did not kill 2 people in a blue chevy?

_______

This quote is from CNN so I can't say whether it's accurate or not.

"Brelo and 12 other officers fired more than 100 times in eight seconds at the car, after which, according to prosecutors, the pair could no longer be a threat."

 

 

Hurry and sign up, the rioting has started. Looks like riot business as usual, damaging businesses and attacking innocent people. I know why black lives matter to them, they get to loot and run wild.

 

Excerpts:

Police posted on Twitter shortly before 9:30 p.m. Saturday that officers had made multiple arrests. The department also posted that three people had been arrested on aggravated rioting and other charges after a restaurant patron in a downtown dining area was injured when an object was thrown through a window.

 

Cleveland police also posted on Twitter that officers are responding to reports that members of a large crowd have been using pepper spray on random citizens.

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

 

All of a sudden this is being called a 'pellet gun' instead of an airsoft gun with the tip taken off so it would look like a real gun?

 

About 200 people have pulled up stakes after gathering Saturday afternoon at a recreation center Tamir Rice was killed six months ago.

Authorities are wrapping up an investigation into the shooting of the boy, who was carrying a pellet gun.

http://news.yahoo.com/clevelan...fatal-030220618.html

 

Originally Posted by uandurine:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

The man was standing on the hood of the weapon car. If the ones in the car would have had a bottle of water, would it have been called a possible chance of drowning police. After all one bottle full of water could drown someone. The 130 shots were probably to be sure no cops were drowned.

--------------------

Multiple police kill two unarmed people in a car. 

FALSE

-------------------

Best, are you telling me that 10 police did not kill 2 people in a blue chevy?

_______

This quote is from CNN so I can't say whether it's accurate or not.

"Brelo and 12 other officers fired more than 100 times in eight seconds at the car, after which, according to prosecutors, the pair could no longer be a threat."

 

+++

 

The quote is reasonably accurate made by a guest commentator.

 

It was not made by the judge when rendering his verdict.

 

Not saying it wasn't made by prosecutors as well.

Last edited by budsfarm
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

The man was standing on the hood of the weapon car. If the ones in the car would have had a bottle of water, would it have been called a possible chance of drowning police. After all one bottle full of water could drown someone. The 130 shots were probably to be sure no cops were drowned.

 

+++

 

Good grief, JT.  With logic like that, no wonder the defense requested a bench trial rather than have such reasoning left to jurors.

 

BTW, define "local judge."

 

Thanks.

12 other officers and he was the only one charged. He's the only one pictured too. Has anyone seen the others that were involved? Does anyone know that the call was that the two were firing out of the window of their car because a bystander heard it backfire and called the police and reported it as shots fired? They ran for 23 minutes. Why did they run? Anyone seen any of the story about what happened? Why they ran and were they really high on drugs? Running in a car for 23 minutes and 20 miles and jt doesn't think they were a danger to anyone?? Jt is quick to call BS on the investigation. How about it jt, care to give us all the details and explain why you say BS and want us to think something was covered up? Or are you doing your usual thing, just jumping to the conclusion you want to jump to?

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

 

-------------------

Best, are you telling me that 10 police did not kill 2 people in a blue chevy?

 

+++

 

JT, what I am telling you is that the judge himself said no medical examiner / forensic expert could provide sufficient evidence as to who fired the fatal shot[s].

 

And that, my friend, is referred to in the criminal justice system as  "reasonable doubt."

 

Last edited by budsfarm

JT, I watched the judge read his verdict this morning around 9am on CNN.  He specifically referred to the car in the manner in which it was being driven as a "deadly weapon."

------------------

The bottle of water comment was because of the car being called a deadly weapon. Is every car a deadly weapon? Does everyone driving a potential deadly weapon get shot? The judge was trying to make his decision sound good.

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Best, are you telling me that 10 police did not kill 2 people in a blue chevy?

 

---------------------

That's exactly what I'm 'telling' you.

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

Who killed them? The judge thought the bullets fired by the police done it.

 ==============

Maybe the judge thought the bullets fired by the police 'done' it, but all or multiple of them didn't kill them. So you're  telling me they should have tried them all? Tell me jt, why did they pick this one officer?Do you have any information at all about the case, or are you just going by what's in the headlines?

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

JT, I watched the judge read his verdict this morning around 9am on CNN.  He specifically referred to the car in the manner in which it was being driven as a "deadly weapon."

------------------

The bottle of water comment was because of the car being called a deadly weapon. Is every car a deadly weapon? Does everyone driving a potential deadly weapon get shot? The judge was trying to make his decision sound good.

 

+++

 

Is every gun a potential deadly weapon?  Every one driving a "potential" deadly weapon does not operate the potential deadly weapon in a deadly fashion.  So the answer is No,  Just those who operate guns and vehicles in a deadly fashion are subject to the use of deadly force to counter their stupidity.

You didn't see the judge render his verdict, did you?  It was an hour long.  Did you fall asleep? 

 

Maybe the judge thought the bullets fired by the police 'done' it, but all or multiple of them didn't kill them. So you're  telling me they should have tried them all? Tell me jt, why did they pick this one officer?Do you have any information at all about the case, or are you just going by what's in the headlines?

--------------

He is the one that stood on the hood of the car and fired downward through the windshield. The investigation showed that each victim had multiple wounds on a downward angle, several of which could have been fatal. there was other wounds that could have been fatal.

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

Bud, I watched the judge read his decision. As he read, I thought he was trying to justify police killing unarmed people. I also watched Brelo, or whatever his name was, he looked completely bored by the entire process. 

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Maybe the judge thought the bullets fired by the police 'done' it, but all or multiple of them didn't kill them. So you're  telling me they should have tried them all? Tell me jt, why did they pick this one officer?Do you have any information at all about the case, or are you just going by what's in the headlines?

--------------

He is the one that stood on the hood of the car and fired downward through the windshield. The investigation showed that each victim had multiple wounds on a downward angle, several of which could have been fatal. there was other wounds that could have been fatal.

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

Bud, I watched the judge read his decision. As he read, I thought he was trying to justify police killing unarmed people. I also watched Brelo, or whatever his name was, he looked completely bored by the entire process. 

 

+++

 

So when the judge was going over in minute detail the rounds that struck the victim as demonstrated on the mannequins, your takeaway was he was justifying the killing of ... as you say ...  unarmed people?  When the judge said he and the defendant took similar oaths and if the defendant didn't uphold his, he was about to feel the full weight of the judge's oath?

 

Or did it upset you when the judge said that he wasn't going to make a sacrificial lamb out of the defendant because of what had happened in other cities.  [see link below]

 

Given the emotions of the defendant, I know you did not watch the reading of the verdict to its conclusion.

 

Here's some remedial reading for you for the times when you nodded off.

 

Brelo, his lips quivering, appeared near tears, as the judge delivered the verdict. He then embraced his attorneys and left the courtroom.

 

Cleveland cop acquitted of deaths in 137-shot barrage

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...ot-barrage/27837075/

 

Last edited by budsfarm
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Maybe the judge thought the bullets fired by the police 'done' it, but all or multiple of them didn't kill them. So you're  telling me they should have tried them all? Tell me jt, why did they pick this one officer?Do you have any information at all about the case, or are you just going by what's in the headlines?

--------------

He is the one that stood on the hood of the car and fired downward through the windshield. The investigation showed that each victim had multiple wounds on a downward angle, several of which could have been fatal. there was other wounds that could have been fatal.

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

Bud, I watched the judge read his decision. As he read, I thought he was trying to justify police killing unarmed people. I also watched Brelo, or whatever his name was, he looked completely bored by the entire process. 

 

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

Doesn't answer the questions at all. You said multiple officers killed them. You didn't even know how many officers were involved. So, which ones killed them, and why did they only try this one officer, why did they run in the first place, and do you think running from the cops for 20 miles endangered others? I didn't see any pictures of the officer looking 'bored'. Why do you post such things as that? Why do you want to act like this officer just set out to murder two people?

 

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Maybe the judge thought the bullets fired by the police 'done' it, but all or multiple of them didn't kill them. So you're  telling me they should have tried them all? Tell me jt, why did they pick this one officer?Do you have any information at all about the case, or are you just going by what's in the headlines?

--------------

He is the one that stood on the hood of the car and fired downward through the windshield. The investigation showed that each victim had multiple wounds on a downward angle, several of which could have been fatal. there was other wounds that could have been fatal.

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

Bud, I watched the judge read his decision. As he read, I thought he was trying to justify police killing unarmed people. I also watched Brelo, or whatever his name was, he looked completely bored by the entire process. 

 

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

Doesn't answer the questions at all. You said multiple officers killed them. You didn't even know how many officers were involved. So, which ones killed them, and why did they only try this one officer, why did they run in the first place, and do you think running from the cops for 20 miles endangered others? I didn't see any pictures of the officer looking 'bored'. Why do you post such things as that? Why do you want to act like this officer just set out to murder two people?

 

+++

Give 'em a fair trial and hang 'em.  Had this been a jury trial, JT's  prejudice would've been trashed in voir dire and for the sake of justice I would hope it would not count as a "strike" for either side.

 

I'm still waiting for his definition of "local judge."  Good luck on getting answers to your questions, Best.

 

Cue theme for "Jeopardy."

 

Last edited by budsfarm

 

 

 

About the number of rounds fired ... every one is entitled to their opinion.  We all have one.

 

But let me put this out there.

 

Whether you’re a vet or LEO or even spoken to one who has been in either a "fire fight" or "shoot out," most of them will tell you these things:

 

During the event, they don’t know how many rounds they fired.  But if there is a lull in the action, they reloaded.  If that meant dumping a mag with fewer rounds than a full one, that's what we do.  That’s what they are trained to do.  Period.

 

They dam sure don’t know how many their overwatch or partner fired.  The only estimation can be made is when they yelled "RELOADING!"

 

That their actions were independent.  This isn’t a round robin event where we take turns shooting.  Hell, they may not even be aware their partner/overwatch is shooting.  They shot until they thought the threat was neutralized or there was a command to cease.  Then, and only then, can we begin to estimate rounds fired.

 

How many is too many?  How many is too few?

 

BS argument.

 

Last edited by budsfarm

I'm still waiting for his definition of "local judge."  

----

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John O'/donnell was the judge. Cleveland is the county seat of Cuyahoga County.

You don't think that 130 shots in 9 seconds is not excessive? Brelo fired, was it 43 or 47?

--------------------

Here's some remedial reading for you for the times when you nodded off.

 

Bud, it may be hard for you to comprehend, but I did not "nod off". I watched the judge give his reasons for letting him off. I saw Brelo looking bored with the whole process and when the judge said he was guilty of the lessor charges, cried like a baby.

If you and Best start being cops, I hope that I never run afoul of you.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I'm still waiting for his definition of "local judge."  

----

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John O'/donnell was the judge. Cleveland is the county seat of Cuyahoga County.

You don't think that 130 shots in 9 seconds is not excessive? Brelo fired, was it 43 or 47?

--------------------

Here's some remedial reading for you for the times when you nodded off.

 

Bud, it may be hard for you to comprehend, but I did not "nod off". I watched the judge give his reasons for letting him off. I saw Brelo looking bored with the whole process and when the judge said he was guilty of the lessor charges, cried like a baby.

If you and Best start being cops, I hope that I never run afoul of you.

 

+++

 

What lesser charges was he guilty of, JT?

 

[Best, this is going to be a good one.]

 

BTW, JT, I'm retired LEO as everyone knows.

 

Leaving ditch digging to you,

 

Bud

 

Last edited by budsfarm
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I'm still waiting for his definition of "local judge."  

----

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John O'/donnell was the judge. Cleveland is the county seat of Cuyahoga County.

 

+++

 

Ooooh, This "local" Democrat from Miami [Miami County], Ohio.

 

Judge John P. O’Donnell, decider of Cleveland police verdict, has reputation as careful jurist

 

http://www.ohio.com/news/break...eful-jurist-1.594288

 

Hell's bells, JT.  Why didn't you just say so?

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

  

----

 

You don't think that 130 shots in 9 seconds is not excessive? Brelo fired, was it 43 or 47?

--------------------

 

+++

 

Been answered,  Keep up.

 

How many rounds did he fire?

 

Misses don't count, JT.

 

How many times did his rounds connect?  Your local judge doesn't even know.

 

Last edited by budsfarm

Ooooh, This "local" Democrat from Miami [Miami County], Ohio.

 

Judge John P. O’Donnell, decider of Cleveland police verdict, has reputation as careful jurist

 

http://www.ohio.com/news/break...eful-jurist-1.594288

 

Hell's bells, JT.  Why didn't you just say so?

------------------------

Bud, did your source say that the judge went to school at Miami college?

Did it say that he lives in Lakewood? That is in Cuyhoga county and is next to Cleveland.

"Hell's bells, JT. Why didn't you just say so?  What does that mean?

BTW, I bet I can dig ditches better than you are presenting evidence.

Last edited by jtdavis

What lesser charges was he guilty of, JT?

 

[Best, this is going to be a good one.]

--------------------------

You got me on that one. I had to listen to the judge twice more to catch it. The judge said the state did prove "felonious assault", and kept talking and finally said that was OK because he was a policeman and it was in the line of duty. Brelo wasn't guilty of nothing.

Well, there you have it then. He was guilty of nothing. I have no intention of 'starting to be a cop'. I hope you never get on a cop's jury. You will vote to hang him for writing someone a speeding ticket. No matter the evidence, no matter the circumstances, no matter the criminal history of the person or what the criminal is doing at the time, you think he or she shouldn't be arrested and the cop will always be guilty in your eyes. You want us to believe that every cop out there is just waiting on his or her turn to murder a black person. Yes, just waiting to ruin their lives and careers, but it's all worth it because they get to kill a black person. Something happens in these cases. That's what has to be looked at, how they escalate the way they do. IF black are so afraid of cops, or anyone of any ethic background for that matter is afraid, why do they drive around in a POS car smoking/doing dope, then run from the cops. Black lives matter? How about the lives put in danger when someone is running from the cops for 20 miles?


How about white lives by the hand of black cops jt? Or even white lives by white cops? Cops that don't lose their jobs, or go on trial, or get threatened, or have rioting and looting, and no innocent people attacked because they shot someone? I don't think I have EVER seen one mention of those cases from you or any of the other cop haters here. NOT a thread, not a mention.

One black life that matters now is the 12 year old. Twelve years old and allowed to have a gun that looked a bit too real to begin with, and after he or someone else altered it by taking off the tip that showed it was not real, no one could tell the difference. Then he is allowed to take that gun out, go unsupervised to a park where he walks around flashing the gun, and most likely getting a kick out of people thinking it's a real gun and he's a tough guy. Then when the **** happens and he's killed, well we know the story now. Momma, the one that either didn't know or care what her 12 year old was doing with his 'toy' gun, is now the concerned and caring parent. Media is calling the gun a 'pellet' gun or a TOY, it's been reported it was an airsoft gun. Whatever the case, it looked real. He wouldn't have taken it out and flashed it around if it looked like a toy or a pellet gun. He wanted to look like a tough guy. He looked a lot older but he was 12. 

I'm sure he intended for people to think he had a gun and he thought it would be funny and cool. He was 12. He thought he'd look like a tough guy, and when the cops came, well uh oh, but he thought it would be OK, he'd just pull the gun and they'd see it wasn't for real. He was 12. He hadn't had anyone tell him not to do anything like that. No one had told him he could get shot and killed for waving that gun around. He was 12. Where was his momma and daddy when he was 12 and went out with that gun?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...mi-automatic-pistol/

The boy was playing with the gun on the playground at Cudell Recreation Center, pulling it from his pants and pointing it at people, a man told a 911 dispatcher. The toy’s orange safety tip had apparently been removed, and the caller said the boy was “scaring the s— out of everyone.” He also noted that the boy was “probably a juvenile” and that the gun was “probably fake,” but that message was reportedly never relayed to police.

 

The U.S. Justice Department has said it doesn’t keep historical data on such cases, though, similar accidents have been reported from Ohio to Florida to Texas. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 1990 that police in the United States use force some 200 times per year “in a confrontation where an imitation gun had been mistaken for a real firearm.” The issue is how law enforcement officers are supposed to determine in a split second that a realistic-looking weapon is fake — or that the person wielding it is a child.

 

“The officer had no clue he was a 12-year-old,” Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association President Jeff Follmer told WKYC-TV. “He had no clue it was a toy gun; he was kind of shocked. He was concentrating more on the hands than on the age

 

At the end of the day it is the same old story.  If the person killed had simply followed police instructions and not running, resisting arrest etc and then kept still with hands up they would be alive today.   Not realistic for a police officer to wait to be shot at before protecting themselves.   The simple truth is the slogan hands up don't shoot was followed this would stop happenin!

Well, there you have it then. He was guilty of nothing. I have no intention of 'starting to be a cop'. I hope you never get on a cop's jury. You will vote to hang him for writing someone a speeding ticket. No matter the evidence, no matter the circumstances, no matter the criminal history of the person or what the criminal is doing at the time, you think he or she shouldn't be arrested and the cop will always be guilty in your eyes. You want us to believe that every cop out there is just waiting on his or her turn to murder a black person. Yes, just waiting to ruin their lives and careers, but it's all worth it because they get to kill a black person.

------------------------

Best, you are getting good at fiction writing.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Well, there you have it then. He was guilty of nothing. I have no intention of 'starting to be a cop'. I hope you never get on a cop's jury. You will vote to hang him for writing someone a speeding ticket. No matter the evidence, no matter the circumstances, no matter the criminal history of the person or what the criminal is doing at the time, you think he or she shouldn't be arrested and the cop will always be guilty in your eyes. You want us to believe that every cop out there is just waiting on his or her turn to murder a black person. Yes, just waiting to ruin their lives and careers, but it's all worth it because they get to kill a black person.

------------------------

Best, you are getting good at fiction writing.

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

Where's the 'fiction writing'?

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Yes, just obey the orders of the LEO and everyone gets out alive. If, one mus take drugs, do it at home and don't drive crazy endangering others, or getting the attention of the police.

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

Know where your 12 year old kids are and what they're doing.  Don't let them go outside flashing a realistic looking 'toy' gun to upset and scare people.

Last edited by Bestworking

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×