Police shoot unarmed suspects 137 times after pursuit in East Cleveland; 2 dead

[Fargo]

Ohhh, there's plenty for the prosecution there, as well as a t-ball contempt for the court and Court of Appeals to uphold.

If opposing counsel has done has his witnessed research and run across D-ric's above post, I wouldn't even call it a T-ball contempt...

 

[D-Ric902]

Ohhh, there's plenty for the prosecution there, as well as a t-ball contempt for the court and Court of Appeals to uphold.

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier for the prosecutor to protect my identity and get the testimony he needs. Then locking me up for contempt and trying to make a case that I know something that I won't admit to.

It seems that playing hard ball just results in hard ball being played unnecessarily

 

[ModernGunner]

...I don't care if they take the 5th, it's their ryeat. But, their reasons for doing it lie in obstruction...

Well, wouldn't the 'reason' for ANYONE taking the 5th, then, "lie in obstruction"?

 

[Fargo]

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier for the prosecutor to protect my identity and get the testimony he needs. Then locking me up for contempt and trying to make a case that I know something that I won't admit to.

No, as a generally rule the confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment almost always makes the identity of the witness fair game.

People don't get to get other people locked up without putting their name on in.

 

[Fargo]

Well, wouldn't the 'reason' for ANYONE taking the 5th, then, "lie in obstruction"?

Weeelllllllll, generally the public expects criminals to obstruct the legal process and the police to aid it along.

They don't much like it when the police start doing the things they expect the criminals to do.

 

[D-Ric902]

No, as a generally rule the confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment almost always makes the identity of the witness fair game.

People don't get to get other people locked up without putting their name on in.

Interesting how many people "didn't see nothing" when questioned

it seems to me that the only one trying to "lock people up" in this scenario is the prosecutor, not the witness.
the prosecutor is requiring me to "put my name on" his prosecution. Endangering me and mine for his conviction.
Before this gets to be a far reaching hypothetical, I have no dog in this fight and is didn't see nothing.

 

[Fargo]

Interesting how many people "didn't see nothing" when questioned

it seems to me that the only one trying to "lock people up" in this scenario is the prosecutor, not the witness.
the prosecutor is requiring me to "put my name on" his prosecution. Endangering me and mine for his conviction.
Before this gets to be a far reaching hypothetical, I have no dog in this fight and is didn't see nothing.

Your disdain for taking part in the guilty being convicted, and more importantly the guilty being acquitted, is kinda of disgusting to me.

Nevermind, that you've already posted your willingness to perjure yourself...

I don't see much point in continuing this conversation.

Have a good evening.

 

[D-Ric902]

Good evening

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, wouldn't the 'reason' for ANYONE taking the 5th, then, "lie in obstruction"?

Fargo said it well. But, most people taking the 5th are doing so to avoid getting themselves in trouble and incriminating themselves. If the cops were justified in their behaviour (which we are already assured they weren't, in the whole, as they were reprimanded by the PD) then what are they afraid of? Suddenly they were all struck blind and did not see their fellow officer jump on the hood of the shooting victims car and empty his service weapon numerous times? They all want immunity? Why, if they did nothing wrong? (And, as I stated upthread, no-one in this case should have been offered immunity for their testimony). This is not how I, and most of the public, expect police to behave in a court of law.

 

[D-Ric902]

I have little interest in conviction of the guilty if it endangers me and mine.

why would a prosecutor not want to consider my concerns and protect my identity to get the testimony he needs to convict the guilty.
Isn't that the whole basis for the witness protection plan.
I have seen protected witnesses (behind screens, closed grand jury testimony, etc) to convict the "guilty" without endangering witnesses.

To to get back to the case here;
If the prosecutor wants testimony from an officer who doesn't want the "stigma" of a snitch, or a "target on his back" (not saying this is true in this particular case) should the focus be on justice? Not flexing the prosecutorial muscle and compelling testimony?

I didn't intend to disgust anyone. I'm not upset at all.
this is part of the adult conversation without emotion that our legal system should be based on.

 

[phylodog]

Fargo said it well. But, most people taking the 5th are doing so to avoid getting themselves in trouble and incriminating themselves. If the cops were justified in their behaviour (which we are already assured they weren't, in the whole, as they were reprimanded by the PD) then what are they afraid of? Suddenly they were all struck blind and did not see their fellow officer jump on the hood of the shooting victims car and empty his service weapon numerous times? They all want immunity? Why, if they did nothing wrong? (And, as I stated upthread, no-one in this case should have been offered immunity for their testimony). This is not how I, and most of the public, expect police to behave in a court of law.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for the prosecutor to offer immunity to some and not to others. As I said, Brelo went way, and I mean way, above and beyond what could possibly be considered reasonable behavior in this case. The other officers did not (in my opinion). Police officers should be afforded the reasonable expectation that the information they receive from fellow officers is reliable. There were 137 rounds fired by 13 different officers in this case and Brelo fired 49 of them. That leaves an average of 7.3 rounds fired by each of the other officers, a far cry from what Brelo did. None of the other officers jumped on the hood of that car and fired through the windshield and all of them were fed information that the occupants of that car were shooting at officers (that information turned out to be false but I'll revert back to my earlier statement). The actions of those officers must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer placed in the same situation and afforded the same information those officers had at the time.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think any of the other officers who were present at the shooting would be convicted of a crime. I'm pretty damned sure that when they spoke to their attorneys their attorneys told them to shut up. Given the political climate in this country currently there is no way in God's green earth I would open my mouth and provide any testimony that a prosecuting attorney could try to use to indict me had I fired a round that night. No way. It has ansolutely zero to do with a thin blue line, it has everything to do with not being a pawn in the political bull**** which has been fueled by the media and the Federal Government all the way up to the white house.

The fact that the prosecutor offered immunity to some but not others leaves the door open for further indictments. Only an idiot would be willing to open their mouth and dig their own grave. Complete incompetence on the part of the prosecutor if he hoped to gain any level of cooperation whatsoever.

 

[D-Ric902]

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for the prosecutor to offer immunity to some and not to others. As I said, Brelo went way, and I mean way, above and beyond what could possibly be considered reasonable behavior in this case. The other officers did not (in my opinion). Police officers should be afforded the reasonable expectation that the information they receive from fellow officers is reliable. There were 137 rounds fired by 13 different officers in this case and Brelo fired 49 of them. That leaves an average of 7.3 rounds fired by each of the other officers, a far cry from what Brelo did. None of the other officers jumped on the hood of that car and fired through the windshield and all of them were fed information that the occupants of that car were shooting at officers (that information turned out to be false but I'll revert back to my earlier statement). The actions of those officers must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer placed in the same situation and afforded the same information those officers had at the time.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think any of the other officers who were present at the shooting would be convicted of a crime. I'm pretty damned sure that when they spoke to their attorneys their attorneys told them to shut up. Given the political climate in this country currently there is no way in God's green earth I would open my mouth and provide any testimony that a prosecuting attorney could try to use to indict me had I fired a round that night. No way. It has ansolutely zero to do with a thin blue line, it has everything to do with not being a pawn in the political bull**** which has been fueled by the media and the Federal Government all the way up to the white house.

The fact that the prosecutor offered immunity to some but not others leaves the door open for further indictments. Only an idiot would be willing to open their mouth and dig their own grave. Complete incompetence on the part of the prosecutor if he hoped to gain any level of cooperation whatsoever.

witness cooperation should be more of a focus than prosecutorial hardball in compelling testimony.

honey and vinegar

 

[phylodog]

witness cooperation should be more of a focus than prosecutorial hardball in compelling testimony.

I have no problem calling them as I see them and that includes police officers acting outside of their authority and oath. I don't believe the other officers bear any criminal culpability in what happened that night; based on the information they had at the time I don't see their actions as unreasonable. The prosecutor should be able to see the same and therefore should have no problems offering immunity for their testimony. Apparently he wants to keep his options open and is shooting himself in the foot by doing so. He has no one to blame but himself but he's aware that if he starts throwing handfulls of **** at the officers there will be no shortage of people willing to see things his way. The police are the real villains in this country and the root of all evil after all.

 

[MAJB Retired]

What a freaking waste of ammo

More time on the range, "one shot one kill"!

 

[D-Ric902]

I have no problem calling them as I see them and that includes police officers acting outside of their authority and oath. I don't believe the other officers bear any criminal culpability in what happened that night; based on the information they had at the time I don't see their actions as unreasonable. The prosecutor should be able to see the same and therefore should have no problems offering immunity for their testimony. Apparently he wants to keep his options open and is shooting himself in the foot by doing so. He has no one to blame but himself but he's aware that if he starts throwing handfulls of **** at the officers there will be no shortage of people willing to see things his way. The police are the real villains in this country and the root of all evil after all.

political aspirations?

wouldn't be the first prosecutor to ride his conviction rate or a high publicity case to higher office

 

[ModernGunner]

Weeelllllllll, generally the public expects criminals to obstruct the legal process and the police to aid it along.

They don't much like it when the police start doing the things they expect the criminals to do.

Well, WHICH is it?

"Cops are just the same as civilians and must be treated and act the same as civilians"? OR...

"Cops are different than civilians and must be treated and act different than civilians"?

Sorry, the cop-bashers don't get to have it both ways.

 

[phylodog]

political aspirations?

wouldn't be the first prosecutor to ride his conviction rate or a high publicity case to higher office

I put nothing past lawyers (present company excluded of course). Those with political aspirations would think little of tossing a couple of cops under a bus. Frank Straub being a shining example of this type of heathen.

 

[Fargo]

Well, WHICH is it?

"Cops are just the same as civilians and must be treated and act the same as civilians"? OR...

"Cops are different than civilians and must be treated and act different than civilians"?

Sorry, the cop-bashers don't get to have it both ways.

Why would you gives a **** about what the cop bashers think? I was referring to the general public.

 

[Fargo]

I put nothing past lawyers (present company excluded of course). Those with political aspirations would think little of tossing a couple of cops under a bus. Frank Straub being a shining example of this type of heathen.

That ******* is a lawyer?

 

[phylodog]

That ******* is a lawyer?

I don't believe so but I'm confident he would tell you otherwise. I was putting him into the "those with political aspirations" category.