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

[IndyDave1776]

When did I invoke mob rule?

Anyways mine sounds better. Yours is a little awkward. Doesn't really roll off the tongue.

When will Kirk teach us about Bastille day?
One wonders.

Are you looking for its symbolic significance to the French Revolution or the fact of the matter which is that the storming of the Bastille released not legions of political prisoners, but five (5!) common criminals?

Onward to the immediate concern:

Cuyahoga County Judge John O’Donnell ruled that Brelo was justified in thinking that the car’s two occupants still posed a threat, since he thought they had been firing a weapon and it was reasonable to believe they were still alive.

Am I reading correctly that according to the judge, suspects still being alive constitutes acceptable reason to kill them?

Even though prosecutors established that Brelo jumped on the hood of the car and fired lethal shots at the Russel and Williams, the judge ruled they had not proved that it was Brelo’s shots that caused the death.

Should I understand this to mean that in any crime in which two or more people participate, no one can be punished unless it is proven who fired the first fatal shot?

However, the judge found that the defense proved “he was 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 were threatened….with imminent serious bodily harm.”

How can any such thing be established when the two suspects were stationary enough for the officer to stand on top of the damned car while pumping lead into them? After all, running over the officers was the only available threat. I fail to understand how this phantom gun can honestly be considered relevant when it has never been proven to have existed. I did not realize that contributing to scary imaginations on the part of an officer is a lethal force offense.

Essentially, the officer did it, but he had a good enough reason since he thought he was at serious risk of being shot.

Once again, how is the officer's imagination a justification?

I would point out that every case like this makes it more difficult for officers who stand accused before the mob after doing something perfectly reasonable when there is a history of cases with judgments which make Roy Bean look like an honest jurist.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

When will Kirk teach us about Bastille day?

Anytime the INGOtarians want to be taught.

 

[Fargo]

Looks like the state is trying to appeal:

Prosecutor asks court to correct judge's errors on Cleveland officer verdict

Doesn't make a bit of difference as the result cannot be overturned, but I will be curious to see what the appellate courts think of the ruling.