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

[ray d]

If a group of THE PEOPLE shot 2bad cops 137 times I think they would be spending the rest of there lives in a cage. I wonder how long these cops will spend in a cage?

 

[rambone]

Police ignored order to terminate chase



Cleveland police ordered to terminate chase 5 minutes before deadly shooting, radio recordings reveal

About 20 minutes into the chase, a man’s voice states, “No cars have permission to pursue,” followed by a woman’s voice, broadcasting the order, “Fifth district cars, terminate the pursuit.”

One female officer said she and “33” were going to find out what was going on, and another woman reminded them the chase was terminated for 5th District officers. The female officer responds, “Yeah, but this is our patch here, so that’s why we are going see what’s going on.”

Minutes later, on an access road leading to Heritage Middle School in the East side suburb, 13 police officers fired 137 rounds at the couple.

 

[phylodog]

When is it justifiable to make swiss cheese out of unarmed passengers? I missed that factoid in your earlier post.

As I stated earlier the only question to be answered is whether deadly force is reasonable in a given situation. The means matters not, nor does the number of rounds fired. If deadly force is justified it doesn't matter if a police officer kicks someone into a vat of acid which erases every trace of their existence.

This does not mean that once deadly force is appropriate it will remain appropriate. A persons actions could reasonably get them killed one second and not the next and LE is expected to constantly assess and adjust accordingly. An example would be a suspect pointing a firearms at another person but drops it when ordered to.

If you want to have a problem with deadly force not being justified or reasonable in this case be my guest. I wasn't there, I don't know what happened and maybe you'd be right. Your attempts at inciting outrage over the number of rounds fired is pointless, just as it would be if someone broke into your home armed with a sweat sock, told you they were there to kill you and you shot them to the ground with 30 rounds from an AR15.

 

[phylodog]

Cleveland police ordered to terminate chase 5 minutes before deadly shooting, radio recordings reveal

So which was it? No cars authorized or no cars from 5th district?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Cleveland police ordered to terminate chase 5 minutes before deadly shooting, radio recordings reveal

That is definitely interesting. Will they get in trouble for not following orders?

 

[phylodog]

Waco changed everything. If you can burn the "hostages" and children to death, shooting is certainly allowable. There's no such thing as overkill anymore.

"Overkill (term), the use of excessive force or action to achieve a goal"

If deadly force is justified there is no overkill. Dead is dead. There is no "extra dead", "super dead", "deader than dead", "ultra dead", "mega dead" or "uber dead".

 

[Pinchaser]

I wonder what would have happened if they would have just pulled over when they were ordered to do so? One thing's for sure: sensationalist-hungry gun forum posters across the nation would have felt cheated out of a chance to rant about the police in yet another incident where they have absolutely no idea what really happened except for what the self-serving, liberal media has fed them.

On that, we all have no choice but to agree.

 

[Bunnykid68]

"Overkill (term), the use of excessive force or action to achieve a goal"

If deadly force is justified there is no overkill. Dead is dead. There is no "extra dead", "super dead", "deader than dead", "ultra dead", "mega dead" or "uber dead".

There is in a court room if I am being charged by the State or sued by the dead perps family. If I shoot them one time and they die will look a whole lot better to the jury vs shooting the perp 27 times

 

[Bunnykid68]

I wonder what would have happened if they would have just pulled over when they were ordered to do so? One thing's for sure: sensationalist-hungry gun forum posters across the nation would have felt cheated out of a chance to rant about the police in yet another incident where they have absolutely no idea what really happened except for what the self-serving, liberal media has fed them.

On that, we all have no choice but to agree.

I have a choice. I disagree

 

[rambone]

Cleveland Police Union: Great Job!

Police union, neighbors address shooting | wkyc.com

The Union Boss praises officers, chastised the Police Chief for not doing the same.

 

[phylodog]

I'll just drop these tidbits from the Indiana Code here:

(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Strangely, there are no definitions on what would constitute "too much deadly force".
________________________________________________________________________

(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and Shooting at the police would meet this criteria
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.

 

[Pinchaser]

I have a choice. I disagree

Sorry! I have a bad habit of being the voice of reason and common sense in threads like this one. It's never welcomed!

 

[phylodog]

There is in a court room if I am being charged by the State or sued by the dead perps family. If I shoot them one time and they die will look a whole lot better to the jury vs shooting the perp 27 times

Who is going to testify that the first round you fired of 27 killed them and that you recognized they were no longer a threat and fired 26 more times to earn an "OVERKILL" t-shirt?

In your scenario, the question the jury would be faced with is whether or not your choice to use deadly force was reasonable. Not the means, not the number of rounds fired.

I wonder what the opinions would be if there was an INGO gathering at a restaurant, an armed robber ran into the place, shot the first person they saw dead before ordering someone to open the cash register causing 25 INGO members to pull their handguns and fire 4 rounds each into the suspect?

 

[j706]

Yep, never been someone run because they were simply scared to go to jail over a marijuana charge. Wait, that has happened, never mind.

If someone is going to run thereby endangering innocent people because they are scared of a pot charge than they deserve whatever they get. Maybe if they wasn't stoned they would be able to make sense of it all. Lame excuse for a crime where there are no valid excuses.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Who is going to testify that the first round you fired of 27 killed them and that you recognized they were no longer a threat and fired 26 more times to earn an "OVERKILL" t-shirt?

In your scenario, the question the jury would be faced with is whether or not your choice to use deadly force was reasonable. Not the means, not the number of rounds fired.

Also depends on what the way in which the local media portrays me as well. The jury pool does watch the news occasionally. Local paper isn't exactly gun friendly.

 

[futurefrogman]

137 divided by 13 is ten to eleven rounds per officer (one magazine?). I would venture that one officer started shooting and then everyone joined in trusting the judgement of the officer that originally fired. I don't mean to belittle police officers, but they are not combat trained, at least not to a very large degree (but still more than me, haha). My point being that after the first shot was fired, the rest of the officers could have just joined in (largely in part to the stress of hearing gunfire outside of the range). Just a thought.

 

[j706]

After looking at the photograph of the "head on collision" I'm going to wager that those cruisers in fact DO NOT have dash cameras.

Probably all the cruisers pulling up to the scene have them (as shown in the video posted early)... but those particular cruisers do not. Bad apples don't usually get dash cams...

Bad apples are the ones with dash cams where I work. Right along with 8 hour run time body worn video cams. When budgets are tight and everyone can't have them the problem children will have them when no one else does.

 

[j706]

That would require a constitutional amendment, or that of a reversal of opinion upon the matter of Tennessee v. Garner.

That would make this country a little tamer IMO. The days of the urban youth ya hos driving around LA with the five police cars behind them showboating for the cameras would decrease drastically. In case no one has noticed it is a joke for many people.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If someone is going to run thereby endangering innocent people because they are scared of a pot charge than they deserve whatever they get. Maybe if they wasn't stoned they would be able to make sense of it all. Lame excuse for a crime where there are no valid excuses.

Even death? Sounds perfectly reasonable.

 

[phylodog]

Also depends on what the way in which the local media portrays me as well. The jury pool does watch the news occasionally. Local paper isn't exactly gun friendly.

Juries have rules they must operate by. Judges are usually pretty good at explaining what a jury is passing judgement on as well as what they are not. If a judge tells the jury the only decision to be made is whether or not deadly force was reasonable, that jury must only consider that. It is entirely possible that the number of rounds fired would not be allowed to be mentioned if it has no bearing in the reasonableness of your decision.