Funny you say that, as I just finished reading a similar story today. [
[QUOTE=Cleveland officer facing trial in 137-shot barrage says he cannot recall shooting]
Michael Brelo, who fired 15 rounds into a car windshield, is charged with voluntary manslaughter in deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams
His footprints were found on the hood of a beat-up Chevy Malibu that had been strafed by police gunfire, killing its two unarmed occupants after a high-speed chase over streets and freeways in and around Cleveland. (snip)
Brelo, 31, goes on trial on Monday on two counts of voluntary manslaughter for the deaths of Timothy Russell, 43, and Malissa Williams, 30. He is the lone officer among the 13 who fired their weapons that night who is charged criminally, because prosecutors say he stood on the hood and opened fire four seconds after the other officers had stopped shooting.
[/QUOTE]
](Cleveland officer facing trial in 137-shot barrage says he cannot recall shooting | US policing | The Guardian)Although there’s no kids involved and a 137 hail of fire probably took more then a couple of seconds. It does follow the pattern of incomprehensibly excessive, bloody, violent force that we see in police cases in this thread.
Taken them out of the car they were driving and had been using to elude police and attempt to run into and over them for quite some time until they were killed?
The police fired 137 shots at them. The prosecution acknowledges that 122 of those shots, including 24 shots fired by the defendant, were legal,, which means that the use of deadly force was justified. At the time the defendant fired the final 15 shots, either they were already dead and he could not possibly have committed manslaughter, or they were still alive and in physical control of a deadly weapon, and thus still posed a threat that warranted deadly force.
Hell, why use bullets when a nuclear response would’ve been cleaner? There’s really no need to do half-measures when the job is complete extermination.
Fire’s pretty slow, but it leaves open the option of a barbecue. Dynamite might be a little too loud, but you can set up an IED/landmine and wait for the perps to get close. We’re really only limited by our imagination here.
I don’t know. Why are you changing the subject? Have you noticed that you have a pattern – make an absurd claim in defense of violent cops, get called on it, and immediately back off and change the subject? Have you considered that you might not be able to think rationally and objectively on this subject?
Of course, that doesn’t sound like violent, wild, excess; more fitting of a scared gang of DC crooks fighting Batman. How do you feel about the application of a (savagely stylish) coup de grâce by a member (now former member) of your country’s police force?
That simply cannot be legal in your country. I refuse to believe that. This isn’t an execution. There’s absolutely no need for what he did (a coup de grâce).
If they posed a deadly threat to the cops, which they demonstrably did, then the cops had exactly as much right to defend themselves with like force as any private citizen would in the same situation. As long as they were still alive and the car was still running they were a threat.
Talking out your ass. You have no idea if they were still alive, still conscious, in the process of surrendering, etc., and you have no idea if the police actually had the legal right in the moment (and in the aftermath, when the final bullets were fired by the cop being prosecuted) to fire each one of the shots.
You’re continuously irrational and incapable of being objective on this subject.
If they weren’t alive, then the defendant is definitely innocent of manslaughter, since you can’t kill someone who is already dead.
They were still in the vehicle and the engine was still running, which coupled with their previous behavior indicates no intent to surrender. It would not have been possible to determine if they were conscious without putting an officer’s life in jeopardy had they been conscious and armed (as they were believed to be.)
The prosecution and defense agree that 122 of the shots fired were fired legally. You’re arguing an even more extreme line than the people trying to convict the defendant.
You have no idea if they were dead. Talking out your ass.
How do you know the engine was still running? Talking out your ass.
How do you know this isn’t possible? Talking out your ass.
What extreme line did I argue? It didn’t conflict with any of this. Talking out your ass.
You could. If dozens of people and/or multiple Dopers told me this, I would consider the possibility that I was being irrational and not capable of being objective. But Smapti says so? The guy who wouldn’t take action to free slaves at no risk to himself? The guy who would turn in his neighbors to the government for the religion/ethnicity? No, that doesn’t tell me anything.
You do too, no? You’ve clearly stated that you believe this was a simple case of an execution, and that your police force should be conducting executions of people who are deemed a threat.
Here’s a paraphrase: “They were dead OR they were a threat (thus qualifiers for summary execution).”
So, is this an execution or not? Are you now backing out?