OOPS: Someone put an autoplay video embed in the comments. If you hear audio you can go here and stop the video from playing.
-----
Two and a half years ago I penned "Wouldn't 136 bullets have been enough?" detailing the egregious and unjustified deaths of two Clevelanders in a hail of police bullets - chased twenty miles through the streets of that city because their car had backfired and officers thought they had fired a weapon (they had no weapon).
Michael Brelo, the officer who fired the last 15 shots from on top of the car they were driving, was put on trial and today, to few people's surprise, was found not guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The judge (who was also the jury) decided that there was no proof that Brelo had fired the fatal shots.
So now we have uncovered yet another way for police to kill and get away with it: a firing squad. And they don't even have to load one of their guns at random with a blank.
There is little more I can say. Having police fire 137 bullets at innocent, unarmed citizens and there be no consequences is absurd, yet that is the world we live in.
Update New York Times:
A Cleveland police officer who climbed onto the hood of a car and fired repeatedly at its unarmed occupants in 2012 was acquitted of manslaughter on Saturday by an Ohio judge.
...
Officer Brelo was one of several officers who shot at Timothy Russell and his passenger, Malissa Williams, during a chase through the Cleveland area on Nov. 29, 2012. Police officers fired 137 rounds at the car, prosecutors have said, including 49 by Officer Brelo.
Other officers stopped firing after Mr. Russell’s Chevy Malibu was surrounded by the police and came to a stop, but prosecutors said Officer Brelo climbed onto the car’s hood and fired at least 15 rounds from close range, including the fatal shots.
...
“We’re asking our officers, based on their training, not to be compelled by fear to kill people when there’s other reasonable, objectively reasonable, options available to you,” said James Gutierrez, an assistant county prosecutor, in closing arguments. “And there was. He wanted to kill.”
...
In closing arguments, Patrick A. D’Angelo, one of Officer Brelo’s lawyers, said his client believed he was under attack when he fired on the car.
“What would make him want to shoot through the windshield at another human being?” Mr. D’Angelo said. “Could it be that he was shot at? Could it be that he reasonably perceived that the occupants of the Malibu were shooting at him? That’s what all the other officers perceived. That’s what Officer Brelo perceived.”
8:28 AM PT: An earlier diary: Brelo Verdict In: Not Guilty (Updated w/Link to Verdict)" by VetGrl has a link to the verdict itself.
8:29 AM PT:
8:33 AM PT:
9:04 AM PT:
