So what do you do when trigger happy cops chase you around?

[Razgovory]

In response to this latest Cleveland trial, I have to ask, when police start shooting at your car and chasing you, what is the proper response?  Pulling over into a parking lot seems dangerous because a cop very well may legally jump on your car hood and shoot you and your passenger.  Do you call the Sheriff's department and complain that group of lunatics dressed as police officers are hunting you down, and you need protection?  I like to think of myself as an law abiding person but this seems like a no-win situation.

[Agelastus]

"Duck and Cover".

[Admiral Yi]

I would pull over and stick both hands out the window. 

[Razgovory]

I would pull over and stick both hands out the window.

Make sure you aren't wearing dark colored gloves, and you might have a chance.

[Admiral Yi]

Thanks for the heads up bro.

[Tonitrus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQDvYOt_iA

[Iormlund]

Move to a civilized country, perhaps?

[Razgovory]

Thanks for the heads up bro.

I'd say the odds are still good that a the police officer jumps on your hood and simply shoots at your.  After all, he already thinks you shot at him.

[jimmy olsen]

Reading about that story on the New York Times. I can understand arguing whether he was justified, but this seems an odd thing to argue. What did the defendant expect to happen when he shot at them? Of course he knowingly caused their death.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/us/michael-brelo-cleveland-police-officer-acquitted-of-manslaughter-in-2012-deaths.html?_r=0&referrer=

While Officer Brelo did fire lethal shots at the two people, testimony did not prove that his shots caused either death, according to the ruling of Judge John P. O'Donnell of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. "The state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Michael Brelo, knowingly caused the deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams," he ruled.

[Eddie Teach]

Drive around the town with an old girlfriend.

[dps]

Reading about that story on the New York Times. I can understand arguing whether he was justified, but this seems an odd thing to argue. What did the defendant expect to happen when he shot at them? Of course he knowingly caused their death.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/us/michael-brelo-cleveland-police-officer-acquitted-of-manslaughter-in-2012-deaths.html?_r=0&referrer=

While Officer Brelo did fire lethal shots at the two people, testimony did not prove that his shots caused either death, according to the ruling of Judge John P. O’Donnell of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. “The state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Michael Brelo, knowingly caused the deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams,” he ruled.

Tim, I think the argument is that because so many other shots were fired, it's wasn't possible to prove that he was the one that fired the fatal shots.

[grumbler]

Tim, I think the argument is that because so many other shots were fired, it's wasn't possible to prove that he was the one that fired the fatal shots.

This is a stupid fucking ruling.  He fired fatal shots, intending them to be fatal.  The only issue was whether the victims were dead before he killed them, or not.  How that isn't manslaughter at the very least, I don't understand at all. The judge certainly seemed to have the evidence for a second-degree murder conviction, if he had at all been interested in convicting.

I'm thinking Brelo is fucked in the civil trial that will surely follow...  maybe even in the federal civil rights trial that won't likely follow.

[Razgovory]

Raz agrees with Grumbler!  I'm normally on the cops side in a lot of these things.  I kept an open mind on the Fergusson thing, but as the facts came out, I believe Mr. Wilson was justified in his actions.  I can't imagine any possible circumstances where you justified in jumping on the hood of a car and blowing away the driver and the passenger.

[Eddie Teach]

I can't imagine any possible circumstances where you justified in jumping on the hood of a car and blowing away the driver and the passenger.

They're about to detonate a bomb.

[LaCroix]

This is a stupid fucking ruling.  He fired fatal shots, intending them to be fatal.  The only issue was whether the victims were dead before he killed them, or not.  How that isn't manslaughter at the very least, I don't understand at all. The judge certainly seemed to have the evidence for a second-degree murder conviction, if he had at all been interested in convicting.

I'm thinking Brelo is fucked in the civil trial that will surely follow...  maybe even in the federal civil rights trial that won't likely follow.

i can see it. prosecutors couldn't prove that his bullets killed the victims, so there goes the primary charge. for secondary charges, this professor makes a good point:

"To find him responsible, to find him unreasonable under these circumstances (the judge) will be asking himself how come anyone else wasn't reasonable, too?" Valore said. "It was such a maelstrom of shots."

thirteen cops fired over a hundred bullets into this car. while brelo jumped on the hood, that's not necessarily unreasonable. if no cop had ever jumped onto a car hood and fired bullets into the windshield, then brelo's actions would probably be unreasonable. but, i'm sure there's case law that shows this has reasonably happened before. if a cop can "reasonably" (through beyond a reasonable doubt standard) pull a brelo when actual dangerous criminals are involved, then brelo's additional actions here shouldn't matter that much. assuming there aren't more to the facts, of course.