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.
"Duck and Cover".
I would pull over and stick both hands out the window.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 23, 2015, 02:48:41 PM
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.
Thanks for the heads up bro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQDvYOt_iA
Move to a civilized country, perhaps?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 23, 2015, 03:01:47 PM
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.
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? :huh: 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=
Quote
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.
Drive around the town with an old girlfriend.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 23, 2015, 10:42:38 PM
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? :huh: 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=
Quote
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.
Quote from: dps on May 24, 2015, 10:16:20 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 24, 2015, 03:33:52 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2015, 01:46:39 PMThis 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:
Quote"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.
There was expert testimony claiming this guys shots were the fatal ones. The Judge simply ignored it. If a cop did something as stupid as jump on the car hood and shoot the occupants to death it still doesn't make it reasonable. It's simply bizarre behavior. It would be dangerous to the cop do pull that kind of stunt. A car hood can be slippery, he could easily have fallen down. If the occupants actually had guns he would be exposing himself to gun fire. I have no idea why he did that. It's inexplicable behavior.
Quote from: LaCroix on May 24, 2015, 04:26:43 PM
i can see it. prosecutors couldn't prove that his bullets killed the victims, so there goes the primary charge.
The prosecutors proved that his bullets were fatal if the victims were alive when his fatal shots were fired. His were not the only fatal shots, to be sure, but he fired the majority of the fatal shots and surely intended his shots to be fatal (he hit the woman three times in the head). It is absolutely untrue that a person gets excused from firing fatal shots if someone else does so as well. If that were the case, then every murder duo would get off because neither of them exclusively committed murder.
Quotefor secondary charges, this professor makes a good point:
Quote"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."
The professor is full of shit. One does not have to be surrounded by reasonable people in order to be culpable for being unreasonable. The professor is treading dangerously close to "I vas chust following or-ders!"
Quotethirteen 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.
Jumping on the hood of the car is manifestly stupid. Car hoods are slippery, he is close enough to the victims to block shots from fellow cops, and if he really thought that his life was in danger, he is exposing himself totally to return fire. The only reason to jump on the hood of the car is when you know there isn't any danger and you want to be able to see the victims more fully in order to place your shots more surely fatally. This is an open-and-shut case of blood thirst, excusable, apparently, because he is a cop. Had be been a civilian murdering people like this, he'd get executed, no question.
I got to agree with grumbles. Jumping onto the hood of a car in a shootout? That's action movie stupidity right there.
Only conceivably reasonable if that car is speeding right at you, and then the shooting would be justified anyway.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 24, 2015, 05:17:48 PM
There was expert testimony claiming this guys shots were the fatal ones. The Judge simply ignored it. If a cop did something as stupid as jump on the car hood and shoot the occupants to death it still doesn't make it reasonable. It's simply bizarre behavior. It would be dangerous to the cop do pull that kind of stunt. A car hood can be slippery, he could easily have fallen down. If the occupants actually had guns he would be exposing himself to gun fire. I have no idea why he did that. It's inexplicable behavior.
i don't know the facts of the case because i haven't read the opinion, so i don't know what you mean by the judge simply ignored expert testimony. for the rest of your post, see my below response to grumbler.
Quote from: grumblerThe prosecutors proved that his bullets were fatal if the victims were alive when his fatal shots were fired. His were not the only fatal shots, to be sure, but he fired the majority of the fatal shots and surely intended his shots to be fatal (he hit the woman three times in the head). It is absolutely untrue that a person gets excused from firing fatal shots if someone else does so as well. If that were the case, then every murder duo would get off because neither of them exclusively committed murder.
prosecutors had to prove causation for voluntary manslaughter, and they couldn't prove that brelo's bullets caused the deaths. i'm not sure about every jurisdiction in the U.S., but at least in ohio, the latter part of this paragraph isn't true. if two criminals shoot a victim at the same time, and prosecutors cannot prove which bullet actually caused the death, then there's gonna have to be other ways to convict the criminals (which should be easy because legislators provide prosecutors many tools). though i think this scenario is rarer than you might think, but i could be wrong.
QuoteOne does not have to be surrounded by reasonable people in order to be culpable for being unreasonable. The professor is treading dangerously close to "I vas chust following or-ders!"
agreed, but i'm not sure this is what the professor was arguing. it's a quote from an interview, so who knows.
QuoteJumping on the hood of the car is manifestly stupid. Car hoods are slippery, he is close enough to the victims to block shots from fellow cops, and if he really thought that his life was in danger, he is exposing himself totally to return fire. The only reason to jump on the hood of the car is when you know there isn't any danger and you want to be able to see the victims more fully in order to place your shots more surely fatally. This is an open-and-shut case of blood thirst, excusable, apparently, because he is a cop. Had be been a civilian murdering people like this, he'd get executed, no question.
agreed that jumping on the hood of the car was stupid. but the charges against brelo focused on his actions against the victims and not reckless endangerment of his fellow officers. i don't know why brelo jumped on the hood, and i don't know the exact circumstance of what happened. however, as mentioned in my earlier post, a rambo-like act isn't necessarily "unreasonable" in a criminal case context. brelo's conduct could be found "unreasonable" in a civil trial with a lower standard, but apparently it wasn't "unreasonable" for this court. sometimes you just get "ridiculous outcomes" that make sense from a purely legal perspective. like when a home purchaser successfully sues a home seller because the home seller/realtor didn't inform the home purchaser that the house was haunted.
i disagree that this is an open-and-shut-case of excusing blood thirst because the guy was a cop as that's a pretty harsh accusation. i don't know what the defense presented, but i can see a situation where a (edit)
jury factfinder legitimately could find a cop not guilty despite him jumping on a hood of a car and firing fifteen rounds into the windshield. it's maybe not plausible, but it's possible.
Aren't cops supposed to prefer to let the driver get away than engage in hundred round shootouts in the middle of a city anyway? Safety first, man.
How many backfires equals 100 rounds? I am confused.
Weren't the cops responding to a shots fired call in the first place, then these guys take off, don't stop until they get to a middle school of all places, and then their old POS backfires? I don't know about all this 100+ rounds fired and jumping on hoods fake hero bullshit, but damn. That really seems like a scenario that pretty much guarantees the cops are going to shoot someone.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 25, 2015, 01:04:01 AM
Weren't the cops responding to a shots fired call in the first place, then these guys take off, don't stop until they get to a middle school of all places, and then their old POS backfires? I don't know about all this 100+ rounds fired and jumping on hoods fake hero bullshit, but damn. That really seems like a scenario that pretty much guarantees the cops are going to shoot someone.
The shots fired here was their car backfiring. I don't think anyone actualy fired shots, and if they did it wasn't the guys in the car since they had no gun. I think the backfire of the car initiated the chase.
I find it a bit odd that the fact that the victims may have been already dead when the shots were fired is an automatic bar to prosecution.
Under Polish law we have this concept of "impossible attempt" when one can still be charged if the intent/mens rea was there, even if the crime had no chance of succeeding due to objective reasons that the perp was not aware of (such as using a toy gun to shoot someone, when the perp is thinking that the guy is actually real). In such cases, the judge may actually apply an extraordinary reduction of the sentence (so the punishment may actually be below the minimum statutory sentence for the crime of a given nature) or even abstain from pronouncing a sentence altogether, while declaring the perp guilty - but that is not a bar to a guilty verdict.
Quote from: Martinus on May 25, 2015, 07:27:37 AM
I find it a bit odd that the fact that the victims may have been already dead when the shots were fired is an automatic bar to prosecution.
Under Polish law we have this concept of "impossible attempt" when one can still be charged if the intent/mens rea was there, even if the crime had no chance of succeeding due to objective reasons that the perp was not aware of
Yes - surprisingly this is not unique to Polish law ;) It is also a longstanding principle of English common law - and hence the criminal law of the American states as well. There is even an old Alan Dershowitz case in NY on this issue - People v. Dlugash. But it applies to "attempt" crimes. One can be charged with attempted murder if the victim is already dead, but obviously not of murder itself since causing death is one of the elements.
My understanding is that Brelo could have convicted on an attempt charge but the judge apparently found his conduct "justified"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 25, 2015, 09:57:12 AM
My understanding is that Brelo could have convicted on an attempt charge but the judge apparently found his conduct "justified"
It
was "justified." Brelo didn't know they victims were already dead or dying, and he was perfectly justified in making sure that people who (he thought) fired on police didn't clutter up the courts with trials and the like by virtue of not surviving their encounter with the police.
Now, that's a shitty and illegal justification, but if you get the right (elected) judge, you can literally get away with murder.
BTW, O'Donnel just last fall won election to Ohio's Supreme Court. :bleeding:
Quote from: Martinus on May 25, 2015, 07:27:37 AM
I find it a bit odd that the fact that the victims may have been already dead when the shots were fired is an automatic bar to prosecution.
Under Polish law we have this concept of "impossible attempt" when one can still be charged if the intent/mens rea was there, even if the crime had no chance of succeeding due to objective reasons that the perp was not aware of (such as using a toy gun to shoot someone, when the perp is thinking that the guy is actually real). In such cases, the judge may actually apply an extraordinary reduction of the sentence (so the punishment may actually be below the minimum statutory sentence for the crime of a given nature) or even abstain from pronouncing a sentence altogether, while declaring the perp guilty - but that is not a bar to a guilty verdict.
It is an automatic bar to being convicted of murder since one cannot kill someone who is already dead. But an accused could still be found guilty of the attempt to commit murder even if the act of committing the murder was unsuccessful.
Quote from: Martinus on May 25, 2015, 07:27:37 AM
I find it a bit odd that the fact that the victims may have been already dead when the shots were fired is an automatic bar to prosecution.
Under Polish law we have this concept of "impossible attempt" when one can still be charged if the intent/mens rea was there, even if the crime had no chance of succeeding due to objective reasons that the perp was not aware of (such as using a toy gun to shoot someone, when the perp is thinking that the guy is actually real). In such cases, the judge may actually apply an extraordinary reduction of the sentence (so the punishment may actually be below the minimum statutory sentence for the crime of a given nature) or even abstain from pronouncing a sentence altogether, while declaring the perp guilty - but that is not a bar to a guilty verdict.
Generally though, it's not applied when the defendant may have already killed the person a few minutes earlier.
Cleveland comes to an agreement with the Feds to reform their policing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cleveland-reaches-deal-with-justice-department-to-reform-police-conduct/
Well Derspeiss will be upset.
So will there be a broad-based reform around the country kicked off? I mean, if I'm a police chief in this environment I'd be a bit anxious to make some changes.
I was TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY to learn on CNN that the victims drove away from a traffic stop and led the cops on a 22 mile high speed pursuit *before* they were shot at. :huh:
Dude suffers a stroke while driving, gets pepper sprayed and tasered.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/24/watch_a_police_officer_taser_pepper_spray_a_man_who_is_suffering_a_massive.html
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2015, 05:54:15 PM
I was TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY to learn on CNN that the victims drove away from a traffic stop and led the cops on a 22 mile high speed pursuit *before* they were shot at. :huh:
Yes and the PD response was a completely normal and proportionate response to a someone evading a traffic stop.
ORDER MUST BE ACHIEVED AND MAINTAINED AT ALL COSTS
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 25, 2015, 07:29:22 PM
Yes and the PD response was a completely normal and proportionate response to a someone evading a traffic stop.
Whether it was are not doesn't grant license to fabricate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2015, 05:54:15 PM
I was TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY to learn on CNN that the victims drove away from a traffic stop and led the cops on a 22 mile high speed pursuit *before* they were shot at. :huh:
What was the cause of the traffic stop?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2015, 05:54:15 PM
I was TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY to learn on CNN that the victims drove away from a traffic stop and led the cops on a 22 mile high speed pursuit *before* they were shot at. :huh:
Really? This is the first you've heard of this? You are the person most easily TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY I've ever encountered.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2015, 09:45:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 25, 2015, 07:29:22 PM
Yes and the PD response was a completely normal and proportionate response to a someone evading a traffic stop.
Whether it was are not doesn't grant license to fabricate.
I am TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY by that statement. Who is fabricating what?
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2015, 11:09:46 AM
BTW, O'Donnel just last fall won election to Ohio's Supreme Court. :bleeding:
He's a no-nonsense judge who puts dangerous criminals behind bars.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2015, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2015, 11:09:46 AM
BTW, O'Donnel just last fall won election to Ohio's Supreme Court. :bleeding:
He's a no-nonsense judge who puts dangerous criminals behind bars.
He's a fullofshit judge who lets some criminals walk because they carry a badge.
You're just saying that because you missed his campaign commercials. Poor uninformed grumbler :(
You should elect Dredd instead- a no-nonsense judge who puts dangerous criminals in the ground.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2015, 09:37:28 AM
You're just saying that because you missed his campaign commercials. Poor uninformed grumbler :(
You are just saying that because you
saw his campaign commercials. Poor gullible derspiess. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 26, 2015, 09:40:50 AM
You should elect Dredd instead- a no-nonsense judge who puts dangerous criminals in the ground.
:yes:
Flash them my boobs.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2015, 09:48:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2015, 09:37:28 AM
You're just saying that because you missed his campaign commercials. Poor uninformed grumbler :(
You are just saying that because you saw his campaign commercials. Poor gullible derspiess. :(
Whoosh.
Quote from: Brazen on May 26, 2015, 10:05:22 AM
Flash them my boobs.
Do that plus throw them donuts and you'll get some sort of citizen award from them.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2015, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2015, 11:09:46 AM
BTW, O'Donnel just last fall won election to Ohio's Supreme Court. :bleeding:
He's a no-nonsense judge who puts dangerous criminals behind bars.
Ohio judges are allowed to moonlight as corrections officers? Seems like a conflict of interest.
Okay, am I the only one who sees these silly "elect Judge So & So 'cuz he's tough on crim" commercials around election time?
I've never seen a judge campaign commercial in my life.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2015, 01:28:16 PM
Okay, am I the only one who sees these silly "elect Judge So & So 'cuz he's tough on crim" commercials around election time?
I live in a sensible country where judges are NOT elected but I watch Last Week tonight. Yes, I've seen them too.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 26, 2015, 01:30:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2015, 01:28:16 PM
Okay, am I the only one who sees these silly "elect Judge So & So 'cuz he's tough on crim" commercials around election time?
I live in a sensible country where judges are NOT elected but I watch Last Week tonight. Yes, I've seen them too.
I also get to see them through the magic of cable TV.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 26, 2015, 01:30:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2015, 01:28:16 PM
Okay, am I the only one who sees these silly "elect Judge So & So 'cuz he's tough on crim" commercials around election time?
I live in a sensible country where judges are NOT elected but I watch Last Week tonight. Yes, I've seen them too.
Thanks for the confirmation and bonus commentary.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2015, 11:32:36 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2015, 09:48:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2015, 09:37:28 AM
You're just saying that because you missed his campaign commercials. Poor uninformed grumbler :(
You are just saying that because you saw his campaign commercials. Poor gullible derspiess. :(
Whoosh.
Whoosh, indeed! :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2015, 01:29:35 PM
I've never seen a judge campaign commercial in my life.
Nor I.
Here you go, boys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Du_WEHjMMw
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2015, 03:15:09 PM
Whoosh, indeed! :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skylinepictures.com%2FAppalachian_State_Michigan_Upset_Photo_appsu3_large.jpg&hash=ae8ba3fce643a4475d2630e080c2dc3d2866052d)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2015, 05:54:15 PM
I was TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY to learn on CNN that the victims drove away from a traffic stop and led the cops on a 22 mile high speed pursuit *before* they were shot at. :huh:
So were the victims.
Vote for me and we'll bring back firing squads!
Or better yet, guillotine, so we don't have to waste money on bullets.
You do realize I just called you a liar, right Raz?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2015, 03:40:43 PM
You do realize I just called you a liar, right Raz?
Actually I asked you to clarify and you did not. What was the original traffic stop for?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2015, 03:43:09 PM
Actually I asked you to clarify and you did not. What was the original traffic stop for?
That's not a clarification. That's an attempt to change the subject. The reason for the original traffic stop has nothing to do with whether the cops started shooting and chasing first. If the stop was for expired tags, the cops still wouldn't have started shooting and chasing first. If it was for suspected terrorism, the cops still wouldn't have started shooting and chasing first. There is no conceivable reason for a traffic stop that leads to the cops shooting and chasing first, because they didn't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2015, 03:46:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2015, 03:43:09 PM
Actually I asked you to clarify and you did not. What was the original traffic stop for?
That's not a clarification. That's an attempt to change the subject. The reason for the original traffic stop has nothing to do with whether the cops started shooting and chasing first. If the stop was for expired tags, the cops still wouldn't have started shooting and chasing first. If it was for suspected terrorism, the cops still wouldn't have started shooting and chasing first. There is no conceivable reason for a traffic stop that leads to the cops shooting and chasing first, because they didn't.
I'm sorry that is not correct. The cops started firing because they thought they heard a shot. If the the car was stopped and backfired, they presumably still would have fired. If the tried to stop a person because they thought they had fired and then open fired and the victim did not immediately stop because people were shooting at them, that does sort of change the dynamic.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2015, 03:51:28 PM
I'm sorry that is not correct. The cops started firing because they thought they heard a shot. If the the car was stopped and backfired, they presumably still would have fired. If the tried to stop a person because they thought they had fired and then open fired and the victim did not immediately stop because people were shooting at them, that does sort of change the dynamic.
Your version is the cops pulled them over, the car backfired, the cops (or a cop) pumped some rounds into the car, then the victims took off? Well if that is true CNN really botched their reporting and I owe you an apology.
My version is that the police fired because they claimed they heard a shot. The chase honestly doesn't matter much, since they could have heard a shot whether or not there was a chase or a car idling. The chase did not cause the shooting. The police claim the backfire did. If one actually happened at all. I don't know of anyone else who witnesses it besides the killers.
I just read a couple articles on the story. You appear to have your facts wrong Raz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2015, 04:06:09 PM
I just read a couple articles on the story. You appear to have your facts wrong Raz.
Which ones? That police fired on a car. That the car had no weapons in it. That Officer Brelo jumped on the hood of the car and shot the driver and passenger?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2015, 04:08:22 PM
Which ones?
"My version is that the police fired because they claimed they heard a shot. The chase honestly doesn't matter much, since they could have heard a shot whether or not there was a chase or a car idling. The chase did not cause the shooting. The police claim the backfire did. If one actually happened at all. I don't know of anyone else who witnesses it besides the killers."
The shooting was not caused by the chase, at least according the cops. Did you find something to contradict this? Did the police claim that the decided to shoot at the car simply because it was moving?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2015, 04:19:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2015, 04:08:22 PM
Which ones?
"My version is that the police fired because they claimed they heard a shot. The chase honestly doesn't matter much, since they could have heard a shot whether or not there was a chase or a car idling. The chase did not cause the shooting. The police claim the backfire did. If one actually happened at all. I don't know of anyone else who witnesses it besides the killers."
So, you are claiming that all of the facts contained in those sentences are wrong? Or, when asked to clarify what facts Raz got wrong, did you just throw out a mass of facts, and effectively say "in there somewhere?"
Why are you being so obtuse about your claims Raz is lying? Normally, that's
his game.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2015, 01:28:16 PM
Okay, am I the only one who sees these silly "elect Judge So & So 'cuz he's tough on crim" commercials around election time?
Uh. No.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2015, 05:20:35 PM
The shooting was not caused by the chase, at least according the cops. Did you find something to contradict this? Did the police claim that the decided to shoot at the car simply because it was moving?
It's questions like these that make me ask myself why I even bother.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2015, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2015, 05:20:35 PM
The shooting was not caused by the chase, at least according the cops. Did you find something to contradict this? Did the police claim that the decided to shoot at the car simply because it was moving?
It's questions like these that make me ask myself why I even bother.
We wonder why too.
Yi and I are on different wavelenghts here. I'm not getting what he's selling. I don't know what his ultimate point is. That the shooting was justified? That I'm a bad person. All possible. I known where Yi was back in 1992...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkBGQx3HAc
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2015, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2015, 05:20:35 PM
The shooting was not caused by the chase, at least according the cops. Did you find something to contradict this? Did the police claim that the decided to shoot at the car simply because it was moving?
It's questions like these that make me ask myself why I even bother.
Neither of you are covering yourself in glory.
The Languish civic crown. Covered in feces.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2015, 01:28:16 PM
Okay, am I the only one who sees these silly "elect Judge So & So 'cuz he's tough on crim" commercials around election time?
I got the joke Spicey. 'No-nonsense tough on crime judge' is is right up there with 'common sense conservative'.