Skip to comments.13 officers who shot, killed 2 unarmed suspects have varied personnel records
Posted on 01/05/2013 9:19:43 PM PST by smokingfrog
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- One of the Cleveland police officers involved in the Nov. 29 police chase that ended with two suspects dead fumbled a 2011 traffic stop so badly that the department suggested video of the incident be used to teach other officers what not to do. Recently released personnel files show that the 13 officers who shot at Timothy Russell, 43, and Malissa Williams, 30, when the chase ended in East Cleveland range from highly commended to narrowly hirable.
A few have come under gunfire while performing their duties, and some had shot at suspects before.
(Excerpt) Read more at cleveland.com ...
Ordinarily I’ll back a LEO, but ... uh uhhh ... not THIS one.
Unreal. 51 police cars, 137 shots. It’s like a re-run of The Blues Brothers, except two people were shot 20 times each. I wonder if the cops weren’t on bath salts.
Why were the suspects fleeing in the first place? Either I missed it, or the article didn’t mention it. The police make mistakes, but running from them is just plain stupid. Even if you’re a minority afraid of police brutality. The simple fact is it’s going to go far, far worse for you if you don’t cooperate. I’d rather have a broken arm and/or my face smashed against the pavement than be shot 23 (or 24) times.
Police said shots were heard or fired when the car first passed by them.
You beat me to it. The Blues Brother is what I thought of too.
News video mentions Blues Brothers too.
The police were apparently firing at the vehicle during the pursuit. I think that’s incredibly stupid. Same thing with the pursuit itself. Why would the police risk hurting innocents in the pursuit of the two suspects? The Blues Bros. style pursuit was more hazardous to the community than two unarmed suspects. Unfortunately, I don’t know the complete story.
If the police thought the suspects were highly armed robbers prepared to kill or be killed, then that might warrant such a pursuit. However, I don’t see how that could be the case here, because the suspects were unarmed. It would be informative to know what triggered the pursuit in the first place. Was it a traffic stop gone wrong or subsequent to a violent crime?
Don’t know the details of this cited incident but Cleveland has been a shit-hole for law enforcement officers since black marxist Amhed/Evans started shooting them in the 1970’s. (Believed his name was actually Fred Evans and adopted a Black Muslim name).
Also, in the officers’ records listed by the writer, a lot of them got shot or shot out over the years. No wonder they are a little edgy when hearing reports of possibly armed suspects.
Refresher training is always good just to keep one sharp. In the above cited case, let the investigation run its course. Will be interesting to know if anything contraband was in the fleeing peoples’ car.
I’m afraid I don’t quite get the complaints about the number of times someone gets shot. It has similarities to the notion that cops should “shoot to wound” rather than shoot to kill.
A cop (or anybody else, FTM) should not open fire on a human being unless they have decided to kill him, hopefully with that decision justified by the facts. Once the decision to kill has been made, it seems reasonable to make sure the killing takes place by using as much lead as necessary, or more.
I have no idea whether this case was justified or not. The cops claim the guy tried to use his car as a lethal weapon, which it most certainly is, and that generally constitutes justification for shooting.
A few years back here in FL a guy gunned down a couple of cops, then hid for a day or two in the woods. When the cops finally found him he was shot something like 76 times. When the MSM indignantly asked the sheriff why he was shot 76 times, he responded, “We ran out of ammo. Next question.”
Looks like a scene from Smokey and the Bandit!
If the first shot is justified, the rest don’t matter.
I guess they should have pulled over and stopped. Instead they tried to run over a cop. Two less criminals eating free food and making drug deals on their free Obama phones. I like the happy ending myself.
Where’s the dog in the story? Did the police manage to shoot a stray or two at least.
I understand the need to use lethal force to get the job done, but 51 cop cars? How many officers were at the scene shooting? I’d hate to be caught in THAT crossfire.
It wouldn’t be an issue but when you shoot in self-defense, the prosecutor gets to say “Why did you shoot the “victim” 26 times. You shot him 13 times reloaded, then shot him another 13 times. How can you say you were in fear for your life and then shot him 26 times?”
So I say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I don’t care if the police shoot a perp 7 zillion times. I just want the law to be consistent. If the cops get a pass for shooting a “suspect” a bazillion times, then a CCW holder should get an EQUAL pass for shooting a perp in his house a bazillion times.
But you know the massive double standard that let’s a cop off for doing something a CCW holder gets prosecuted or convicted for. That is my only beef.
But does it matter?
overkill is a correct word here.
Well folks. It’s the pack syndrome.
Get that many guys all hyped up on adrenaline and when one fires a shot they all open up.
It is no different than when dogs act together in a pack.
One dog will walk away, maybe two will but get them in a pack and they all attack whatever the first one attacks.
We have seen it in street gangs also.
Re link on post 1.
That news gal is a hottie !!
Okay, back to the serious stuff ...
I think once you get a home intruder down all you need to do is put a couple in his head.
Ammo ain’t cheap these days.
The cops’ ammo is paid for by the department, ie., the taxpayers, so they can waste all they want.
Indeed, it isn’t their money, so why should they care when they let the bullets fly?
Perhaps if officers began buying their bullets out of their own salary, as every other law-abiding citizen does, they would be less apt to point and shoot as a first recourse.
Yep, they’d get more efficient and use head/throat shots.
Perhaps, but if they weren’t motivated to train in marksmanship before, I am unconvinced that said change, in and of itself, would encourage widespread marksmanship practice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.