Cleveland Asks Feds to Review Police Policies After Fatal Post-Chase Police Shooting Involving 137 Shots Fired

The driver, Timothy Russell, and a passenger, Malissa Williams, were killed

Cleveland PD

Last month, a police chase that started in East Cleveland when a cop said he heard a gunshot ended with cops in East Cleveland firing 137 shots into the car, killing the driver and a female passenger. No gun was found. Protests followed. Now, the city of Cleveland has requested a review of its policies in the wake of the shooting. From WKSU, a Kent State NPR affiliate:

Cleveland has asked the U.S. Justice Department to review the police division's policies after a car chase ended with a barrage of police gunfire and two deaths.  The city also said Thursday the police chief has a team reviewing recorded communications, vehicle tracking and other information from the November pursuit to determine whether officers followed protocol.

WKSU adds that police claim the shooting was justified because the driver rammed a police car and almost hit an officer. A criminal investigation and administrative review are ongoing anyway.

Comments

[Warty]

You have the cities backwards. It started in Cleveland and ended in East Cleveland, which, as we established in the earlier thread, is perhaps the most depressing shithole in the country.

[John]

"East" wherever is usually the most depressing part of the city for some reason. "East Cleveland" is like some kind of depressing shithole multiplier effect.

[robc]

Sometimes "west", like in the case of West Memphis. Or the west end of Louisville.

[Warty]

It's a standard ghetto, but the fact that it used to be a super-rich suburb makes it extra depressing to me. Rockefeller's house was there, for instance. There's still some remains of better times.

[Ed]

Thanks!

[Timon 19]

C'mon Warty. Detroit is much worse.

[John]

Why does Cleveland need the feds to review their policies? Do they really need the feds to tell them that "don't shoot unarmed people' is a good policy? And it is not like use of force policies and rules are not something that, I don't know, every single LEO in America doesn't have and doesn't think about like every day.

If you are not competent enough to write proper use of force policies, you are not competent enough to be a police department.

[DJF]

They need advice on whether the punishment is 1 months paid leave, 6 months paid leave, transfer to another office with a promotion or transfer to another office with a promotion and a bonus.

[$park?]

In the end it will be six months paid leave followed by transfer to another office with a promotion and a medal.

[DJF]

What, no bonus, they are really cracking down on these cops.

[$park?]

Six months paid vacation wasn't quite harsh enough punishment.

[sloopyinca]

And it is not like use of force policies and rules are not something that, I don't know, every single LEO in America doesn't have and doesn't think about like every day.

You'd probably be surprised at how many departments don't have a UOF policy and at how many cops don't even consider them when they interact with a "civilian". More likely, they're concerned with their union's policy regarding internal investigations and their ability to suppress evidence.

[Heroic Mulatto]

And compare that to the strict ROEs that our armed forces must adhere to on a goddamn battlefield.

[John]

I know a lot of people who are lawyers who work for LEOs. RUF is a big deal. So is training. If you don't have both, you will get sued to death.

[sloopyinca]

I followed this in great detail when it happened and am glad to see an investigation finally coming. Too bad it's not being done with a grand jury.

It's probably a good initial shoot since the driver did try to ram an officer and was apparently charging out of the car once cornered. Not sure if the barrage from the other 12 officers was in any way justified, and they do have a duty to protect the passenger, who very well may have been in the car against her will and was not coming after officers.

[John]

They also have a duty not to just start firing as soon as they hear a shot fired. I bet you most of them didn't even know what they were shooting at or why.

[$park?]

Yeah, but they have badges so that doesn't really matter.

[sloopyinca]

Yeah that's why I say it was probably a good initial shoot. It reminds me of the officers who shot up that former Marine Jose Guerena in AZ. Once one slipped and fired, the rest just unloaded, some of them reaching toward the open door and squeezing off rounds without even seeing where they were pointing/firing their weapons.

IIRC, none of them faced so much as a disciplinary board.

[robc]

I thought the officers claimed the reason for the shoot was that a shot was fired? That is different than the ramming claim, which only seems legitimate to fire in response to, if it prevents the ramming. 137 shots seems excessive for that.

[sloopyinca]

IIRC, the "shots fired" claim came when the chase started over 20 minutes earlier and it looks like that was false. The reports I've seen say the driver tried to ram an officer that was out of his car and charged out when he stopped. IMO, that's cause to react with force, but not for 137 bullets that also murder what could be a hostage or unwilling passenger.

[R C Dean]

Let's assume the driver needed shooting.

That makes the death of the passenger, at a minimum, negligent homicide or some other flavor of manslaughter. I don't see anyone arguing that she was a legitimate target, so her death is negligence, at best.

Why there isn't a grand jury on that, I couldn't say.*

*Oh, I know perfectly well why there isn't.

[sloopyinca]

I suppose the investigation could end in posthumously charging the driver with her murder just to rub peoples' noses in shit.

Actually, this would not be surprising since it's all about limiting the liability settlement at this point.

[R C Dean]

I see a criminal investigation is still currently ongoing.

Can't confirm it, but I seem to recall that if multiple suspects all shot and it couldn't be determined which of them actually fired the fatal shot, they could all be charged.

If so, then it seems to me that every cop who pulled a trigger should be up on charges.

[R C Dean]

Interesting, sloopy. Tag the drive with a felony, and tack on felony murder. The trick, though, will be hanging a felony on the driver that actually supports felony murder. It would have to be

(1) a "dangerous felony" (generally specified as burglary, kidnapping, rape, robbery) and

(2) the killing must have been proximately caused (that is, a direct consequence of) the felony.

[Enough About Palin]

"Now, the city of Cleveland has requested a review of its policies"

Thank god they have a solution.

[DJF]

They need to have a designated shooter in these situations where only one is aiming with finger on the trigger but instead every cop in the area is ready to fire and when one shoots they all fire.

I saw a video a few years ago when some crazy guy was confronted by at least a dozen cops, all pointing their gun at an unarmed guy. When one fired, they all fired.

[MisterDamage]

That's because, in the inquiry into the shooting, any officer who fails to fire is effectively accusing his colleagues of shooting when it was not justified. It becomes a gang thing, one in, all in.

[The Late P Brooks]

ended in East Cleveland, which, as we established in the earlier thread, is perhaps the most depressing shithole in the country.

In one of the Google Street (or whatever they call it) links from that thread, if you pan 180 degrees, there is a police car behind the Googlemobile. Coincidence, or police escort?

[The Late P Brooks]

Cleveland has asked the U.S. Justice Department to review the police division's policies after a car chase ended with a barrage of police gunfire and two deaths.

"I hate to judge before all the facts are in, Mister President, but it's beginning to look like General Ripper may have exceeded his authority."

[waaminn]

Of course someone has got to come along and make a big ole "Black Thang" out of it lol

http://www.Anon-et.tk

[Rick Santorum]

Who cares? Two more Obama voters and welfare queens bite the dust.