![](https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Brelo-Shooting.jpg)
![Cleveland cop Michael Brelo claims he can't remember firing last 15 shots.](https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Brelo-Shooting.jpg)
Politico ran an interesting interview with the judge who cleared the Cleveland Police officer who shot 15 times, into a car window, after a lengthy car chase that resulted in the killing of two unarmed black men. Most interesting to me is the categorical claim that race had nothing to do with this case.
Anytime I see a categorical denial of that magnitude I leap into the doth protest too much mode – you mean none as in zero percent? Like not even setting the context for the car chase? Not contributing to the overreaction by the police to fire 137 shots at the vehicle? Not contributing to the acquittal? Not even at an unconscious bias level?
There are a lot of problems with the contention that “the case had absolutely nothing to do with race.” I think it can fall into four distinct categories. First, from a social scientific standpoint, I think it’s impossible to weigh such complex factors without empirical analysis. Second, there are too many variables to rule something out completely. If he wanted to say that race wasn’t the primary factor in this case, I might be more inclined to believe him. “Absolutely nothing” means zero percent, and I can’t buy into that.
Third, you have the problem of unconscious bias – you may not be aware of how your perceptions of race color your judgment. Fourth, you have the societal factors that set the stage for the interaction.
With that in mind, let’s analyze what the judge actually said.
The back story here goes back to November of 2012 when “officers outside the Cleveland Police Department’s downtown headquarters thought they heard a gunshot from a 1979 Chevy Malibu driving past. A 22-mile car chase ensued, with more than 60 police cars and 100 officers involved. Over the 20-minute chase, the car ignored more than 100 stop signs and red lights. Its speed at times exceeded 120 mph.”
When the suspects were eventually cornered, 137 shots were fired at the car by 13 officers. “The driver, Timothy Russell, 43, was shot 23 times, while the passenger, Malissa Williams, 30, was struck [by] 24 bullets. Both died at the scene, no gun was found in their car and the gunshot sound heard at the start of the chase is believed to have been the old car backfiring. Russell and Williams were both African-Americans.”
Of the 137 shots, “49 were from five-year Cleveland police department veteran Michael Brelo. He fired the last 15 of his shots into windshield of the car while standing its hood. Brelo, who is white, was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter while the other 12 officers were not.”
The case revolved around two issues: “Could the prosecution prove that Brelo’s bullets caused the death of either of the deceased, and did he feel he was under the threat of bodily harm while standing on the car hood and firing those last 15 shots?”
In May of this year, now in the clear backdrop of the string of high-profile police shooting incidents, “Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John P. O’Donnell found Brelo not guilty on both counts. In a 35-page verdict, Judge O’Donnell went into great detail about how the state did not prove that Brelo’s shots caused the deaths, and how the chaotic scene made Brelo perception of the threat of bodily harm reasonable. O’Donnell’s verdict—in the wake of protests over police deadly force cases in Baltimore and Ferguson specifically—raised the ire of many individuals who thought O’Donnell’s not guilty decision had racial overtones.”
Judge O’Donnell is a Democrat, he was elected in 2002, and he spoke to Politico about the reasoning behind the decision.
The judge told Politico that he has gotten a lot of hate letters calling his verdict “racist.” He tells them, “I reject all that entirely. This case had absolutely nothing to do with race.”
He argued, “This case had to do with whether the prosecutor proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether this crime had been committed, and had to do with the defendant being legally justified in shooting that night. I understand people have their opinions, and if they disagree with my ultimate decision of the facts in this case, namely that the case wasn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt, they are entitled to that. But I reject categorically the notion this case had anything to do with race or that I am a racist.”
But I want to focus here on the race issue because Politico asks the right question: “Doesn’t the perception of race get included in almost everything, especially in a court trial like this?”
The judge responded, “Let me put it this way. The evidence had concluded in the Brelo case on May 1, and we had closing arguments in this case on May 5. In the meantime, I had another criminal case start where they defendant was black male, and he was accused of domestic violence, theft and other similar crimes. That case, which was happening while I was deliberating on the Brelo verdict, ended with a not guilty jury verdict. The point is that I gave that defendant the same constitutionally fair trial that I believe I gave Michael Brelo. Race has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in my courtroom.”
The judge actually shifts his comment a little from race having nothing to do with this case, to “race has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in my courtroom.” The latter suggests that he is referring to his own decision rather than the context of the case. Those are very different comments.
But here is a critical point that he raises: “I was certainly well aware of the decedents were African-American and the defendant is white, but it certainly never consciously ever entered my thoughts while deliberating …”
But wait a second… what about implicit bias?
The judge continues, “I’m well aware of the concept of implicit bias. Sometimes people believe they have no biases but it can be shown they actually do. You can try to put it out of you mind, but it might still be there. All I can say I tried to be scrupulous to not take into account their races of the participants and not taking into account the possibility of some negative reaction to the verdict based upon the races. I decided this case on the law and only the law.”
So he understands implicit bias and he attempted to account for it by trying to decide the case on the law and the law only. He “tried to be scrupulous to not take into account their races” but if the bias is unconscious, does awareness of the possibility preclude it?
It is an interesting question to ponder. He talked in his verdict that every week “I pass a mound of stuffed animals left in memory of a 12-year-old many believe was murdered by a Cleveland police officer.” He said he rides his bicycle by that spot at least once a week, maybe more.
He responds to the connection between the Tamir Rice case and the Brelo case as: “I see them being perceived in the public mind as being related, as being different aspects of the same perceived problem. In my verdict, I did write that I acknowledge there are problems in police community/relations in many cities including Cleveland. Because of those problems, when something like that Tamir Rice death happens or the Brelo’s case is heard in court, tensions get higher and anger can flare, so they have those things in common. They generate public outrage before every fact is laid out and the guilt or innocence is decided. In that sense I see the cases as connected as they raise the same sort of outrage. But connected factually, that the Cleveland police are a bunch of murderers, no.”
It is a fascinating interview to be sure. The judge certainly walks back from his initial comment. The real answer is not that the case has absolutely nothing to do with race, but rather that the judge is aware of the races of the individual, he is aware of the concept of implicit bias, he did his best to attempt to rule based on the law. And that is really all we can ask.
But none of that means that this case had nothing to do with race. It just means that his portion of the case attempted to look at the law and rule accordingly.
As noted previously, I am troubled by the notion that a man who fires 49 of the 137 shots, including 15 at pointblank range on the windshield, cannot be held accountable because they could not prove that the bullets he fired killed the man. This is an involuntary manslaughter charge, not first degree murder. I think the burden was set too high.
But perhaps he is right that his decision was not based on race – we’ll never know for sure.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“…they could not prove that the bullets he fired killed the man. This is an involuntary manslaughter charge, not first degree murder. I think the burden was set too high.”
On one hand, we often say the burden is set too low when convicting black people of crimes, but on the other hand, it is too high when a police officer commits a crime? It has to be the same in both situations, to be equitable.
David,
So it would be fair to claim that the black judge that just found probable cause for the two officers that shot Tamir Rice also considered race or suffered from implicit racism in his decision. I only hear the claims of racism when it is a black person and white cop.
Everyone has implicit bias. However, it is not “implicit racism” that is an incorrect use of the term.
Here is an interesting article that explains some of it: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/science-of-racism-prejudice
zaqzaq
I disagree that we only hear claims of racism when it is a white police officer and a black suspect. Within the last month I listened to a piece on NPR regarding disparate treatment of black suspects by black officers. A couple of points were made about why this might occur. One was that the black officer may feel a greater sense of disgust or irritation at a member of their own perceived community breaking the law. A second reason might be a perceived greater need to come down more harshly on blacks in order to demonstrate their allegiance to their police comrades than to a person of the same race. This conversation itself is not one-sided, but it certainly does seem to enflame emotions for those who perceive it as being so.
What I still hear on occasion is the concept of implicit or unconscious bias being downplayed. To those who believe that this is an artificial construct, I would point out that there are certain characterizations that our minds make automatically without any conscious thought. We determine human from non human animal, gender, and race without any conscious thought process at all. And once the determination is made, we cannot un see it. It is simply there as part of our automatic identification of the person before us. There are other characteristics that may take a little longer to process or make an accurate judgment about. Age is one of these. At the extremes, the automatic mode will kick in as we require no thought process to determine a child from an elderly person. However, somewhere in the middle years, our range becomes broader and we may have to consciously evaluate separate features such as hair graying or loss, facial wrinkles, age spots and the like to fine tune our estimate. However, race is automatic. The judge in this case seems well aware of these nuances and seems to have the insight to realize that he was making a conscious effort to avoid any possible bias and adhere strictly to the law. The fact that he is so aware of the possibility does not mean that the officers involved shared his degree of self awareness and certainly does not mean that they are “color blind”.
Too many stories end with: “The suspects were killed by cops”. AFTER a 22 mile chase, etc? Lots of times they evade to get rid of evidence when they think they can throw it away. How many people were endangered by the chase? How many children were on the streets where the chase was? Whatever the reason, they did not stop and escalated the police response to a deadly level. Using a car as a weapon is something you have to meet with deadly force.
What is the Vanguard advocating as a proper response?
Re: When the suspects were eventually cornered, 137 shots were fired at the car by 13 officers. “The driver, Timothy Russell, 43, was shot 23 times, while the passenger, Malissa Williams, 30, was struck [by] 24 bullets. Both died at the scene, no gun was found in their car and the gunshot sound heard at the start of the chase is believed to have been the old car backfiring. Russell and Williams were both African-Americans.”
Of the 137 shots, “49 were from five-year Cleveland police department veteran Michael Brelo. He fired the last 15 of his shots into windshield of the car while standing its hood.
More details please! Why did the police open fire after the suspect vehicle was stopped–did they open fire immediately, before attempting to hail the suspects? Or when cornered, did the suspects car attempt to ram thru the police cars, at which point the police opened fire?
Why did Brillo jump on top of the suspect car hood?–seems like a dangerous move to make; onto the hood of desperados that you think might be armed–after all if you can shoot thru the windshield, so could they (if they were armed and alive, which the officer did not know); a cowboy move!
Obviously if officer Brillo shot 15 times while on the hood, and yet the suspects were hit by a total of 47 bullets, this means the suspects were wounded by at least 32 bullets before Brillo jumped on the hood–likely that Brillo was just ventilating and adding more lead weight to a couple of corpses
Miwok
“What is the Vanguard advocating as a proper response?”
I was not under the impression that the Vanguard was advocating for any particular response. The judge in this case made a broad statement claiming that “I reject all that entirely. This case had absolutely nothing to do with race.”
I believe that the article was based on this statement, not on appropriate police response.
With regard to the judges statement, I suspect that what he meant was that his personal decision making was not based on the race of any of those involved in the chase but rather on the legal grounds since he said this is response to personal hate mail accusing him of racism. However, it is fairly clear that with 13 officers actually shooting into the car, and presumably many others involved in the chase at some point, and with Officer Brillo acting in the way he did, it seems safe to say that the judge would have had no way of determining whether at least some of the police might have had a racist component to their actions. I think that the bigger picture of was race involved at any point during the decision making is something that we will never know and that the judge could not possibly know either.