Cleveland police, city face lawsuits in deadly chase
CLEVELAND — The estates of two people shot and killed by Cleveland police during a chase that involved more than 60 squad cars and 137 shots fired sued the city, the mayor and police on Thursday.
The lawsuit was filed electronically in U.S. District Court against Mayor Frank Jackson, Safety Director Martin Flask, police Chief Michael McGrath and dozens of officers, supervisors and dispatchers.
The lawsuit asked for improved police procedures and unspecified damages on behalf of the families of driver Timothy Russell, 43, and his passenger, Malissa Williams, 30.
Russell was shot 23 times, and Williams was shot 24 times one year ago.
Mayoral spokeswoman Maureen Harper said the city would respond to the issues in court. “As with any legal matter, we will review it and address the issues raised by the lawsuit through the legal process,” she said in an email.
The police union leader, Jeff Follmer, said the officers acted properly and would be vindicated in court.
“The officers were doing their job that night to protect the public and apprehend criminals,” Follmer said.
The lawsuit alleged excessive force by police, failure to supervise officers and assault and battery.
In addition to damages, the lawsuit asked the court to order the city to make changes in police policies to prevent a similar occurrence and appoint someone to implement any changes.
The chase, with more than a third of on-duty officers participating, began when one officer thought he heard a gunshot from a car speeding by police headquarters.
Both victims were black, and no weapon was found. Some community activists complained that the deaths were racially motivated executions by police.
Disciplinary hearings were held for more than 100 officers accused of joining the chase without permission, failure to manage officers or other departmental violations.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Big Bang ‘waves’ go poof under analysis
- NASA satellite to track water in soil
- Medicare payments to tie doctor, hospital payments to quality rather than volume of care
- National debt due to sharply escalate
- ‘Drink of the Devil’ unites formerly feuding families
- Judge expresses doubt about constitutionality of no-fly list
- Accused Kennedy killer’s casket must go to brother, judge rules
- Internet rules in line for big shift