Split Thread Akron police shoot unarmed man 60 times

[Norman Alexander]

TBH, just reading the posts from our US members in this thread, it sounds like the whole tale happened in a war-torn province of Afghanistan, where US troops are constantly battling armed warlords in house-to-house running battles. And these "resisters" in cars might be the next sniper from a rooftop, so they have to be gunned down now before they get the chance. Never mind the legal justification. This is war! Bad things just happen, and evidence can be manufactured to justify the required result, in a war. BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

 

[arthwollipot]

BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

Finished that for you.

 

[Lplus]

There was never a real risk of a cop taking a bullet in this, and so many other, cop shootings. If what the police are claiming turns out to be true (the chief has already lied about one significant thing), then the cops were justified in having their guns in their hands. It isn’t evident that they were justified in shooting the suspect.

Since you were not present you have no idea if that comment is correct or not. Wishful thinking is no substitute for knowlege.

How many unarmed Americans can die because the cops are taught to kill when they feel the slightest provocation and you still be okay with it?

That depends on how many run when challenged as this person did.

 

[arthwollipot]

That depends on how many run when challenged as this person did.

Unfortunately unarmed people are shot by police even when they don't run.

 

[Brainster]

BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

Finished that for you.

BABABABBOOOOM!

Thread is finally getting interesting.

 

[Darat]

TBH, just reading the posts from our US members in this thread, it sounds like the whole tale happened in a war-torn province of Afghanistan, where US troops are constantly battling armed warlords in house-to-house running battles. And these "resisters" in cars might be the next sniper from a rooftop, so they have to be gunned down now before they get the chance. Never mind the legal justification. This is war! Bad things just happen, and evidence can be manufactured to justify the required result, in a war. BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

Nah, soldiers have rules of engagement, they wouldn't get away with the indiscriminate shooting the police do!

 

[Lplus]

Unfortunately unarmed people are shot by police even when they don't run.

True, but running sure increases the chances.

 

[arthwollipot]

True, but running sure increases the chances.

Careful - you're dangerously close to saying that its his own fault he got shot.

 

[Lplus]

Careful - you're dangerously close to saying that its his own fault he got shot.

There's certainly quite a few who would read it that way, but then, they'll take any opportunity to twist words to further their moral outrage.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There's certainly quite a few who would read it that way, but then, they'll take any opportunity to twist words to further their moral outrage.

Do you think the case doesn't warrant Moral outrage?

 

[lionking]

Since you were not present you have no idea if that comment is correct or not. Wishful thinking is no substitute for knowlege.

That depends on how many run when challenged as this person did.

As I said before, in civilised nations cops don’t shoot people for simply running away. Do you think cops have sniper-like proficiency? They don’t. Under stress shots go everywhere, endangering any public who just may be hanging around. The difference here, once he was hit, the 8 cops emptied their weapons into a helpless, unthreatening body.

Look if this is how you want police to behave, just say so. You know what the shooting death rates of US cops are. If those rates are fine, just say so. But don’t get annoyed when other nations judge the US.

 

[llwyd]

Lethal force sounds like being justified but this mad shooting frenzy surely was unprofessional and panicky.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Not justified, but legally excusable, which is all US cops are looking for.

 

[lionking]

Lethal force sounds like being justified but this mad shooting frenzy surely was unprofessional and panicky.

How? He had no weapon. How much longer is this ridiculous “his hand went towards his waistline” excuse going to work? Yeah I know, probably a long time as DAs always find it plausible.

 

[Lplus]

Do you think the case doesn't warrant Moral outrage?

Not really, not when it is such a predictable outcome of the dead person's actions in the light of known previous police behaviour.

As I said before, in civilised nations cops don’t shoot people for simply running away. Do you think cops have sniper-like proficiency? They don’t. Under stress shots go everywhere, endangering any public who just may be hanging around. The difference here, once he was hit, the 8 cops emptied their weapons into a helpless, unthreatening body.

He's stopped running when he was shot - and the number of shots was excessive, but quite irrelevant to the events which led up to the shooting

Look if this is how you want police to behave, just say so. You know what the shooting death rates of US cops are. If those rates are fine, just say so. But don’t get annoyed when other nations judge the US.

I don't have to approve of the situation to accept that the situation exists at this point in time.

How? He had no weapon. How much longer is this ridiculous “his hand went towards his waistline” excuse going to work? Yeah I know, probably a long time as DAs always find it plausible.

At 12.30 am I defy you or anyone else to be certain that a chased individual who turns at bay has no weapon. Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

 

[Darat]

Not justified, but legally excusable, which is all US cops are looking for.

It's not even that - just not being prosecuted is all they seem to be concerned about. ETA And expect.

 

[sarge]

Maybe, but I am not sure this is a case of cops kiling a innocent civilian.

In this particular instance, neither am I. In fact, in this particular instance, my default would be that this was an unfortunate outcome brought about primarily by the victim of the shooting.

 

[sarge]

Since you were not present you have no idea if that comment is correct or not. Wishful thinking is no substitute for knowlege.

Of course I can know such a thing without being present. After the fact, we now know that there was no weapon near to the victim and that the cops were in no danger at all when the guy was shot. That isn’t really reasonably debatable.

The debate is about whether or not it was reasonable for the cops to mistakenly believe they were in danger sufficient to justify killing the guy.

That depends on how many run when challenged as this person did.

Refusing to follow a cops orders is almost never justification for killing, unless the order is ‘stop doing________, which presents mortal danger to me or other people”. Running from cop by itself is never justification for deadly force.

 

[sarge]

TBH, just reading the posts from our US members in this thread, it sounds like the whole tale happened in a war-torn province of Afghanistan, where US troops are constantly battling armed warlords in house-to-house running battles. And these "resisters" in cars might be the next sniper from a rooftop, so they have to be gunned down now before they get the chance. Never mind the legal justification. This is war! Bad things just happen, and evidence can be manufactured to justify the required result, in a war. BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

Perhaps, if you skip over all the Americans that say the opposite, you could fairly arrive at this conclusion.

 

[Lplus]

Of course I can know such a thing without being present. After the fact, we now know that there was no weapon near to the victim and that the cops were in no danger at all when the guy was shot. That isn’t really reasonably debatable.

The debate is about whether or not it was reasonable for the cops to mistakenly believe they were in danger sufficient to justify killing the guy.

No, you were not present, therefore you have no idea what information was available to the cops to allow them to make a decision on whether they might take a bullet. "After the fact" is irrelevant to the decisions made at the time.

Refusing to follow a cops orders is almost never justification for killing, unless the order is ‘stop doing________, which presents mortal danger to me or other people”. Running from cop by itself is never justification for deadly force.

That might depend on what caused the person to run....