• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread Akron police shoot unarmed man 60 times

You used MILES in ROTC Summer Camp? I gotta ask…..it was not at Bragg was it?


Training can significantly reduce the incidents of tunnel vision you are describing. The National Training Centers do an excellent job of replicating the stress of combat. Units that are able to do a rotation soon before deploying and remain largely intact through the deployment fare measurably better in combat than units that train themselves before deploying.

Police forces do not train to any meaningful level of competency for the tasks they should be good at.

Edit: that sentence was meant to be highlighted

I think some do. As I mentioned before I spent 7 years at a senior level with the 20,000 Victoria Police. I spent some time at the Academy and witnessed the mock ups where not only academy staff (most sworn officers) but regular police participated in elaborate scenarios.

Also where major changes were made to operating procedures, all police were retrained. An example was Operation Beacon, where the police in the 1990s were using firearms much too often. This operation worked.

https://blogs.deakin.edu.au/criminology/tag/operation-beacon/
 
Last edited:
You used MILES in ROTC Summer Camp? I gotta ask…..it was not at Bragg was it?


Training can significantly reduce the incidents of tunnel vision you are describing. The National Training Centers do an excellent job of replicating the stress of combat. Units that are able to do a rotation soon before deploying and remain largely intact through the deployment fare measurably better in combat than units that train themselves before deploying.

Police forces do not train to any meaningful level of competency for the tasks they should be good at.

Fort Lewis when the 9th ID was still around. They were nearing the end of their existence but still doing lots of experimental stuff that mostly did not work. Never been to Bragg.

That was not the only time I saw it happen. That was just the most memorable since I got "killed". Note that the individual who did it was also something less than rocket scientist material and I was wondering how he ever got into the program.
 
I made this point earlier on. If nobody else was around, nobody else was endangered. Chase after him, or let him run. He was hardly a criminal mastermind, so would have been found.

This was pathetic policing all round.

What?? So let a presumably armed assailant hole up into a nearby residence? The whole point is protecting bystanders.
 
What?? So let a presumably armed assailant hole up into a nearby residence? The whole point is protecting bystanders.

Agreed. They don't know who the Masked guy is. The police only think they know who's car it is (if stolen, pretty worthless info). You can't let a presumably armed and definitely desperate guy have the run of the land.

Say the police let him trot off, and he goes on to rape a girl. Do the cops have clean hands, letting him go about his masked and criminal business? How do you explain that to the girl's parents?
 
What?? So let a presumably armed assailant hole up into a nearby residence? The whole point is protecting bystanders.

What's the Data on this?
Is this something that generally happens, or are we talking about a very rare event?
How often would it need to happen for cops to be justified to use extreme force to prevent even the chance of it happening?

If you set up a worst case scenario, anything becomes justifiable.
 
What?? So let a presumably armed assailant hole up into a nearby residence? The whole point is protecting bystanders.

Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

I said chase him. There are eight of you, so you should have trained to pursue and capture a suspect. And please, he was a suspect, nothing more.

Further do you really believe these cops thought “we are going to empty our guns into this guy to possibly save the lives of pedestrians”? Because I don’t. Poor training, blood lust and a misguided sense of camaraderie with the cop who started the shooting are far more likely.
 
Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

I said chase him.

They did chase him! They stopped running when he abruptly turned around. Do you need a drove of cops engaged in the foot chase? No, probably not. I don't know police procedure in these circumstances. I'd imagine, others would get back to their cars and head the suspect off.

And please, he was a suspect, nothing more.

What are you trying to suggest? They had reason to believe he was armed. They attempted to use non-lethal weapons to neutralize him. The dude ran.

Further do you really believe these cops thought “we are going to empty our guns into this guy to possibly save the lives of pedestrians”? Because I don’t. Poor training, blood lust and a misguided sense of camaraderie with the cop who started the shooting are far more likely.

Frankly, I'm surprised none of the cops took friendly fire. If a police officer were injured, would you think it was because anyone wanted it to happen? It's just ridiculous. One of the cops shouted "ceasefire" multiple times.
 
What's the Data on this?
Is this something that generally happens, or are we talking about a very rare event?
How often would it need to happen for cops to be justified to use extreme force to prevent even the chance of it happening?

If you set up a worst case scenario, anything becomes justifiable.

It's a reasonable scenario. Fleeing suspects want to escape the police so they melt into nearby surroundings. Yes, this has been known to result in home invasion, which leads to a police stand-off. I'm not drawing from any statistical sources I've read (and I don't know if any exist). I would not be surprised if more often the criminals break into a home in order to steal a vehicle, but the point is it's better to confront armed suspects in open fields rather than crowded apartment complexes.
 
It wasn't. He had no visible weapon. and represented no visible immanent danger to anyone.

I thought I could let this go, but it's so transparently silly. If he did not earlier fire a gun, or if police officers did not believe he had fired a gun, then you'd be on much firmer ground. He escalated the encounter throughout.

This is just poorly trained gun-happy cops that could murder you or anyone else tomorrow. Don't go thinking that just because unarmed black men are 3X more like to be shot by police that unarmed white men don't get murdered as well.

Statistically, I'm unlikely to be murdered, period. Unless you're in a relationship with a cop, or getting out of a relationship with a cop, non-cops are far more likely to kill a given person, regardless of race (law-abiding citizens in particular). Even in instances of domestic abuse, cops are committing violence apart from their official duties. That's ******* violence, not police violence. People should be more afraid of... themselves. Suicide is more common than homicide, especially police homicide.

Now, instead of imagining oneself as the suspect, let's imagine you're a police officer. The suspect runs, do you chase? If you do, and he suddenly turns around, do you wait to register a hand in motion (at night) to confirm he's indeed holding the gun you believed was fired earlier? If you do, but other cops fire, do their actions cause you to fire? If they do, do you fire repeatedly?

It's so ridiculous that people here can readily imagine themselves behaving like this irrational, ski-mask wearing man, but once they put on a cop uniform, they're Neo acting in bullet time.
 
It's a reasonable scenario. Fleeing suspects want to escape the police so they melt into nearby surroundings. Yes, this has been known to result in home invasion, which leads to a police stand-off. I'm not drawing from any statistical sources I've read (and I don't know if any exist). I would not be surprised if more often the criminals break into a home in order to steal a vehicle, but the point is it's better to confront armed suspects in open fields rather than crowded apartment complexes.

Sorry, but anecdotal evidence should not be the basis of police guidelines.

it seems to me that this is a case of motivated reasoning to get to the desired outcome.


De-escalation is a tactic used in most Western countries, and the result is far less violence - against suspects, police or bystanders. Chasing someone with guns seems to me far more likely to result in a desperate hostage situation than giving the suspect space to consider his options, maybe call a friend etc.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but anecdotal evidence should not be the basis of police guidelines.

it seems to me that this is a case of motivated reasoning to get to the desired outcome.

Silliness. You want someone who started chase, who officers believed fired a gun, someone wearing a ski mask in the summer... to be out at large? Because of the danger of pursuing him in an empty park? This guy only needs gloves to complete the criminal starter-kit. What's the statistical evidence of putting a disarmed suspect in handcuffs versus conducting a community-building trust exercise like getting him to pinky swear? Motivated reasoning, indeed.

This is not an eight year-old who stole off with a Baby Ruth. It's a suspect presumed to have a gun; all things being equal, it's not a great idea to have this kind of person running around.

De-escalation is a tactic used in most Western countries, and the result is far less violence - against suspects, police or bystanders. Chasing someone with guns seems to me far more likely to result in a desperate hostage situation than giving the suspect space to consider his options, maybe call a friend etc.

"Why chase him on foot?" You might as well ask, "Why chase him by car?" Police do back off in high-speed pursuits because they have to balance the danger to the public. If we understand the logic of a car chase, then it should be pretty simple to understand the logic of a foot chase, especially under the circumstances of a seemingly empty park.

I will happily concede that if the police had a policy not to pursue ever, and not to even conduct sweeps -- just break for jelly donuts -- then, yes, it's unlikely the suspect will promptly commit a home invasion. He'll call a friend, get an uber, and go away (but crime again another day). But I think you're full of it. In what western countries do police have a policy to NOT chase this guy?
 
It is an empirical fact that high-speed car chases cause way more harm than they could possibly avoid.

In Britain, containment, rather than pursuit would be the strategy. The number of CCTV makes it possible to track a subject without pursuit.
 
Last edited:
I will happily concede that if the police had a policy not to pursue ever, and not to even conduct sweeps -- just break for jelly donuts -- then, yes, it's unlikely the suspect will promptly commit a home invasion. He'll call a friend, get an uber, and go away (but crime again another day). But I think you're full of it. In what western countries do police have a policy to NOT chase this guy?

Well as this started with a car chase, here you go:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07...olice-pursuit-policy-following-review/6615492

Victoria Police will only allow officers to chase fleeing drivers when there is a threat to public safety or a serious offence committed, under a new policy for pursuits on the state's roads.

The new direction revealed today was a result of a series of recommendations from a coronial inquest into deaths linked to high-speed pursuits in 2013.

It means officers cannot begin chasing a car unless there is a risk to public safety or a crime has been committed which involved a serious injury.

So this guy would not have been chased in the first place, leaving nobody dead.

And I will put Victoria Police above most, if not all, tinpot US police forces.
 

And I will follow that right up with the NZ Police chase policy.

https://www.policeassn.org.nz/news/inside-the-revised-pursuit-policy#/

Although the revised pursuit policy has been presented by Police as a mere tweak – based on recommendations from the 2019 joint Police/IPCA review – it essentially puts the brakes on police pursuits of fleeing drivers unless there is an overwhelming risk of harm.

One of the key policy points now reads: “A pursuit is only justified when the threat posed by the vehicle occupant(s) prior to the pursuit commencing, and the necessity to immediately apprehend the driver and/or passenger(s), outweighs the risk of harm created by the pursuit.

Important principles that Police is reinforcing to staff are:

• The decision about whether to pursue or not should be made before signalling the driver to stop.
• A driver failing to stop or remain stopped is not in itself sufficient reason to pursue.
• A decision to not pursue or to abandon a pursuit will be supported.
• An investigation is preferred over a pursuit.
• Dispatchers are empowered to abandon pursuits.​
It looks pretty much on a par with yours.
.
.
 
And I will follow that right up with the NZ Police chase policy.

https://www.policeassn.org.nz/news/inside-the-revised-pursuit-policy#/

Although the revised pursuit policy has been presented by Police as a mere tweak – based on recommendations from the 2019 joint Police/IPCA review – it essentially puts the brakes on police pursuits of fleeing drivers unless there is an overwhelming risk of harm.

One of the key policy points now reads: “A pursuit is only justified when the threat posed by the vehicle occupant(s) prior to the pursuit commencing, and the necessity to immediately apprehend the driver and/or passenger(s), outweighs the risk of harm created by the pursuit.

Important principles that Police is reinforcing to staff are:

• The decision about whether to pursue or not should be made before signalling the driver to stop.
• A driver failing to stop or remain stopped is not in itself sufficient reason to pursue.
• A decision to not pursue or to abandon a pursuit will be supported.
• An investigation is preferred over a pursuit.
• Dispatchers are empowered to abandon pursuits.​
It looks pretty much on a par with yours.
.
.

We had to change our policing in England because of the danger to the public from the police engaged in high-speed pursuits. They now must be approved and monitored, looks like we have pretty much the same approach as NZ.
 
It is an empirical fact that high-speed car chases cause way more harm than they could possibly avoid.


It's as if neither one of you can read. We're talking about the foot chase. Even cops in the US, as I noted, will back off from high-speed car chases. Walker was apparently involved in a car chase the previous night in an adjacent town, and the police voluntarily gave up.

In Britain, containment, rather than pursuit would be the strategy. The number of CCTV makes it possible to track a subject without pursuit.

Including a gun-wielding suspect escaping on foot?



ETA: This is likely a prank video.
 
Last edited:
It's as if neither one of you can read. We're talking about the foot chase. Even cops in the US, as I noted, will back off from high-speed car chases. Walker was apparently involved in a car chase the previous night in an adjacent town, and the police voluntarily gave up.



Including a gun-wielding suspect escaping on foot?



ETA: This is likely a prank video.

Well you might be, but I’m not. Let’s check out your reading comprehension here. Would the need for a foot race occur if the (unnecessary and often dangerous) car chase did not?

I rest my case.

Seriously, can you please explain the need for a car chase by 8 cops (presumedly 4 cars) for unspecified licence irregularities?

The car chase didn’t occur, the shooting doesn’t happen. You have seen that three jurisdictions would not have initiated the car chase. Who is out of step.
 
It's as if neither one of you can read. We're talking about the foot chase. Even cops in the US, as I noted, will back off from high-speed car chases. Walker was apparently involved in a car chase the previous night in an adjacent town, and the police voluntarily gave up.

The foot chase was after the car chase, though. And the car chase was conducted at high speeds.

And the car chase was becase of a broken taillight and license plate light. Yep, a broken tailight and license plate light are certainly worth a high speed car chase!

eta: whoops, the taillight and license plate light were from the incident the previous day. The Akron cops still haven't been able to come up with the reason they tried to pull him over in the first place.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom