Split Thread Akron police shoot unarmed man 60 times

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Where was he 'weilding' a gun?

 

[plague311]

Where was he 'weilding' a gun?

That was my question. For someone chastising others by claiming they can't read, that's a pretty glaring own-goal there.

The guy left the gun in the car, and the cops certainly didn't know if he was "gun wielding" anymore than they knew the flash on his camera went off. From what I've seen in the articles there was no damage inside the car from the gun going off. Was I wrong on that?

All they had to go on was a flash in the car over the Fourth of the July weekend. As if nothing else could have caused that flash in the car.

Has it actually been confirmed he shot the gun in the car? I didn't pay that close of attention.

 

[wareyin]

Has it actually been confirmed he shot the gun in the car? I didn't pay that close of attention.

They claimed to have found a spent casing "consistent with the handgun recovered" "in the area" of where they say they saw the flash occur. There is also traffic cam footage of a flash.

 

[plague311]

They claimed to have found a spent casing "consistent with the handgun recovered" "in the area" of where they say they saw the flash occur. There is also traffic cam footage of a flash.

I apologize, I should look it up, but I'm rather lazy today. Was he holding the gun out the window? Ugh, I'll find a link and look it up. I suppose I should watch it rather than just reading the descriptions anyway.

 

[wareyin]

I apologize, I should look it up, but I'm rather lazy today. Was he holding the gun out the window? Ugh, I'll find a link and look it up. I suppose I should watch it rather than just reading the descriptions anyway.

I have actually been unable to find the picture in question, just the video of the shooting itself with various media outlets giving the police description of the video evidence of a shot.

Apparently the entire chase on foot lasted less than 10 seconds before officers opened fire, which is a detail I was previously unaware of.

 

[Thermal]

I have actually been unable to find the picture in question, just the video of the shooting itself with various media outlets giving the police description of the video evidence of a shot.

Apparently the entire chase on foot lasted less than 10 seconds before officers opened fire, which is a detail I was previously unaware of.

*Thermal cracks knuckles*

 

[Cain]

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.

This is madness. You took umbrage when I inferred you were opposed to a foot chase, and wrote, "I said chase him." You were not opposed to chases in principle, and argued that officers were not trained well enough to execute a pursuit: "There are eight of you, so you should have trained to pursue and capture a suspect."

Can you settle on a position? As far as I can tell, you've only shifted to this one because I suggested it (as a reductio ad absurdum for the foot chase). It's rich to talk about reading comprehension when you've engaged in constant ad hoc reasoning.

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

Is it now a problem that he was chased at all, or that he was chased by four (or more) cars? Again, it's incumbent upon you to clarify your (shifting) position because it now sounds like you want to say there should have been zero cops. If eight cops showed up because the car's registration was not up to date, then I'd agree that's wildly excessive (and a misuse of taxpayer resources). I'd guess eight cops showed up because Walker 1) Led police on a chase; 2) Fired a gun. Those actions are going to trigger backup.

If someone does not pull over for a traffic or vehicle violation, if he flees, then what do people reasonably assume? The suspect isn't just running from a Mickey Mouse violation; there's something else going on. By refusing a lawful order, the suspect breaks more laws. Generally speaking, if police do not pursue suspects (and enforce laws), then more criminals will be at large and feel emboldened to take advantage of others.

The New Zealand heuristic that "The decision about whether to pursue or not should be made before signalling the driver to stop" sounds like a good one. If this had only been a broken tail-light or a missing license bulb, then chasing someone down does indeed sound like an ill-conceived policy. However, if Walker's driving around erratically with a ski mask on, in addition to multiple vehicle infractions, then a bunch of things can add up to more than the sum of their parts. Assigning some blame to the police sounds reasonable, but firing a gun out the window shifts a lot of culpability back onto Walker, and ensures he will be pursued by car and on foot.

If I invite two people who hate each other to a party, they fight and bystanders suffer injuries and death, it's unreasonable to assign sole blame to me on the grounds that "none of this would have happened" if not for my invitation. Walker had been behaving like a cop magnet.

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

Speed is but one factor. This was late at night with relatively few motorists/pedestrians and what look to be good weather conditions. We live in a world of trade-offs. And, of course, the car chase did not arouse much ire; that had to be discovered as the arguments for pursuing and shooting Walker began to collapse.

That was my question. For someone chastising others by claiming they can't read, that's a pretty glaring own-goal there.

You were saying...

 

[plague311]

I have actually been unable to find the picture in question, just the video of the shooting itself with various media outlets giving the police description of the video evidence of a shot.

Apparently the entire chase on foot lasted less than 10 seconds before officers opened fire, which is a detail I was previously unaware of.

Well that saves me the search at least! I hope they release whatever footage they have that shows him firing a shot. It would be interesting to see how it looked in real-time. Did these cops actually see it?

That seems to kind of be the theme in these shootings. The cops make a decision in less than 15 seconds to make a corpse. It's like they don't even want to wait before shooting.

 

[plague311]

You were saying...

Not 'were', are. I am saying that there is no evidence he was wielding a gun and you sure as **** haven't provided anything to state otherwise. Especially since we know he wasn't wielding a gun when he was shot. That's a fact.

Did you provide something contrary to that in your post? If you did, I didn't see it.

So far we have the claim that he had fired a gun, which we'll wait to see how that actually turns up, but we know he didn't have the gun at the time of his death. We also don't know if he shot the gun out the window, I'd like to see the picture myself.

I take police claims with a lot of salt. They generally change dozens of times by the time the final truth comes out and there are dozens of examples on this forum of that taking place. If you want to take their word as gospel, you do you, bud. I'll wait for a bit.

 

[wareyin]

*Thermal cracks knuckles*

 

[Nessie]

The only justification for shooting someone a 60th time, is if that person has been shot 59 times, but they are still standing and are still a threat.

 

[wareyin]

If someone does not pull over for a traffic or vehicle violation, if he flees, then what do people reasonably assume? The suspect isn't just running from a Mickey Mouse violation; there's something else going on. By refusing a lawful order, the suspect breaks more laws. Generally speaking, if police do not pursue suspects (and enforce laws), then more criminals will be at large and feel emboldened to take advantage of others.

The New Zealand heuristic that "The decision about whether to pursue or not should be made before signalling the driver to stop" sounds like a good one. If this had only been a broken tail-light or a missing license bulb, then chasing someone down does indeed sound like an ill-conceived policy. However, if Walker's driving around erratically with a ski mask on, in addition to multiple vehicle infractions, then a bunch of things can add up to more than the sum of their parts. Assigning some blame to the police sounds reasonable, but firing a gun out the window shifts a lot of culpability back onto Walker, and ensures he will be pursued by car and on foot.

Where'd you hear that Walker was driving around with a ski mask on? I haven't seen that one anywhere. So far, the cops in question don't seem to know why they decided to pull a black man over in the middle of the night.

If I invite two people who hate each other to a party, they fight and bystanders suffer injuries and death, it's unreasonable to assign sole blame to me on the grounds that "none of this would have happened" if not for my invitation. Walker had been behaving like a cop magnet.

If "behaving like a cop magnet" = "having a broken taillight" then, sure. That's the only thing any cop has been able to come up with, so far.

Speed is but one factor. This was late at night with relatively few motorists/pedestrians and what look to be good weather conditions. We live in a world of trade-offs. And, of course, the car chase did not arouse much ire; that had to be discovered as the arguments for pursuing and shooting Walker began to collapse.

Er, no, the car chase was not "discovered", it was in the very first news reports on the death. It's also been brought up multiple times previously in this thread.

 

[Cain]

Not 'were', are. I am saying that there is no evidence he was wielding a gun and you sure as **** haven't provided anything to state otherwise. Especially since we know he wasn't wielding a gun when he was shot. That's a fact.

I never said he was wielding a gun when he was shot. I'll quote myself: "He was believed to have a weapon that he fired earlier. You don't think it's a reasonable assumption that he could have still been armed?"

And shame on Oedipus for ******* his mother. Anyone else would've recognized their baby cave.

Where'd you hear that Walker was driving around with a ski mask on? I haven't seen that one anywhere. So far, the cops in question don't seem to know why they decided to pull a black man over in the middle of the night.

We famously do not know the circumstances. I was making a conditional statement.

Er, no, the car chase was not "discovered", it was in the very first news reports on the death. It's also been brought up multiple times previously in this thread.

You're retconning. Which posts? Where were people critically remarking on the car chase? It doesn't come up until page 5. In terms of events, the discussion has been about cops pursuing Walker on foot and shooting an unarmed man 60 times.

For the sake of argument, let's say Walker leads cops on a slow-speed chase, fires out the window, runs, gets shot sixty times, and doesn't have a weapon. What changes? It's all hunky-dory?

 

[lionking]

I never said he was wielding a gun when he was shot. I'll quote myself: "He was believed to have a weapon that he fired earlier. You don't think it's a reasonable assumption that he could have still been armed?"

And shame on Oedipus for ******* his mother. Anyone else would've recognized their baby cave.



We famously do not know the circumstances. I was making a conditional statement.



You're retconning. Which posts? Where were people critically remarking on the car chase? It doesn't come up until page 5. In terms of events, the discussion has been about cops pursuing Walker on foot and shooting an unarmed man 60 times.

For the sake of argument, let's say Walker leads cops on a slow-speed chase, fires out the window, runs, gets shot sixty times, and doesn't have a weapon. What changes? It's all hunky-dory?

You are not making conditional statements, you are making stuff up. From the report:

vehicle and foot pursuit

Does pursuit mean slow speed chase where you come from? And what about this?

Police said a few minutes later the car slowed

Oh, and in your own words:

Led police on a chase

All you are doing is distorting the normal meaning of easily understood words to put the cops in the best possible light. Why?

Surely you have seen enough threads about the shoot now, ask questions later MO of US cops. Yes, it is almost certain that the cops have coordinated their stories and they will walk.

And some will say this whole thing is a good outcome as there one less thug in the world. You haven’t said this, but I still didn’t expect some of the things you have posted.

 

[lomiller]

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.

Police don't get to kill someone simply because they think they may have a gun. They don't even get to kill someone just because they really do have a gun. The suspect has the be doing something threatening with that gun, which was IMPOSSIBLE in this case because he didn't even have one.

This is just another example of poorly trained cowards who can't distinguish what actually represents a threat. Police need a lot more training and the courage to wait and see if there is an actual threat before opening fire. "He may have a gun so I'm afraid" simply isn't a good enough reason to kill someone.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I fear it's actually an example of cops realizing that they botched a traffic stop an don't want to leave witnesses alive.

 

[Brainster]

Edited by jimbob: 

off topic / rule 12 but left in place as responses are reasonable

 

[lionking]

Edited by jimbob: 

off topic and direct response edited out

That some people would be a tad annoyed about police putting so many bullet holes in an unarmed black person?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Edited by jimbob: 

moderated content removed

.

I merely observe the fact that, once cops start shooting, the suspect very rarely stays alive to tell their side of the encounter.
Do you believe that, once shots are fired, killing the suspect is what the cops are supposed to do?

 

[Nessie]

I merely observe the fact that, once cops start shooting, the suspect very rarely stays alive to tell their side of the encounter.
Do you believe that, once shots are fired, killing the suspect is what the cops are supposed to do?

There is indeed a huge difference between shooting to make an arrest and execution by firing squad. The German police understand that, the US police do not.

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...d-only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/328297/

"German police shot only 85 bullets in all of 2011, a stark reminder that not every country is as gun-crazy as the U.S. of A.... most of those shots weren't even aimed anyone: "49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed...Meanwhile, in the U.S...we can get to 85 in just one sitting, thank you very much. 84 shots fired at one murder suspect in Harlem, another 90 shot at one fleeing unarmed man in Los Angeles. And that was just April."