Split Thread Akron police shoot unarmed man 60 times

[lionking]

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."

Indeed. In Australia every single shot by police has to be accounted for and investigated.

 

[Nessie]

Its all down to training and the attitude of the police

https://www.pfoa.co.uk/articles/excessive-shots

"Researcher Alexander Jason reports that even under benign experimental conditions brain programming compels roughly 7 out of 10 officers to keep discharging rounds after being signaled to stop shooting. "In a real gunfight, under extraordinary stress and threat of death, an even much higher percentage would likely deliver extra shots," Jason asserts.
On average, additional findings show, officers may "reasonably" fire 6 rounds or more into suspects who initially are standing and then begin falling and who, in fact, may already be mortally wounded. And that's 6 rounds per officer involved in the confrontation."

UK police do not keep on firing. Neither do German, as I showed in a post above. Only American police unload entire magazines into people. They have taken it upon themselves to be summary state executioners. They should be trained to use shooting to make arrests & as far as possible not to kill, so that due legal process may take place.

 

[Cain]

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

It's a struggle to understand what you're trying to say. It would help if you quoted in context rather than in total.

It sounds like in response to the circumstances of why Walker was pursued, you're quoting from the report to say how he was pursued (on foot and by vehicle). If that is indeed what you're arguing, then it's a "how" answer to a "why" question, which is pretty misguided. But, again, I don't know what you're trying to say as you consistently fail to explain your reasoning.

As for the now notorious conditional statement, it was speculative. Outlining conditions before all of the known facts helps keep people principled and honest by guarding against motivated reasoning. Recall the sentence right before it: "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." Moments before the not-a-transcript of Trump's "perfect" phone call with Ukraine was released, Chris Christie said he expected it to be much to do about nothing, but Trump could be in trouble if he spoke like a mob boss and said, "I need you to do me a favor." This is precisely what I like about the New Zealand heuristic because it locks people into a decision based on facts rather than continually checking gut feelings. I can see why you don't like this as you would prefer to make things up as you go along.

As for the circumstances of the decision to pursue the Buick, this article was just posted:

DiCello [the lawyer representing Walker's family] said he believed Akron officers "saw or knew of my client’s car when they first encountered it.” He declined to provide details.

“They only chose to stop him after running the license plate and finding the flag from New Franklin,” he said.

If this is true, then it seemingly strengthens the decision to pursue and the case is not just about a broken tail-light. It might also explain why so many cops responded.

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

A pursuit means to follow. A pursuit can be at a high speed or a slow speed; it can be on foot or by car. Is it different where you come from?

Police departments back off of high-speed chases because of the danger they pose to the public. We're dealing with trade-offs and probabilities. If what you object to was an unsafe vehicle pursuit, then would it have been acceptable if they were traveling at a slow speed? I doubt it. Earlier you tried arguing the police should have let a presumably armed suspect run away, but when that started to fail, you moved on to another argument.

In life and poker, people can make dumb bets that pay off, and smart bets that lose. If the police pursued Walker in a dangerous high-speed chase because of a mere broken tail-light, then it sounds like a dumb bet. But the vehicle chase (including Walker's gun shot) did not result in any injuries. It's like a dumb bet that paid off. The belief that Walker still had a gun when he ran away was a smart bet that did not pay off. Needless to say, this does not mean dumb bets that payoff are retroactively justified, or that smart bets are retroactively condemned. The gods of chance are cruel.

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?

What's being distorted? Did the police lead from behind? Have I internalized some kind of copaganda? I have no idea what you're trying to argue except to seemingly invest words with talismanic properties.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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?

At least they didn't cuff him after they shot him this time.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Indeed. In Australia every single shot by police has to be accounted for and investigated.

In the UK there is a report written for just drawing a weapon.

 

[Cain]

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.

And if he has a gun, why should they assume it has bullets? And if he fires it, why should they assume they'll get hit? And if they get hit, why should they assume it will cause a serious injury?

Anyway, he wasn't killed merely because he was believed to have a gun. That's unambiguously false. If he were killed for that reason, then why would the police officers run after him at all? Why did they wait for him to spin around? They should have just shot him in the back.

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.

While there are a lot of problems with US policing, we will always have more shootings than other rich industrialized countries, and not because of poor training, or being trigger-happy, or bloodlust, or racism, or the other predictable weak answers that arise in these threads. The dominant reason is borne out of material conditions: This country is awash in guns, especially handguns, so American police officers are more credibly afraid of getting shot.

It's kind of amazing that Europeans on this board will say, "Man, I couldn't stand living in America. You never know when you'll get shot," but then turn around and say police officers are rank cowards because they're afraid of getting shot.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's kind of amazing that Europeans on this board will say, "Man, I couldn't stand living in America. You never know when you'll get shot," but then turn around and say police officers are rank cowards because they're afraid of getting shot.

Police officers chose their profession.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think the primary reason is because PDs primary function is to cover for police failure or corruption - that's the reason why the US has more police departments than the rest of the world combined.

 

[Nessie]

...

It's kind of amazing that Europeans on this board will say, "Man, I couldn't stand living in America. You never know when you'll get shot," but then turn around and say police officers are rank cowards because they're afraid of getting shot.

You could say that about joining the army. "Man, I couldn't stand joining the army. You never know when you'll get shot," but then turn around and say soldiers are rank cowards because they're afraid of getting shot. If a soldier is a coward, they should not be a soldier.

I worked as an unarmed security guard in Boston in the summer of 1986. I saw guns being drawn 4 times, and they were fired on three of those incidents. When I applied to join the police in Scotland in 1989, that experience was why I knew I would never become an armed police officer.

Someone who wants to be a police officer and knows they have to carry a gun, but then acts as a coward would, should not be a police officer.

 

[Cain]

You could say that about joining the army. "Man, I couldn't stand joining the army. You never know when you'll get shot," but then turn around and say soldiers are rank cowards because they're afraid of getting shot. If a soldier is a coward, they should not be a soldier.

At least in the US, most people who join the army probably do not want to be soldiers. They want to be teachers, counselors, lawyers -- professionals with a college degree.

Someone who wants to be a police officer and knows they have to carry a gun, but then acts as a coward would, should not be a police officer.

While substantially more dangerous than the average job, police officer is probably over-rated as a dangerous profession (I want to say it's in the top twenty). Some years more cops die from non-malicious car accidents on the job than being murdered by suspects.

Police officers chose their profession.

They do. They sign up for a job with the understanding they'll enjoy qualified immunity and be allowed to shoot at someone who might be reaching for a gun.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Being a cop is far less dangerous than delivering meals.
.

And PDs go to insane lengths to hide that many gunshot injuries are self inflicted or the result of friendly fire.

 

[Steve]

At least in the US, most people who join the army probably do not want to be soldiers. They want to be teachers, counselors, lawyers -- professionals with a college degree.



While substantially more dangerous than the average job, police officer is probably over-rated as a dangerous profession (I want to say it's in the top twenty). Some years more cops die from non-malicious car accidents on the job than being murdered by suspects.



They do. They sign up for a job with the understanding they'll enjoy qualified immunity and be allowed to shoot at someone who might be reaching for a gun.

Or someone who is not.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Police officers chose their profession.

They do. They sign up for a job with the understanding they'll enjoy qualified immunity and be allowed to shoot at someone who might be reaching for a gun.

also...

They do. They sign up for a job with the understanding they'll enjoy qualified immunity and be allowed to shoot at someone who might be reaching for a dildo.

 

[Nessie]

.... They sign up for a job with the understanding they'll enjoy qualified immunity and be allowed to shoot at someone who might be reaching for a gun.

That is part of it. They shoot, because they can. They can, because they almost always get away with it.

 

[lionking]

That is part of it. They shoot, because they can. They can, because they almost always get away with it.

As they will in this case.

 

[lomiller]

And if he has a gun, why should they assume it has bullets? And if he fires it, why should they assume they'll get hit? And if they get hit, why should they assume it will cause a serious injury?

Idiotic straw-man. Not even a good straw-man, just complete idiotic garbage. Cops need to be able to identify an immanent threat, if they can't they shouldn't be cops, an nothing in these idiotic statements have anything to do with identifying an immanent threat.

While there are a lot of problems with US policing, we will always have more shootings than other rich industrialized countries, and not because of poor training, or being trigger-happy, or bloodlust, or racism, or the other predictable weak answers that arise in these threads. The dominant reason is borne out of material conditions: This country is awash in guns, especially handguns, so American police officers are more credibly afraid of getting shot.

Again no. Police in the US are not properly trained to identify actual threats, they are routinely trained to kill for non-complaint behavior and taught that they had to live in such fear that they couldn't even risk waiting to see a gun before killing someone. Not only that they were taught that it's their right to kill simple because they are afraid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In the UK there is a report written for just drawing a weapon.

I think that is the case here as well.

 

[Cain]

Idiotic straw-man. Not even a good straw-man, just complete idiotic garbage. Cops need to be able to identify an immanent threat, if they can't they shouldn't be cops, an nothing in these idiotic statements have anything to do with identifying an immanent threat.

Add not understanding how a straw man works to a list of things you don't know. I'm not misrepresenting your position; I'm mocking it. If a suspect fired a gun, then bolts from a car, it's reasonable to assume he still has a gun. If he's rapidly spinning around and reaching down, then it's reasonable to assume he's reaching for said gun, and it's reasonable to assume he's not well-intentioned. The police officers were outside in the middle of the night; almost any object in motion under those less than ideal lighting conditions is not going to immediately register.

Again no. Police in the US are not properly trained to identify actual threats, they are routinely trained to kill for non-complaint behavior and taught that they had to live in such fear that they couldn't even risk waiting to see a gun before killing someone. Not only that they were taught that it's their right to kill simple because they are afraid.

It's pretty silly for you to give priority to police training rather than widespread gun ownership when widespread gun ownership heavily informs police training (and culture). If we were not awash in guns, we'd have a better chance of lowering the temperature in encounters with law enforcement. People are not so much taught to live in fear as that comes dialed up on their factory presets (check in with Mr. Hobbes). What you're arguing is not far removed from NRA propaganda where the solution is education rather than acknowledging humans are glorified apes. But, yeah, harp on training, and when it fails to achieve desired results, you can say that it was not "real" training.

 

[lionking]

Add not understanding how a straw man works to a list of things you don't know. I'm not misrepresenting your position; I'm mocking it. If a suspect fired a gun, then bolts from a car, it's reasonable to assume he still has a gun. If he's rapidly spinning around and reaching down, then it's reasonable to assume he's reaching for said gun, and it's reasonable to assume he's not well-intentioned. The police officers were outside in the middle of the night; almost any object in motion under those less than ideal lighting conditions is not going to immediately register.



It's pretty silly for you to give priority to police training rather than widespread gun ownership when widespread gun ownership heavily informs police training (and culture). If we were not awash in guns, we'd have a better chance of lowering the temperature in encounters with law enforcement. People are not so much taught to live in fear as that comes dialed up on their factory presets (check in with Mr. Hobbes). What you're arguing is not far removed from NRA propaganda where the solution is education rather than acknowledging humans are glorified apes. But, yeah, harp on training, and when it fails to achieve desired results, you can say that it was not "real" training.

I think that you are missing the point that in a better US you can have gun control and improved police training. But if the former can’t be achieved (and it can’t) then better police training should be a priority.

 

[sarge]

Add not understanding how a straw man works to a list of things you don't know. I'm not misrepresenting your position; I'm mocking it. If a suspect fired a gun, then bolts from a car, it's reasonable to assume he still has a gun. If he's rapidly spinning around and reaching down, then it's reasonable to assume he's reaching for said gun, and it's reasonable to assume he's not well-intentioned. The police officers were outside in the middle of the night; almost any object in motion under those less than ideal lighting conditions is not going to immediately register.



It's pretty silly for you to give priority to police training rather than widespread gun ownership when widespread gun ownership heavily informs police training (and culture). If we were not awash in guns, we'd have a better chance of lowering the temperature in encounters with law enforcement. People are not so much taught to live in fear as that comes dialed up on their factory presets (check in with Mr. Hobbes). What you're arguing is not far removed from NRA propaganda where the solution is education rather than acknowledging humans are glorified apes. But, yeah, harp on training, and when it fails to achieve desired results, you can say that it was not "real" training.

I am typically not a pro-cop poster. Our police are all either thugs themselves or willing to tolerate thugs among them.

But training is not the difference between cops in England (or Australia) and the US. The presence of guns accounts for most of the difference in the way our cops interact with our citizens. If guns were not so stupidly available to citizens and if our cops were not all armed all the time, often with military weapons, then we would have far fewer citizens murdered by cops and virtually no cops murdered by citizens.

After the near elimination of firearms should come the complete refutation of ‘qualified immunity’ as a defense, along with investigation of all credible reports of cop on citizen violence by a federal non-law enforcement IG.

Solve these two minor problems, then send all police recruits to a nationally standardized basic training. That’s where training stands in the hierarchy of lack in US policing.