Split Thread Akron police shoot unarmed man 60 times

[JoeMorgue]

It's obvious black men need to go out in public in the disguise of a school shooter, then they will be safe.

Seriously watching the people

Edited by sarge: 

edited to remove FMF content

jump through mental hoops as to why a black guy who tears that tag off the a mattress gets 168 warning shots in the back then they urinate on his corpse and charge his family for the dry cleaning costs while they sit on their phones in the hallway while Mecha-Hitler mows down a group of schoolchildren would be laughable if it didn't involve so many dead innocent people.

 

[llwyd]

If it makes any difference at all, there were 60 bullet holes in the body. There were significantly more than 60 shots.

This is so absurd though - totally unthinkable in Finland: they might well shoot if there was an immediate threat to their or civilian lifes, but fgs they wouldn't shoot plus 60 times. I would would bet between 1-4 bullets.

Whether deadly force was necessary or not that was a panicky and utterly amateurish response, a shambles.

 

[plague311]

This is so absurd though - totally unthinkable in Finland: they might well shoot if there was an immediate threat to their or civilian lifes, but fgs they wouldn't shoot plus 60 times. I would would bet between 1-4 bullets.

Whether deadly force was necessary or not that was a panicky and utterly amateurish response, a shambles.

Well, I mean, yeah...but does Finland even have black people that have the audacity to wear masks? /sarcasm

 

[Cain]

Then where is the video of him doing that from all the dash cams? The cops would not be reticent to show that video if it existed. So how did he do that and not get it caught on film by all the cop cars?

Like I said, there's a cruiser directly behind the vehicle when it's claimed that Jayland fired the shot. Show me that video. It should be easy to do. If they show that video it would show without a doubt that his hand was outside the window, and that he fired the gun.

There's a still shot in the video at 1:38 (red circle and giant arrow -- not even you two gumshoes can miss it) and it looks like the police car is to the right of the Buick. It's possible a center-mounted dashcam did not get a good angle (there's also more distortion at the edge of a picture). The other camera has a good angle on the driver side window, and, again, there's real-time corroboration from a loud pop sound, and an officer saying, "shot fired."

But, whatever. Sharpen your crayons and write letters to state and/or federal investigators to make sure they triple-check the dashcam that was suspiciously not included in this media package.

Clearly the word of the police is all the evidence you need, which makes it questionable why you don't accept the word of the police over direct video evidence, why are you trusting your lying eyes instead of the police?

Is that clearly the case? Whether you like it or not, there are significant pieces of evidence that independently converge. A useful heuristic I once heard from an elderly professor is to double-check whenever anyone says "clearly" (or "obviously") because these are words weasels often summon to bolster questionable assertions.

I've seen all of the evidence available and the police story fails because they haven't backed up their end of the story. The video you supplied, and the still in the article I saw, certainly don't sell the story for me...

I require more than the cops word. You might not. That's fine, that's how you roll. Being that I'm Nancy Drew and all, I would like a bit more.

Reducing separate recordings to "the cops['] word" substantially mischaracterizes the state of play.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's a still shot in the video at 1:38 (red circle and giant arrow -- not even you two gumshoes can miss it) and it looks like the police car is to the right of the Buick. It's possible a center-mounted dashcam did not get a good angle (there's also more distortion at the edge of a picture). The other camera has a good angle on the driver side window, and, again, there's real-time corroboration from a loud pop sound, and an officer saying, "shot fired."

All those things and more happened in Udvale and the cops stood in the hallways with their thumbs up their asses.

Why?

 

[ponderingturtle]

There's a still shot in the video at 1:38 (red circle and giant arrow -- not even you two gumshoes can miss it).

Nice to see muzzle flashes in your world hang around for almost a second and travel back along the car.

 

[plague311]

There's a still shot in the video at 1:38 (red circle and giant arrow -- not even you two gumshoes can miss it) and it looks like the police car is to the right of the Buick.

I've seen the still about a thousand times. I linked to it before your ******* video, so you don't need to point it out to me. That's what's got you sold, eh? Like I said, if that's enough for you, then do you. I'll wait for a bit more.

It's possible a center-mounted dashcam did not get a good angle (there's also more distortion at the edge of a picture). The other camera has a good angle on the driver side window, and, again, there's real-time corroboration from a loud pop sound, and an officer saying, "shot fired."

I didn't hear the sound and I listened to your whole video. I did hear the cop say that "there was a shot fired that sounded like it came through the door", whatever the **** that means. Did you hear the sound? Can you give me the timestamp of the actual sound? That would certainly help.

Really though? You're going with the "well maybe the police car didn't catch it" angle? Either way, that camera would have easily shown the flash significantly better than a still or his bodycam that caught nothing. Even to the right of the car you'd see the flash and it would catch the pop of the gun way, way better. If you don't think so, then don't. I don't give a ****. I can't imagine how that isn't clear, but to each their own.

But, whatever. Sharpen your crayons and write letters to state and/or federal investigators to make sure they triple-check the dashcam that was suspiciously not included in this media package.

Ah, yes. The thinly veiled "You guys are retards" jab. I thought you'd be a bit wittier than that with your insults, disappointing. Anyway, I'm not going to email or write anyone. Hopefully the oversight of that department will dig through it all and release it. So far they've released only what's required of them, but this is all a red herring anyway. It doesn't change the fact that they shot an unarmed man 60 times.

Reducing separate recordings to "the cops['] word" substantially mischaracterizes the state of play.

Because those recordings don't show what you're claiming they show. It's convincing enough for you, and that's fine. It's not for me. I haven't heard the pop you're referring to and I'd like to see more footage around it.

I'll wait to see what spicy, thinly veiled insult you come up with next.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I still can't remember if this is the one we're going to get mocked for not ignoring or getting mocked for not knowing he's obviously doing an amazing parody of someone we're supposed to be ignoring.

 

[Cain]

All those things and more happened in Udvale and the cops stood in the hallways with their thumbs up their asses.

Why?

I have no idea how this follows from what you quoted.

Nice to see muzzle flashes in your world hang around for almost a second and travel back along the car.

Except the flash does not hang around for almost one second. When you pause a video on Youtube, you can watch it frame-by-frame using the period key (comma to go backward). I sorely lack the expertise to identify anomalies regarding the shape and direction of a muzzle flash from a moving vehicle captured at an angle. As in the case of the supposed burning temperature of jet fuel and the melting point of steel used in the Towers, I'll happily defer to the expertise of others. However, one BS alarm I'll set up is whether or not they can tell a second from a fraction of a second.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I have no idea how this follows from what you quoted.

Of course you don't. I totally believe you.

 

[Cain]

I've seen the still about a thousand times. I linked to it before your ******* video, so you don't need to point it out to me. That's what's got you sold, eh? Like I said, if that's enough for you, then do you. I'll wait for a bit more.

I didn't hear the sound and I listened to your whole video. I did hear the cop say that "there was a shot fired that sounded like it came through the door", whatever the **** that means. Did you hear the sound? Can you give me the timestamp of the actual sound? That would certainly help.

There's a pop at around the 59 second mark.

Really though? You're going with the "well maybe the police car didn't catch it" angle? Either way, that camera would have easily shown the flash significantly better than a still or his bodycam that caught nothing. Even to the right of the car you'd see the flash and it would catch the pop of the gun way, way better. If you don't think so, then don't. I don't give a ****. I can't imagine how that isn't clear, but to each their own.

We're not just going by a still. There's a video where we see the flash erupt. Also, yes, I'm going with "well, maybe..." because it's a mite more circumspect than Mr. "I've seen the still about a thousand times" and "that camera would have easily..." The implications of your view are also what...? The recovered casing is pure coincidence? Or there's a far-reaching police conspiracy? Hume's maxim is in effect.

Edited by jimbob: 

Rule 0 / 12 violation removed

 

[Andy_Ross]

There's a still shot in the video at 1:38 (red circle and giant arrow -- not even you two gumshoes can miss it) and it looks like the police car is to the right of the Buick. It's possible a center-mounted dashcam did not get a good angle (there's also more distortion at the edge of a picture). The other camera has a good angle on the driver side window, and, again, there's real-time corroboration from a loud pop sound, and an officer saying, "shot fired."

But, whatever. Sharpen your crayons and write letters to state and/or federal investigators to make sure they triple-check the dashcam that was suspiciously not included in this media package.



Is that clearly the case? Whether you like it or not, there are significant pieces of evidence that independently converge. A useful heuristic I once heard from an elderly professor is to double-check whenever anyone says "clearly" (or "obviously") because these are words weasels often summon to bolster questionable assertions.



Reducing separate recordings to "the cops['] word" substantially mischaracterizes the state of play.

Loud pop sound?

A microphone inside a police car chasing another car picked up a pistol shot from a car in front?

 

[Trebuchet]

Loud pop sound?

A microphone inside a police car chasing another car picked up a pistol shot from a car in front?

Hey, if they can smell marijuana while inside a police car coming from another closed car going the other way, why not?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Still waiting on a reason why cops run towards some gunfire with their guns a blazin' and run away from others.

Other than the obvious reason of course.

 

[Nessie]

It is too easy to wrote off irrational behaviour as suicide by cop. I worry it becomes victim blaming.

A police officer's duty includes the preservation of life, even those who want to end theirs.

 

[Cain]

Still waiting on a reason why cops run towards some gunfire with their guns a blazin' and run away from others.

Ah, so that's what you're on about. A car chase, muzzle flash, dashcams was part of "all of those things" when what you really meant just one thing -- hearing gun shots. Yeah, it's a wonder a different people respond to different circumstances in different ways. Uvalde police ignored the guidance (since Columbine) to engage an active school shooter immediately. They suck.

I'm not against "whataboutism" in principle, but this was not well-conceived or executed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ah, so that's what you're on about. A car chase, muzzle flash, dashcams was part of "all of those things" when what you really meant just one thing -- hearing gun shots. Yeah, it's a wonder a different people respond to different circumstances in different ways. Uvalde police ignored the guidance (since Columbine) to engage an active school shooter immediately. They suck.

I'm not against "whataboutism" in principle, but this was not well-conceived or executed.

"LOL we can't actually expect police to react consistantly to the point they actually... ya know like protect us from actual real dangerous things and don't murder people committing minor crimes" is really, really not the flex-argument your persona is pretending to think it is.

 

[plague311]

It is too easy to wrote off irrational behaviour as suicide by cop. I worry it becomes victim blaming.

A police officer's duty includes the preservation of life, even those who want to end theirs.

It's one of the weirder arguments being presented here, in my opinion.

"He obviously wanted to die by cop."

So that makes it ok to shoot him 60 times? Even IF he wanted to die via suicide by cop that doesn't make the cops actions less ridiculous. That doesn't rationalize why they didn't take any other actions to prevent shooting him. It doesn't make him more threatening, or armed, it just makes him irrational and in need of help.

God damn the rationalizations that we accept for situations like these actually fit the definition of retarded. It hinders our society from progress when we say, "Well, he wanted to die. The cops shot him to death. Nothing to see here, move on."

 

[JoeMorgue]

And it goes back to the core problem, one that's not even a legal or moral question but something far more basic.

If the police can't even react to threats consistently in a way that actually protects us... what are they good for? It's a waste of resources even on a purely utilitarian level.

A police force that can only kill black people who would have been a threat in the alternative timeline where they didn't kill them first isn't just evil, it's a waste.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do we still have an answer as to why the cops started this whole thing or are we just going to go with driving while black?