Split Thread Akron police shoot unarmed man 60 times

[Thermal]

Your personal suspicions are not evidence of anything

No ****. Nor does a casual suspicion need to have compelling evidence. Kind of stupid to demand it, come to that.

The conversation has gone beyond this so please try to keep up.

Half a dozen posts back is an uncrossable time barrier? I'll keep that in mind, thanks.

While I think this is easy to do (at least for anyone who can walk and chew gum) others have suggested there may have been an easier way, just drop out the magazine, fire the shot and press the slide release, all done with one hand in seconds. I can teach anyone to do this in less than a minute.

Yeah, "others" did suggest that. Me, on the first page.

And no, the cleanliness of the weapon is irrelevant to any of this. The magazine is NOT a tight fit in the mag well, and in any case, the mag well in the Glock 19 on Walker's front seat looks clean enough to me. In fact, the weapon looks well maintained.

For the second wrist flick unchambering you suggested, I think a well oiled and spotlessly cleaned gun would be necessary. But you're right, it doesn't matter. The only scenario to account for the facts is firing out the window.

 

[arthwollipot]

Sorry, but you can **** right off if you expect me to do that. I would have put two in rapid fire into his centre mass, and I make no apologies for that. My life is more important to me than the life of some some random guy who is trying to end me!

Two. If there is a credible mortal threat and a lethal response is justified, two shots would be reasonable. The police in this case were not reasonable. Each officer fired at least eight shots. How many rounds were in their magazines?

Also, I'd like to make the point that 6-7 seconds is more than enough time for a dead person to fall to the ground. He would have lost a lot of blood very fast, and that means blacking out due to shock. They continued firing into a body that was already on the ground. That is not reasonable.

 

[smartcooky]

Two. If there is a credible mortal threat and a lethal response is justified, two shots would be reasonable. The police in this case were not reasonable. Each officer fired at least eight shots. How many rounds were in their magazines?

Also, I'd like to make the point that 6-7 seconds is more than enough time for a dead person to fall to the ground. He would have lost a lot of blood very fast, and that means blacking out due to shock. They continued firing into a body that was already on the ground. That is not reasonable.

It was entirely reasonable to consider him armed

1. Muzzle flash seen by cops
2. Shot heard by multiple cops

And their suspicions were later confirmed by traffic camera, the audio on multiple bodycam videos, and finding a spent casing near where the shot was fired - a casing consistent with the Glock 19 found in his car. He was clearly armed during the car chase - there can be no dispute about that and there was no evidence in tempore that he left the weapon behind when he exited the vehicle. Police all over the western world (UK, Ireland, Europe, USA, Australia, NZ) will consider a suspect armed and dangerous if he has been seen carrying or firing a weapon, and they will continue to regard the suspect to be armed and dangerous until they see evidence that he no longer has the weapon. That is a simply a fact - its the way things work.

But like I keep saying (see my post#408), there are far more important things to consider and to be angry about than whether or not it was reasonable to consider Jayland Walker an armed suspect, like


Why did they have several police cars chasing him for nothing more than a minor traffic violation?

Why was it necessary to keep pumping him full of lead when he was so clearly down and no longer a threat?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am buying the video evidence.

Look, normally, I am one of the first the first persons here to call out racist cops for killing unarmed black people, you absolutely know this to be true.

However, I see mitigating circumstances here in that the deceased person WAS INDISPUTABLY ARMED at one point during the chase AND there are clear, multiple items of evidence (including video and audio) that he fired at least one shot from his car.

The cops had absolutely NO REASON WHATSEVER to believe he was no longer armed.

They also apparently had no reason to start chasing him either. But cops don't need a reason.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nice to see all the support for the police violating your constitutional rights and killing you in the process. Fine policework that is clearly in the view of most here.

 

[sarge]

Nice to see all the support for the police violating your constitutional rights and killing you in the process. Fine policework that is clearly in the view of most here.

Clearly, that is not the view of ‘most’ here. Indeed, there appears to be only one poster to this thread that believes the shooting to be reasonable, and that poster has (to my knowledge) never considered it wrong when police kill (some classes of) citizens.

The distribution of posters believing that based on the current information available it was reasonable for the cops to assume the victim was armed after he exited the vehicle seems to be roughly half of those expressing an opinion. Most have opined that there never should have been a chase in the first place.

 

[lionking]

Clearly, that is not the view of ‘most’ here. Indeed, there appears to be only one poster to this thread that believes the shooting to be reasonable, and that poster has (to my knowledge) never considered it wrong when police kill (some classes of) citizens.

The distribution of posters believing that based on the current information available it was reasonable for the cops to assume the victim was armed after he exited the vehicle seems to be roughly half of those expressing an opinion. Most have opined that there never should have been a chase in the first place.

And this hits the nail on the head. The police response was always ridiculous. Saying that “they had no choice but to shoot him” when they had no cause to chase him is ridiculous. People defending the shooting should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[JoeMorgue]

A civilian being a card carrying member of the "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" club is a little different than a cop emptying 60 bullets into a suspect because "the entire metaphysical possibility that they weren't a threat hadn't been totally removed from my perception of reality."

And again why "Fear for me life" turns cops into stone cold killers when faced with a single black man but 400 cops "fearing for their life" means they piss themselves when faced with a single school shooter is a question yet to be answered.

 

[lionking]

A civilian being a card carrying member of the "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" club is a little different than a cop emptying 60 bullets into a suspect.

And again why "Fear for me life" turns cops into stone cold killers when faced with a single black man but 400 cops "fearing for their life" means they piss themselves when faced with a single school shooter is a question yet to be answered.

I couldn’t agree more.

To keep on flogging my now long dead horse, if only the US had far fewer and better trained police forces……..

 

[JoeMorgue]

Also good people can't let the bad people convince them that if we don't let cops murder people in the streets that civilians are going to wind up on Death Row for defending themselves in sane, reasonable circumstances.

 

[lionking]

Also good people can't let the bad people convince them that if we don't let cops murder people in the streets that civilians are going to wind up on Death Row for defending themselves in sane, reasonable circumstances.

Another very good point.

 

[ponderingturtle]

^ This. The police aren't omniscient. At the time, in my opinion they had good reason to believe the Jayland Walker was armed and was prepared to use his weapon.

Having said that, it should not have escalated to that point. I can't think of a good reason to engage in a high speed pursuit over such a minor violation as the one the police say he was stopped for.

Later, when he left his car and started running, certainly the police had a reason to pursue on foot. But that the moment it appeared he was drawing a weapon, in my opinion the individual officers should have scattered and taken cover (provided there was cover to be had.) Unfortunately I have no training at all in these matters; it could well be that scattering and taking cover is the worst thing to do in a situation like this.

So the police where right when they killed him, but as they can't seem to explain why they started chasing him to begin with, that would suggest that the whole thing started out with a violation of his rights. At what point did this move from being an unconstitutional violation of his rights to a legitimate kill?

 

[JoeMorgue]

The idea that cops are innocent when they (intentionally, passively, or a little of both) escalate situations to the point that the civilian does something, anything that the police can say is "threatening" and then respond with lethal force is psychotic apologetics.

We're one step removed from the police walking up to someone on the street, tossing the person a gun, and then shooting him because "they were armed" while people go "Well the person was armed, the police have a right to response to that."

Why "de-escalation" offends police on such a base level is baffling to me.

It's the same thing we see in the constant excuses that civilians have to stay calm, follow instructions (even directly contradictory instructions, and never so any emotions or be executed for it while cops are allowed to be bullying whiny children who "react in high stress situations."

 

[sarge]

So the police where right when they killed him, but as they can't seem to explain why they started chasing him to begin with, that would suggest that the whole thing started out with a violation of his rights. At what point did this move from being an unconstitutional violation of his rights to a legitimate kill?

We can know that the reason police chased him did not in any way violate any of his enumerated constitutional rights while simultaneously recognizing that it was stupid for the police to do so.

There is no inconsistency in recognizing that it was reasonable for the police to believe the victim was armed when he left the car and that the pursuit did not violate his rights while also recognizing that the attempts to apprehend were (in my opinion) not justified by any threat the victim posed to the public and that shooting the victim one time or sixty was wrong.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The Police are the one group we should not be sea-lioned into the whole "Well technically they were only as wrong as they were allowed to be by the system they themselves created" thing.

Like even if the person is a legit danger taking them in alive is the better outcome, we (we as in actual people not online troll personas) get that right?

It's not the police's job to test the system to see how many people they can technically within the rules of the system kill.

 

[ponderingturtle]

We can know that the reason police chased him did not in any way violate any of his enumerated constitutional rights while simultaneously recognizing that it was stupid for the police to do so.

So you hold that the police do not need a reason to pull over people? That is usually viewed as something requiring at least probable cause to pass constitutional muster.

I know it was a legitimate driving while black stop and he just did not follow the script and so died deservedly.

 

[sarge]

So you hold that the police do not need a reason to pull over people? That is usually viewed as something requiring at least probable cause to pass constitutional muster.

Do you believe there is anything being reported that would give pause about the constitutionality of the traffic stop? If so, please provide a link, as all I’ve seen reported makes it indisputable that (except for the shooting him 60 times part) there was nothing remotely unconstitutional about the whole thing.

I know it was a legitimate driving while black stop and he just did not follow the script and so died deservedly.

What a random thing to put in a response to anything I’ve said, ever.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do you believe there is anything being reported that would give pause about the constitutionality of the traffic stop? If so, please provide a link, as all I’ve seen reported makes it indisputable that (except for the shooting him 60 times part) there was nothing remotely unconstitutional about the whole thing.

That they have yet to provide a reason for the traffic stop. It is all unspecified. So as you consider unspecified non specific reason why do you assume without evidence that it was constitutional? I know harassing blacks is major part of the job the police are hired for but it is still at least technically unconstitutional for now.

 

[wareyin]

Do you believe there is anything being reported that would give pause about the constitutionality of the traffic stop? If so, please provide a link, as all I’ve seen reported makes it indisputable that (except for the shooting him 60 times part) there was nothing remotely unconstitutional about the whole thing.

Have police even said why they attempted to pull him over, yet? If not, there is something a bit unconstitutional about violating the 4th Amendment, at least until the initial cop comes up with a plausible reason.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Have police even said why they attempted to pull him over, yet? If not, there is something a bit unconstitutional about violating the 4th Amendment, at least until the initial cop comes up with a plausible reason.

But he is black so we give them a pass on needed the plausible reason and just let them start a high speed chase for the fun of it.