• 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

Fortunately they stopped him for being black which is a reason and hence constitutional.

There is zero evidence for this. You are making it up.



Because it is real easy to say was doing 40 in a 35MPH zone or what ever the supposed actual reason is, but that they are spinning it without saying is rather telling. Cops always put out information that makes them look good and suppress info that makes them look bad, so it is reasonable to suspect that they did not have a good reason to initiate a high speed chase.

Except there is zero evidence that this happened. You are making this up.


You are clearly in favor of cops using unspecified reasons to pull over a black man and starting a high speed chase from that. Why is going the step further bothering you so much? The cops clearly did everything right here.

My every post and my actual words make it clear this is untrue. That I recognize that there is zero evidence that this was an unconstitutional stop and some evidence that it was a legal traffic stop does not indicate I support unconstitutional stops. That is bizarre…..and if repeated again, a lie.
 
Ponderingturtle is doing his, frankly insufferable routine yet again, but more neutrally at this point do the police really get the benefit of the doubt as the default anymore?
 
I am going to say that fleeing cops on a simple traffic stop, firing a gun out the window while they are chasing you, exiting the car wearing a mask and causing a foot chase, maybe then quickly reaching for your waist...well, that could seem like irrational overreaction, too.

Now, if anyone thinks this sort of behavior is not ill-advised, white or black, they could give it a go. They key thing is: if you don't try it, your chances of getting shot by 8 cops go way down. And it is all within your control.

Yes….just do anything the cops tell you and they won’t kill you (except we have ample evidence that they will).

Cops are thugs that murder civilians and infringe on constitutionally protected rights and regularly do so with Black citizens. This victim certainly made errors, but he is not the primary reason he was executed. That responsibility rests primarily with the 8 cops that pumped 60 rounds into an unarmed citizen, including shooting him after he was down and dead and cuffing and stuffing him even after he was dead.
 
Ponderingturtle is doing his, frankly insufferable routine yet again, but more neutrally at this point do the police really get the benefit of the doubt as the default anymore?

No. At least, not from me.

However, what we currently know makes it most likely that this was a routine traffic stop that precipitated an illegal attempt to flee, followed by an incredibly stupid decision to pursue, and then a suicide by cop……that the cops seemed quite gleeful to accommodate.

And if evidence (actual evidence) comes out that says otherwise, I will jump all over the ‘all cops are thugs” bandwagon. I am a season ticket holder on that ride.
 
Yeah, the unconstitutional thing is a red herring. Nothing about this was unconstitutional.

The cops are a victim of being a hammer. When you're a hammer, everything is a nail. The police in the US don't really know, or are trained for that matter, to handle mental health issues, or anything that can't be resolved with a bullet.

According to the reports they even had a taser out, but no one used them. It was guns first. It's just a terrible way to do the policing.
 
Yes….just do anything the cops tell you and they won’t kill you (except we have ample evidence that they will).

Cops are thugs that murder civilians and infringe on constitutionally protected rights and regularly do so with Black citizens. This victim certainly made errors, but he is not the primary reason he was executed. That responsibility rests primarily with the 8 cops that pumped 60 rounds into an unarmed citizen, including shooting him after he was down and dead and cuffing and stuffing him even after he was dead.


Quite frankly, the highlighted is comical. Those "errors" are exactly what led to him getting gunned down ("executed", how dramatic, btw). Whether he was shot one time, or 1000.

It doesn't matter that they "cuffed and stuffed" him after he was dead. That is all just supposed to trigger some sort of emotional outrage. Not working here.
 
Last edited:
Quite frankly, the highlighted is comical. Those "errors" are exactly what led to him getting gunned down ("executed", how dramatic, btw). Whether he was shot one time, or 1000.

It doesn't matter that they "cuffed and stuffed" him after he was dead. That is all just supposed to trigger some sort of emotional outrage. Not working here.

The guy who's never missed the chance to piss on the corpse of a PoC that has been shot by cops, says he's not emotionally bothered by the cops stuffing the corpse of a man they just shot 40+ times into the back of a squad car, truly shocking. More news at 10.
 
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.

If you (the cop making the stop) can't say why you tried to make the stop in the first place, exactly what reason do we have to believe that it was a legal stop? Cops stopping people without any reason has been ruled a violation of the 4th a few times, even if the unconstitutional stop turned up some other violation.


A cop pulling you over for any reason does not violate your 4th amendment rights?

Its called a "Terry Stop"

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/
 
Last edited:
Quite frankly, the highlighted is comical. Those "errors" are exactly what led to him getting gunned down ("executed", how dramatic, btw). Whether he was shot one time, or 1000.

It doesn't matter that they "cuffed and stuffed" him after he was dead. That is all just supposed to trigger some sort of emotional outrage. Not working here.

The immediate reason that he was executed is that 8 cops, protected by body armor, executed him. That they might have thought he was armed is no more important than him actually not being armed.

The cops claim to have attempted to use tasers. That they even considers the use of tasers after the foot chase began indicates they were never actually in legitimate fear for their lives. Execution….accurate, not emotional.
 
The immediate reason that he was executed is that 8 cops, protected by body armor, executed him. That they might have thought he was armed is no more important than him actually not being armed.

The cops claim to have attempted to use tasers. That they even considers the use of tasers after the foot chase began indicates they were never actually in legitimate fear for their lives. Execution….accurate, not emotional.


Completely untrue. They may have fired tasers prior to him reaching for his waistband. As the saying goes, "you reach, I teach". Pretty simple.

Again, "execution", so emotional. It was the shooting of a presumably armed criminal, pretty simple.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the unconstitutional thing is a red herring. Nothing about this was unconstitutional.

The cops are a victim of being a hammer. When you're a hammer, everything is a nail. The police in the US don't really know, or are trained for that matter, to handle mental health issues, or anything that can't be resolved with a bullet.

According to the reports they even had a taser out, but no one used them. It was guns first. It's just a terrible way to do the policing.

This is wrong. They did attempt to stop him with a taser... it failed to stop him.

https://www.vox.com/2022/7/7/23197430/jayland-walker-police-shooting-akron-ohio-footage

A lawyer for Walker’s family, Bobby DiCello, told NBC that he didn’t see any evidence that Walker posed a threat to officers by shooting at them. “They descend upon him, and the first two of many officers there use their Tasers,” he said. “There can be no doubt he was unarmed at the time he exited the vehicle. It’s a nonlethal force when you have a nonlethal threat.”
 
A cop pulling you over for any reason does not violate your 4th amendment rights?

Its called a "Terry Stop"

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/

So long as the ‘any reason’ the cops have for pulling you over is an articulable suspicion that the person has or is about to commit a crime, then no, a Terry stop does not violate the 4th amendment.

Picking nits, I’m not sure that TvO applies to traffic stops generally. ‘Terry’ established that a ‘frisk’ pursuant to a legitimate stop (the stop at issue in Terry wasn’t a traffic stop)is not an unconstitutional search for 4th amendment purposes. A traffic stop generally requires probable cause and most states driving laws compelle the driver to ID with a drivers license and registration, and this power exists independent of TvO.
 
Completely untrue. They may have fired tasers prior to him reaching for his waistband. As the saying goes, "you reach, I teach". Pretty simple.

Again, "execution", so emotional. It was the shooting of a presumably armed criminal, pretty simple.

Absolute evidence of their lack of fear of mortal danger. Absolute.

And ‘you reach, I teach’ is cop-speak for ‘I will shoot you at the slightest provocation and society will celebrate me doing so, especially if you are black’. Normal people recognize this is abhorrent.
 
So long as the ‘any reason’ the cops have for pulling you over is an articulable suspicion that the person has or is about to commit a crime, then no, a Terry stop does not violate the 4th amendment.

Picking nits, I’m not sure that TvO applies to traffic stops generally. ‘Terry’ established that a ‘frisk’ pursuant to a legitimate stop (the stop at issue in Terry wasn’t a traffic stop)is not an unconstitutional search for 4th amendment purposes. A traffic stop generally requires probable cause and most states driving laws compelle the driver to ID with a drivers license and registration, and this power exists independent of TvO.

It does.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop/stop_and_frisk
"In a traffic stop setting, the Terry condition of a lawful investigatory stop is met whenever it is lawful for the police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. The police do not need to believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity."​
Ohio v Terry was extended by the Supreme Court in Adams v. Williams, extended again in Pennsylvania v. Mimms and again in Michigan v. Long

So, they can stop you while they check for violations, e.g. stolen vehicle, expired tags, license validity etc. They can even pull you over for a broken tail-light!

.
.
 
It does.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop/stop_and_frisk
"In a traffic stop setting, the Terry condition of a lawful investigatory stop is met whenever it is lawful for the police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. The police do not need to believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity."​
Ohio v Terry was extended by the Supreme Court in Adams v. Williams, extended again in Pennsylvania v. Mimms and again in Michigan v. Long

So, they can stop you while they check for violations, e.g. stolen vehicle, expired tags, license validity etc. They can even pull you over for a broken tail-light!

.
.
We are getting into OT territory…..pity as I had mentally composed a treacherous repost that completely destroyed you!

In this case, so long as the police reasonably believed that the driver had committed a vehicular infraction, the attempted stop was constitutionally sound. The fleeing by the driver was illegal even if the attempted stop itself was not constitutionally sound, and is indicative that the driver himself believed he had committed an infraction. It is unlikely (but certainly not impossible) at this point that the cops were stopping him for DWB.
 
Absolute evidence of their lack of fear of mortal danger. Absolute.

Yes it is.

I am still not necessarily buying the “he reached for his belt” reason for shooting him. It may be a complete lie, but it also may be he was trying to move the taser wires off him. One started to shoot and the other idiots followed.
 
I don't see this posted, yet, but good news! Walker was only shot 46 times, rather than the 60 initially reported!

And even better for police, only five of those shots entered him from the back! When only 10% of shots fired are into a fleeing suspect's back, it's clearly a justified kill!

/s
Ah, so not astoundingly ridiculously gratuitous, only ridiculously gratuitous.
 
This isn't what I was looking for, but it does make for interesting reading:

U.S. police trainers with far-right ties are teaching hundreds of cops (Reuters, 6 May 2022)

On social media, Richard Whitehead is a warrior for the American right. He has praised extremist groups. He has called for public executions of government officials he sees as disloyal to former President Donald Trump. In a post in 2020, he urged law enforcement officers to disobey COVID-19 public-health orders from “tyrannical governors,” adding: “We are on the brink of civil war.”

Whitehead also has a day job. He trains police officers around the United States...
 
This is what I was looking for:

“Are You Prepared to Kill Somebody?” A Day With One of America’s Most Popular Police Trainers (Mother Jones, Mar/April 2017)

Marching around the stage in a theater in Lakeport, California, Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman tells his audience that they shouldn’t go out looking for people to kill, because those who need killing—the “gangbangers,” terrorists, and mass murderers—will come to them. All they need to do is be ready. “Are you prepared to kill somebody?” he asks me and the small group of “armed citizens” who’ve paid $90 or more to see him. “If you cannot answer that question, you should not be carrying a gun.”

Two hours into his high-octane, six-hour seminar, the self-described top police trainer in the nation is just getting warmed up. Grossman, a 60-year-old former Army Ranger, wears low-slung blue jeans, an ornate Western belt buckle, and a black button-up emblazoned with the words “Grossman Academy,” the “O” stitched like a bull’s-eye. He sports a military haircut. Onstage are two giant easel pads, their legs taped to the floor so that they don’t go crashing down whenever he hits them to punctuate his points. “We fight violence. What do we fight it with? Superior violence. Righteous violence.” Like a preacher, he doesn’t bother with notes.

Over the past two decades, Grossman has achieved semi-celebrity status as an authority on aggression, close combat, and the psychology of violence. He literally wrote the book on killing, On Killing. His books have been translated into several languages and he says they are required reading at the FBI Academy and many law enforcement academies. He’s lectured at West Point and claims to have conducted trainings for every federal law enforcement agency, every branch of the armed forces, and cops in all 50 states. For more than 19 years, he’s been on the road, leading seminars and trainings nearly 300 days a year. He has a black belt in Hojutsu, the Japanese art of shooting. (Grossman did not grant my request to attend one of his police trainings, nor did he agree to be interviewed.)

...

Grossman calls his discipline “killology“—”the scholarly study of the destructive act.” Though he spent years as a soldier, he has never killed anyone in combat. And while he is a luminary to many in law enforcement, the “warrior” mentality he espouses is under fire. As Black Lives Matter has exposed the prevalence of police abuses and the confrontational attitude that often sparks them, Grossman continues to insist that cops are the ones under siege and that they must be more, not less, prepared to use force.
 

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