Split Thread Akron police shoot unarmed man 60 times

[ponderingturtle]

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





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




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.

And your evidence is that there are no cases of driving while black ever. It is merely something that happens statistically but you can never find any specific traffic stop to be done because the driver was black.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. At least, not from me.

Except of course in this case, we ignore driving while black being a thing and just accept whatever weak excuse the cops offer.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, the unconstitutional thing is a red herring. Nothing about this was unconstitutional.

So it really doesn't matter why they started and continued to escalate this series of events?

ANd I see we have another vote for the cops don't need a reason to do a traffic stop under the constitution

 

[sarge]

And your evidence is that there are no cases of driving while black ever. It is merely something that happens statistically but you can never find any specific traffic stop to be done because the driver was black.

Stop digging. You’ve found the bottom of the hole.

Evidence: the cops describe traffic violations as the cause for the stop. That they are unspecified isn’t proof that they didn’t exist.

Evidence: the guy ran. No one runs just because they believe the cops are going to kill them. They run because they have some minor infraction and they believe the cops are going to kill them, or they run because they have warrants and they believe the cops are going to kill them, but they don’t run for no reason at all.


Now show me yours. What evidence besides “it sometimes happens in some places, so it must have happened here, in spite of the evidence that it did not” do you have that this was an attempted unconstitutional traffic stop?

 

[wareyin]

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 agree that cops can pull you over for a broken tail light, or license plate light, or headlight. Those things are equipment violations across the US and leave you vulnerable for being stopped.

What we don't agree on, however, is that more than 3 weeks after the shootings, police being unable to explain exactly why they attempted to pull Walker over in the first place indicates that police are confident that they had a good reason to have initiated this whole thing.

I repeat, I was pulled over once for what the cop claimed was a broken license plate light. The Police Officer articulated a reason for the stop. The stop was not, in fact, for a broken license plate light because the light was actually working. I'm pretty sure the cop was hoping to get something else, DUI, maybe. When my license came back clean, no smell of alcohol, etc, and he "generously" let me go with a warning, I was able to drive a little way down the road to stop and check, and lo and behold the light was working fine. The officer refused to let me exit the vehicle to see the light malfunctioning during the stop. So, again, I have experience with bogus stops, but even during bogus stops cops are able to say why the **** they initiated a situation. The fact that 3 weeks plus later they still don't know is very suspicious to me, at least. YMMV

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Could you make up your mind that the cops need an articulable reason or not to pull someone over, or is "nonspecific vehicle issue" really an articulable reason in your book?

 

[wareyin]

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.”​

The lawyer reported two officers using tasers because police told him that's what happened. We've now been told that one taser was shot, possibly missing Walker with one of the leads, during the less than ten whole seconds between Walker exiting the vehicle and police murdering him.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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!

.
.

Or even something that they can't even articulate into a coherent reason just that they don't look right. Great excuse to harass black people that is and get it ruled constitutional. Don't look like you belong get searched.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

They just don't need to ever specify what that infraction was. We are supposed to just trust them that it is there.

 

[lionking]

The lawyer reported two officers using tasers because police told him that's what happened. We've now been told that one taser was shot, possibly missing Walker with one of the leads, during the less than ten whole seconds between Walker exiting the vehicle and police murdering him.

Indeed. Hardly even time to start to run away and “reach to his waist”

 

[sarge]

Could you make up your mind that the cops need an articulable reason or not to pull someone over, or is "nonspecific vehicle issue" really an articulable reason in your book?

You are hopelessly confused about my position and are tilting windmills.

I perfectly understand what does and does not constitute a legal traffic stop. In this instance there is zero (no hyperbole…actually zero) evidence that this was not a valid traffic stop.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Stop digging. You’ve found the bottom of the hole.

Evidence: the cops describe traffic violations as the cause for the stop.[/quotre That they are unspecified isn’t proof that they didn’t exist.

Exactly you give cops the benefit of the doubt, and they are assumed to be acting in a lawful manner because "Trust us, we had reasons" is enough for you.

Evidence: the guy ran. No one runs just because they believe the cops are going to kill them. They run because they have some minor infraction and they believe the cops are going to kill them, or they run because they have warrants and they believe the cops are going to kill them, but they don’t run for no reason at all.

So this retroactively justified the stop.

Now show me yours. What evidence besides “it sometimes happens in some places, so it must have happened here, in spite of the evidence that it did not” do you have that this was an attempted unconstitutional traffic stop?

I just don't accept like you do "we stopped him for legitimate reasons, really, no we won't say what they are" answer the police have given. You do that is the difference.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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)

"Why Mommy Carries a Gun" by Lt. Col. Grossman

remember Grossman has never killed anyone in combat.

Lets read together.

 

[lionking]

I perfectly understand what does and does not constitute a legal traffic stop. In this instance there is zero (no hyperbole…actually zero) evidence that this was not a valid traffic stop.

Well now I’m confused. How does an “unspecified licence violation” constitute a legal traffic stop?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You are hopelessly confused about my position and are tilting windmills.

I perfectly understand what does and does not constitute a legal traffic stop. In this instance there is zero (no hyperbole…actually zero) evidence that this was not a valid traffic stop.

And there is also zero evidence that it was valid. You trust the cops when they say "No really we didn't violate the law" I don't. That is the difference.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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)

Grossman psychopath also said that killing people will help you to have the best sex of your life

 

[plague311]

So it really doesn't matter why they started and continued to escalate this series of events?

ANd I see we have another vote for the cops don't need a reason to do a traffic stop under the constitution

Well now I’m confused. How does an “unspecified licence violation” constitute a legal traffic stop?

He was being pulled over for a vehicle malfunction, or some term closely related to that. It just means that he had some form of light out, or something wrong with his car. It's mentioned in a few of the stories that he was getting pulled over for the same exact reason a few nights, or a week, before he got killed.

I have no reason at all to think that two cops from two different jurisdictions would pull over the same vehicle without there being something mechanically wrong with the vehicle, but both give the exact same reason for wanting to pull the vehicle over.

It's perfectly constitutional, and while they both might be lying about why they're pulling him over, I don't think so.

 

[sarge]

Well now I’m confused. How does an “unspecified licence violation” constitute a legal traffic stop?

The police have stated that the victim was being stoped for vehicular violations…..they just haven’t articulated to the public what those specific violations were. Their failure to articulate to the public the specific vehicular violation does not impact the constitutionality of the stop.

The police must (eventually) articulate to a court the specific law they believe the person being stopped has broken or is about to break. In some states, they must also articulate to the person being stopped when asked by the suspect and after the suspect provides a drivers license, in some states the officer is never required to articulate to the driver why they were stopped……but there is no constitutional requirement that they ever tell the person being stopped so long as the detention does not last longer than necessary and doesn’t result in an arrest.

In this case, ‘he had a broken taillight’ or ‘one of his license plate bolts was missing’ is functionally identical to ‘he had a vehicular violation’. All are perfectly sound, constitutionally. Had the driver stopped and was able to provide his drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance and the cop was still unable to provide a reason for the stop, there would still be no constitutional issue so long as the cop let him go immediately.

Here’s what we know to have been reported right now:
The car was stopped recently for some vehicular fault.
The car was lit up on the night of the execution for some vehicular fault.
The driver ran.

Up to that point, there is nothing to indicate anyones rights were violated. That’s not an exaggeration……there is literally nothing wrong so far as rights are concerned.

From that point,(in my opinion) the police went from a really stupid decision to pursue to an execution in a few seconds.

 

[sarge]

And there is also zero evidence that it was valid. You trust the cops when they say "No really we didn't violate the law" I don't. That is the difference.

Describe the specific law you believe the police broke when they turned on their blue lights.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Describe the specific law you believe the police broke when they turned on their blue lights.

Police also aren't breaking a law if they walk past a crime in progress and don't do anything.

Police get WAAAAY to much leeway in what the law allows them to do is the point.

We're just saying it's wrong.

People are talking around each other.

It's the police. Our standards should be higher than "what they are technically allowed to get away with."