Split Thread Akron police shoot unarmed man 60 times

[sarge]

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

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."

I agree that our standards should be much higher for cops than what they are in the US, but we aren’t just talking past each other. One poster opines that the stop was unconstitutional. It was not.

I am not arguing that cops should be allowed to just stop anyone, anywhere. Quite the opposite. If a cop tells me to do something and he has no authority to do so, I want to feel safe inviting him to kiss my arse. I want to be able to call him a nazi thug and enjoy it when he realizes there is nothing he can do in retaliation.

In this specific case, the evidence available says that the cops did nothing wrong constitutionally, procedurally, or morally up until they decided to risk lots of lives by chasing and then executing a person that at worst had (until the moment he ran) committed a traffic violation…and not even a moving violation.

Cops in the US are so often thugs that we don’t really have to invent reasons to castigate them. They killed an unarmed citizen. We don’t have to invent from whole cloth a DWB incident.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I am not arguing that cops should be allowed to just stop anyone, anywhere. Quite the opposite.

The distinction between

"Cops should be allowed to just stop anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason"

and

"Cops should not be allowed to just stop anyone, anywhere, anytime for any reason dot dot dot but on a functional level the police are the sole determinators of when, who, why, and where and there's no effective structure in place to argue their decisions so they are basically unchallenged"

is semantics at best, apologetics at worst.

 

[wareyin]

Here’s what we know to have been reported right now:
The car was stopped recently for some vehicular fault.

Not quite. Police tried to stop a "car matching that description" that they described a white male driving previously. And...oddly enough they actually were able to say why that time, even with the whole high speed car chase over minor equipment malfunction thing. Again.

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.

Look, you're taking the word of the cops that the initial stop attempt wasn't bogus. And yeah, they may not be lying. But they've been caught lying about a lot this situation, so they may not be the reliable, trustworthy witnesses to their own actions that you're giving them credit for being, here.

 

[sarge]

The distinction between

"Cops should be allowed to just stop anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason"

and

"Cops should not be allowed to just stop anyone, anywhere, anytime for any reason dot dot dot but on a functional level the police are the sole determinators of when, who, why, and where and there's no effective structure in place to argue their decisions so they are basically unchallenged"

is semantics at best, apologetics at worst.

I suppose you are correct, but obviously I’ve never said anything even remotely close to the second part of that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I suppose you are correct, but obviously I’ve never said anything even remotely close to the second part of that.

Because your focused on one thing that doesn't matter. This is a question of the police technically following this rule or that rule is whether or not the a person taking 60 shots is a logical, reasonable outcome of "a possible minor traffic violation."

It is not a question of what you are saying, it's a question of what part of the sequence of events you are choosing to argue about.

By your own admission the police acted... way off the bellcurve. So I don't get why you are so focused on some level of "According to Hoyle" procedural compliance questions.

The police didn't do anything that wasn't by the books, they still a lot wrong. Is any body (who isn't a troll) arguing that point?

ETA: As to the "Show me were I said that" part, your entire argument is based on assuming the cop's version of why they started the whole sequence of events is legit.

Again I don't play "Show me were I said that" for things that people's entire argument depends on. You HAVE to be saying cops determine what is and isn't a legal stop or your entire argument falls apart, so you are saying they can stop anyone anywhere anytime for any reason.

 

[sarge]

Not quite. Police tried to stop a "car matching that description" that they described a white male driving previously. And...oddly enough they actually were able to say why that time, even with the whole high speed car chase over minor equipment malfunction thing. Again.



Look, you're taking the word of the cops that the initial stop attempt wasn't bogus. And yeah, they may not be lying. But they've been caught lying about a lot this situation, so they may not be the reliable, trustworthy witnesses to their own actions that you're giving them credit for being, here.

They haven’t actually been caught lying about a lot of this. The Chief lied (in my opinion) during the very first press briefing when he said that the cops had been immediately segregated and had no opportunity to mesh their stories. Except for that, what demonstrably intentionally false things have they said?

There remains zero evidence that this was an unconstitutional stop and there is evidence that it was a constitutional stop…….not least of which is that it is actually very hard to unconstitutionally stop a vehicle operating on public highways. And as that is my only point (that there is zero evidence that the stop was unconstitutional), I don’t see much point in continuing on this line of discussion. DWB stops are quite rare, there is no evidence at all that it happened here, and there is evidence that it didn’t. Recognizing this as absolute fact does not amount to an endorsement of anything the cops did in this instance.

 

[JoeMorgue]

They haven’t actually been caught lying about a lot of this.

How are they supposed to be? The only other person who has a version of the story is dead with 60 bullets in him.

 

[sarge]

Because your focused on one thing that doesn't matter. This is a question of the police technically following this rule or that rule is whether or not the a person taking 60 shots is a logical, reasonable outcome of "a possible minor traffic violation."

You are wrong. Whether or not the cops followed the law in initiating the stop matters a great deal. It does not change all of their errors that directly resulted in an unarmed man being shot 60 (49?) times, but it does matter.

It is not a question of what you are saying, it's a question of what part of the sequence of events you are choosing to argue about.

I can do two things. I can point out that a posters position that this is DWB case is wrong AND point out the horrible failures of the police in this instance and in the US generally.

By your own admission the police acted... way off the bellcurve. So I don't get why you are so focused on some level of "According to Hoyle" procedural compliance questions.

Whether or not the police acted appropriately in initiating the stop is important. And really, you are quite wrong in believing that whether or not police acted appropriately in initiating the stop isn’t something worth discussin.

The police didn't do anything that wasn't by the books, they still a lot wrong. Is any body (who isn't a troll) arguing that point?

ETA: As to the "Show me were I said that" part, your entire argument is based on assuming the cop's version of why they started the whole sequence of events is legit.

Here, you are perfectly wrong. I am basing my assessment on several things, while the assumption that the police acted improperly is based solely on ……nothing at all.

Again I don't play "Show me were I said that" for things that people's entire argument depends on. You HAVE to be saying cops determine what is and isn't a legal stop or your entire argument falls apart, so you are saying they can stop anyone anywhere anytime for any reason.

That is a bizarre interpretation of what I’ve said, especially as everything I’ve said is based entirely on the actual law.

You are arguing something else entirely. You are arguing that there should be some safeguard against cops randomly, illegally stopping drivers that does not depend on their word that they have legitimate cause for the stop.

 

[sarge]

How are they supposed to be? The only other person who has a version of the story is dead with 60 bullets in him.

Let’s walk this back. Wareyin posted that because the cops had lied often in this case, the better assumption might be that they are also lying about the cause for the traffic stop. I pointed out that there has been only one ‘lie’ so far.

Yes, they may be lying about every single particular in this incident. Certainly, cops lie often enough that you’ll often be right if you assume they are lying. But you’ll still be wrong more often than you are correct if you always assume they are lying.

Right now, we have zero evidence that the cops are lying about having a cause for the traffic stop and we have evidence (other than just their word) that they had a valid reason to stop the vehicle. And we also would have no reason at the moment to doubt them if we had nothing but their word. Again, there is enough wrong here that I don’t need to invent stuff to be angry about.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Let’s walk this back. Wareyin posted that because the cops had lied often in this case, the better assumption might be that they are also lying about the cause for the traffic stop. I pointed out that there has been only one ‘lie’ so far.

And at this point I think assuming the police are lying when the topic is "do I need to save my ass because I murdered someone" is perfectly reasonable.

You yourself said that the police no longer deserved the "benefit of the doubt" so what you are arguing now is confusing me.

And I do not mean this as a "gotcha" or "You said this ergo I win" sort of thing. I'm trying to actually pin down where the disagreement is.

Because right now we are at.

- It's a constitutional stop if you assume the police are telling the truth.
- It's an unconstitutional stop if you assume the police are lying.

And you seem to be as some weird intersection of "The police don't deserve the benefit of the doubt but the burden on proof is still on us to prove they are lying." So I'm confused and I just want clarification.

Is there some nuance between "deserve the benefit of the doubt" and "who has the burden of proof on who's story to default to?" that has gotten lost in the noise?

 

[Lplus]

Let’s walk this back. Wareyin posted that because the cops had lied often in this case, the better assumption might be that they are also lying about the cause for the traffic stop. I pointed out that there has been only one ‘lie’ so far.

Yes, they may be lying about every single particular in this incident. Certainly, cops lie often enough that you’ll often be right if you assume they are lying. But you’ll still be wrong more often than you are correct if you always assume they are lying.

Right now, we have zero evidence that the cops are lying about having a cause for the traffic stop and we have evidence (other than just their word) that they had a valid reason to stop the vehicle. And we also would have no reason at the moment to doubt them if we had nothing but their word. Again, there is enough wrong here that I don’t need to invent stuff to be angry about.

Or apply hindsight in copious quantities...

 

[plague311]

There was nothing at all illegal about the traffic stop, and I just gave a post describing why as well. There is even the reason for the traffic stop from the previous encounter with the police from a district over. It was verified to be the same vehicle. I'm assuming through license plate verification due to the car being chased, I guessed that they had footage of the vehicle as it fled.

You can choose not to believe the cops about the reason why they pulled him over, but I can't see a reason why.

 

[sarge]

And at this point I think assuming the police are lying when the topic is "do I need to save my ass because I murdered someone" is perfectly reasonable.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume the cops have, or will, lie about the shooting. I believe it is reasonable to assume the cops have lied about seeing/hearing gunshots, etc. at this point, I don’t believe it is reasonable to believe the cops are lying about having a reason to flip on their blue lights. It is only if you be;I’ve that shooting the guy was the intended outcome that that makes any sense. Police stopping motorists, even African America motorists for no reason at all isn’t such a thing that it should be anyones default. Yes, it happens, yes, it is regrettable, yes it is a violation, yes I think it should result in jail time for the cop when they do it. But no, it really doesn’t happen often enough for it to be reasonable to assume it absent any evidence.

You yourself said that the police no longer deserved the "benefit of the doubt" so what you are arguing now is confusing me.

We do not need to extend any benefit of the doubt. Because cops stopping citizens for no reason is actually rare, because a similar vehicle was stopped legally recently (which might alone make the stop constitutional), because the guy ran, it is considerably more likely that the stop was constitutional than that it wasn’t.

And I do not mean this as a "gotcha" or "You said this ergo I win" sort of thing. I'm trying to actually pin down where the disagreement is.

I do not conflate your position with pondering turtles.

Because right now we are at.

- It's a constitutional stop if you assume the police are telling the truth.
- It's an unconstitutional stop if you assume the police are lying.

That isn’t where we are. There are clues separate from the police saying the stop was constitutional, while there are no clues that they are lying.

And you seem to be as some weird intersection of "The police don't deserve the benefit of the doubt but the burden on proof is still on us to prove they are lying." So I'm confused and I just want clarification.

Is there some nuance between "deserve the benefit of the doubt" and "who has the burden of proof on who's story to default to?" that has gotten lost in the noise?

There is.

Because the police do not often stop people for no reason at all, because there is nothing to indicate the cops lied about this stop, because they might reasonably have matched this car to the description of another car, because the guy ran as soon as the lights came on, I see there is no reason at all to assume the stop was unconstitutional.

Remove the cops statement from the equation…..they never said the stop was for vehicular violations…..they never said anything at all. It still would be more likely than not that the stop itself was constitutional. I need not rely on the word of the cops at all to reach a tentative assumption that the stop was constitutional, simply because the vast majority of them are and there is absolutely no indication at all that this one wasn’t.

 

[sarge]

Or apply hindsight in copious quantities...

Don’t attempt to hijack my acceptance of the overwhelming likelihood that the stop was constitutional to justify the horrible actions of the cops in this case.

The cops were probably justified to initiate a traffic stop. Everything they did from that point was tragically wrong, cowardly, and criminal.

 

[wareyin]

They haven’t actually been caught lying about a lot of this. The Chief lied (in my opinion) during the very first press briefing when he said that the cops had been immediately segregated and had no opportunity to mesh their stories. Except for that, what demonstrably intentionally false things have they said?

It's a demonstrable lie that they attempted to administer first aid to the man they had just shot 46 times. The first thing they did was handcuff his dead body. The next thing was attempt to shove his dead body into a squad car.

It's a demonstrable lie that they saw him reach for his gun. Walker was unarmed.

So, that's 2 proven, demonstrable lies. Then we get into the more grey area of whether or not 1 or 2 or any taser shots were fired, or why Walker had 5 shots to the back when they claimed he had turned to face them before they fired. The sound of the shot that one can only hear if one is primed to hear it, same with the "bullet flash" that ran the length of the hood of a car.

There remains zero evidence that this was an unconstitutional stop and there is evidence that it was a constitutional stop…….not least of which is that it is actually very hard to unconstitutionally stop a vehicle operating on public highways. And as that is my only point (that there is zero evidence that the stop was unconstitutional), I don’t see much point in continuing on this line of discussion. DWB stops are quite rare, there is no evidence at all that it happened here, and there is evidence that it didn’t. Recognizing this as absolute fact does not amount to an endorsement of anything the cops did in this instance.

To unconstitutionally stop a vehicle operating on public highways, one must not have a valid reason to make the stop. Akron police still haven't been able to state a valid reason to make the stop. You're inclined to believe that these guys who demonstrably acted far beyond the bounds of what they should have done in this very situation at every other step of the way didn't start out acting out of bounds. I don't see any reason to accept that.

 

[Lplus]

Don’t attempt to hijack my acceptance of the overwhelming likelihood that the stop was constitutional to justify the horrible actions of the cops in this case.

The cops were probably justified to initiate a traffic stop. Everything they did from that point was tragically wrong, cowardly, and criminal.

Heh, if you want to deny the use of hindsight by some of the posters here, you have to be turning a very blind eye - and you know it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't disagree per se, I think that WAY too far in the weeds to get when everything else is on the table.

It's not stopping the discussion to point out that the killer beat his victim to death with a bottle of sparkling wine, not champagne, but it's not... not that either.

 

[sarge]

I don't disagree per se, I think that WAY too far in the weeds to get when everything else is on the table.

It's not stopping the discussion to point out that the killer beat his victim to death with a bottle of sparkling wine, not champagne, but it's not... not that either.

I understand, but don’t necessarily agree with your position. Thanks for the civil discussion and I’ll bow out of this part now. At this point, there is nothing else to say to those that choose to assume the stop was unconstitutional and it isn’t critical to the actual failures by the cops that lead to an execution of another Black American.

 

[wareyin]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume the cops have, or will, lie about the shooting. I believe it is reasonable to assume the cops have lied about seeing/hearing gunshots, etc. at this point, I don’t believe it is reasonable to believe the cops are lying about having a reason to flip on their blue lights. It is only if you be;I’ve that shooting the guy was the intended outcome that that makes any sense.

Nonsense. I've been stopped on false pretense, and I don't believe the cops intended to shoot me. I believe it was a slow night, maybe they needed to fulfill a ticket quota, maybe they felt like hassling me, whatever.

Police stopping motorists, even African America motorists for no reason at all isn’t such a thing that it should be anyones default. Yes, it happens, yes, it is regrettable, yes it is a violation, yes I think it should result in jail time for the cop when they do it. But no, it really doesn’t happen often enough for it to be reasonable to assume it absent any evidence.

Meh, cops shooting an unarmed man 46 times also doesn't happen that often so we should just pretend that there's some other reasonable explanation for why Walker was shot 46 times with all those cops firing. 8 other gunmen on the grassy knoll?

 

[Darat]

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

Do we know whether the police fired more than 46 times?