LogFAQs > #966351920

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, Database 10 ( 02.17.2022-12-01-2022 ), DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Akron police fired 90 shots at unarmed, fleeing man
wackyteen 07/05/22 10:40:08 AM #298:	TinglesDingle posted... Let's leave aside that a right cops felt threatened by one guy running away? Is that what you're saying? And they dealt with that non-threat by firing 10+ times each? Right? And that's good for you, that were gonna conveniently forget that? Averages for the officers present were under 10 shots each. Short of counting the shots from each weapon of each officer from each of the available body cams, it is unlikely any officer present shot 10 (or more) times. If that is the case then the department can administer retraining or an appropriate form of punishment to the individual in question. TinglesDingle posted... Let's also just forget that the gun he might have possessed that he might have fired was found in the car. Not on the guy who was riddled with 60 bullets (30 fired into his already dead corpse). Is that your 'goal'? As stated before, they had no indication he had abandoned the weapon in the car. They did not start shooting until he turned around to face them and lifted his arms from his hips. To their express knowledge he was armed and that motion is a fairly universal motion you make when drawing a hand gun, especially in the police world (since they carry their weapons on their belt). So the only thing collectively going through their head is "Suspect is armed and is now a direct threat, open fire". If they don't respond as fast as they do, that gives Jayland that much more time to fire shots at them (in their mind). TinglesDingle posted... What's your issue? Is your whiteness threatened by the prospect that police made a bad kill? I really want to understand why people like you refuse to hold police accountable for this s*. There are enough of you that it empowers them to keep doing it. If they made a bad kill, I'd be calling it a bad kill. A bad kill would be if he was still turned away from them and they shot him dead and filled him with an equivalent amount of bullets. That would be a bad kill. But he turned around while still presumably armed. The only thing you can hope to hold them accountable for would be the overkill at the end. Which isn't exactly a fireable offense. TinglesDingle posted... Because guess what: He didn't have a weapon. It was a bad kill. Period. The fact that he was fired at 90 times is just an aggravating factor. If there had been one cop firing one round, it would still have been a bad kill. If you fire at a cop, flee the scene, ditch your weapon, and then while running turn around and make a motion like you're going to fire at the cop, the cop is wholly justified in firing on and killing you. Failure to see that situation as okay and changing doctrine to reflect that, will only get more officers killed. --- The name is wackyteen for a reason. Never doubt. <cite>wackyteen posted [p:966351920] in Akron poli... [t:80081255]...</cite> <quote>TinglesDingle posted... </cite> <quote>Let's leave aside that a right cops felt threatened by one guy running away? Is that what you're saying? And they dealt with that non-threat by firing 10+ times each? Right? And that's good for you, that were gonna conveniently forget that?</quote> Averages for the officers present were under 10 shots each. Short of counting the shots from each weapon of each officer from each of the available body cams, it is unlikely any officer present shot 10 (or more) times. If that is the case then the department can administer retraining or an appropriate form of punishment to the individual in question. TinglesDingle posted... </cite> <quote>Let's also just forget that the gun he might have possessed that he might have fired was found in the car. Not on the guy who was riddled with 60 bullets (30 fired into his already dead corpse). Is that your 'goal'?</quote> As stated before, they had no indication he had abandoned the weapon in the car. They did not start shooting until he turned around to face them and lifted his arms from his hips. To their express knowledge he was armed and that motion is a fairly universal motion you make when drawing a hand gun, especially in the police world (since they carry their weapons on their belt). So the only thing collectively going through their head is "Suspect is armed and is now a direct threat, open fire". If they don't respond as fast as they do, that gives Jayland that much more time to fire shots at them (in their mind). TinglesDingle posted... </cite> <quote>What's your issue? Is your whiteness threatened by the prospect that police made a bad kill? I really want to understand why people like you refuse to hold police accountable for this s*. There are enough of you that it empowers them to keep doing it.</quote>If they made a bad kill, I'd be calling it a bad kill. A bad kill would be if he was still turned away from them and they shot him dead and filled him with an equivalent amount of bullets. That would be a bad kill. But he turned around while still presumably armed. The only thing you can hope to hold them accountable for would be the overkill at the end. Which isn't exactly a fireable offense. TinglesDingle posted... </cite> <quote>Because guess what: He didn't have a weapon. It was a bad kill. Period. The fact that he was fired at 90 times is just an aggravating factor. If there had been one cop firing one round, it would still have been a bad kill.</quote> If you fire at a cop, flee the scene, ditch your weapon, and then while running turn around and make a motion like you're going to fire at the cop, the cop is wholly justified in firing on and killing you. Failure to see that situation as okay and changing doctrine to reflect that, will only get more officers killed. --- The name is wackyteen for a reason. Never doubt.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1