Current Events > Akron police fired 90 shots at unarmed, fleeing man

(+) Yeah! (+)

Meanwhile you have a conservative comedian posting this
https://twitter.com/w_terrence/status/1543784070923968512

Police claim he shot at them while he was in the car (muzzle flash?) before he stopped his car to runaway
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/03/us/jayland-walker-police-shooting-video/index.html

wackyteen posted...

I'm the furthest thing from a cop defender.

But

After looking more into this and seeing the body cam footage, there were a dozen or so officers on ground. So if they all start firing once one does, then that's how you get a solid 90 shots at one fleeing suspect.

The police chief said in a press conference that all officers involved indicated (after being sequestered from each other immediately after the incident so unlikely they all got together to form the same story) that they all saw movement from Jayland that made them think he was about to attack them.

Considering he had already shot at them and they had no clear indication to that point that he wasn't armed, it isn't a stretch for them all to assume that an upward motion from his hip was him pulling his weapon to fire at them.

Sure, you can doubt the cops story but there's like 13 different POVs from the 13 officers on ground. You can kind of see what they're talking about, though the camera quality isn't the greatest.

Yes, it's easy to frame this as "unarmed man gunned down by big bad pigs" but the timing of him tumbling out of the car and the last shot being fired is roughly 17 seconds. That includes them deploying and missing with tasers. The 90 shots happen within roughly 10 seconds.

By their training they all responded rather appropriately. If a suspect demonstrates they are a threat, you respond appropriately. He'd already fired a shot, whether at them or not is irrelevant, and when he turns around in the body cam footage in the 2 seconds before he gets lit up, they had every reason to believe he was still armed.

I know CE has an endless hate boner for cops but this is one of those few times where cops did everything by the book. It just had a sad ending for Jayland

This is extremely well said.

Arcanine2009 posted...

Meanwhile you have a conservative comedian posting this
https://twitter.com/w_terrence/status/1543784070923968512

Police claim he shot at them while he was in the car (muzzle flash?) before he stopped his car to runaway
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/03/us/jayland-walker-police-shooting-video/index.html

Are you implying theres something wrong with this tweet? Because there isnt.

It is really sad how yall will immediately take the side of criminals who actively try to kill innocent people and continue to spin every story to make the cops look like the bad guys.

You know, if theres an actual case where the cops were out of line, their use of force wasnt justified and they actually did something to make people understandably untrustworthy of law enforcement. People like me would be right there with you, being equally as mad, wanting justice for the victims and being upset how people in power can get away with shit.

But when yall sit here, spinning every fucking story to fit this ACAB narrative, you look like complete fools. You make it impossible to have any respect for your side. And all you can say is some bootlicker comment?

I hope one day you see how asinine it is. Its possible to rightfully hate something and still have a brain in your head, able to parse incidents individually. Knowing not every case fits your agenda and that doesnt deflate the balloon of hatred youre allowed to hold.

SwayM posted...

People like me would be right there with you

Canadian incels?

No one believes cops in America Sway, look at all the cases of black Americans dying at the hands of police. Jayland wasn't a criminal he has never been arrested in his life. The magic words for cops to get away with is "I feared for my life" and that's it, then their hands are washed cleaned. When they actually have real threats they act like cowards (Uvalde)

HylianFox posted...

Again I'm tempted to say "jaywalking" but don't want to get modded

But does it really matter? Shooting at an unarmed person 90 fucking times is a bit overkill, don't you think? What he actually did is irrelevant at this point.

Idk about there but here a sworn officer has the legal right to shoot a felon (currently incarcerated or on trial for a felony) or someone who just committed a felony if they flee.

The committing a felony might be for only violent felonies though I'd have to check. It's not like I ever plan to do it as if I'm off duty I'm off duty. Not my job I'd only jump in if I truly felt they where a current threat to people's lives. I'd only ever be presented with the scenario of one trying to escape prison.

90 shots is extreme as hell though as we are also expected to not shoot if we think it's gonna endanger others.

60 hits out of 90 shots fired seems like an unrealistically high accuracy to me. Surely someone is exaggerating.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

60 hits out of 90 shots fired seems like an unrealistically high accuracy to me. Surely someone is exaggerating.

It looks like they continued firing long after he was subdued. I don't think it's impossible.

wackyteen posted...

By their training they all responded rather appropriately. If a suspect demonstrates they are a threat, you respond appropriately. He'd already fired a shot, whether at them or not is irrelevant, and when he turns around in the body cam footage in the 2 seconds before he gets lit up, they had every reason to believe he was still armed.

Yeah well my thing is their training shouldnt encourage mag dumping. Especially when its at least 8 cops honed in on the same target. Thats negligent and reckless

DespondentDeity posted...

Canadian incels?

Cute.

Incel = bootlicker. Insults that mean literally nothing when you throw them around with zero understanding.

Ajiri posted...

No one believes cops in America Sway, look at all the cases of black Americans dying at the hands of police. Jayland wasn't a criminal he has never been arrested in his life. The magic words for cops to get away with is "I feared for my life" and that's it, then their hands are washed cleaned. When they actually have real threats they act like cowards (Uvalde)

Its fine to be untrusting. Its understandable in todays climate with law enforcement.

Its not fine to paint every single story with the ACAB spin and be completely unable to understand how use of force works and also side with actual criminals at every single opportunity because you 1) always assume the cops are shit (even when theyre not) and 2) will never adjust your takes to fit the evidence. That second one is a doozy. How yall can pretend to sit on this moral high ground and be so open in your ignorant biases is baffling.

This topic has been a wild ride. Going from the predictable "ACAB!" to "even if the shooting was justified, they shouldn't have unloaded 90 rounds bc that's overkill" to "the taxpayers won't be happy with having to replace those bullets"

Y'all silly.

If you can't understand why having police act as judge, jury and executioner then yes you are a bootlicker

ColdRainAndSnow posted...

If you can't understand why having police act as judge, jury and executioner then yes you are a bootlicker

If you can't understand that police do have the right to defend themselves, and have to cherry-pick the facts to suit your ACAB mentality, then yes, you're a criminal bootlicker.

lilORANG posted...

This topic has been a wild ride. Going from the predictable "ACAB!" to "even if the shooting was justified, they shouldn't have unloaded 90 rounds bc that's overkill" to "the taxpayers won't be happy with having to replace those bullets"

Y'all silly.

The best one was the one on 4/20 of last year when the cop shot the girl that was about to gut her friend with a knife.

The opinions on CE (at least the most vocal) are usually the opposite to what is actually correct, like 75-100% of the time. This forum has become "reddit 2009" levels of cringe

yemmy posted...

The best one was the one on 4/20 of last year when the cop shot the girl that was about to gut her friend with a knife.

The opinions on CE (at least the most vocal) are usually the opposite to what is actually correct, like 75-100% of the time. This forum has become "reddit 2009" levels of cringe

Oh yeah I remember that one.

This board is the epitome of fools in numbers. Seeing people get confidence repeating their BS because so many others share the same brain cells.

Its like watching hundreds of people line up to touch the hot stove. Every single one of them seeing the people in front of them burning the shit out of their hand, and yet, no one has the sense to even step out of the line.

And no where in this entire conversation did it come up that *maybe* people shouldn't have such easy access to firearms which would de-escalate the need for police to have guns

yemmy posted...

The best one was the one on 4/20 of last year when the cop shot the girl that was about to gut her friend with a knife.

The opinions on CE (at least the most vocal) are usually the opposite to what is actually correct, like 75-100% of the time. This forum has become "reddit 2009" levels of cringe

How do you like being wrong about almost everything? Did you practice?

_HayleyWilliams posted...

How do you like being wrong about almost everything? Did you practice?

Lol you're literally obsessed with me.

fire_bolt posted...

And no where in this entire conversation did it come up that *maybe* people shouldn't have such easy access to firearms which would de-escalate the need for police to have guns

because that doesnt have jack shit to do with it. it has everything to do with the training involved. prior to the 80's you didnt have cops feel like they needed to mag dump everyone at the slightest bit of resistance and that was before the 1986 machine gun ban where you could actually get a full auto uzi or m16.

TyVulpine posted...

Never mind that the guy shot at police, who sped through residential areas at speeds of up to 50MPH, who got out the car and fled on foot, eh? Its totally the police officers fault and not his, right?

He was still unarmed at the time he was shot 60 fucking times. So you're saying that if a guy has a gun and fires a shot, then throws the gun away, the police are still allowed to shoot him at any point after because at some point in the recent past he was armed and fired a shot? Great logic.

And furthermore, it's ok to shoot him in the back as he's running away and posing no threat in that moment.......why?

mybbqrules posted...

He was still unarmed at the time he was shot 60 fucking times. So you're saying that if a guy has a gun and fires a shot, then throws the gun away, the police are still allowed to shoot him at any point after because at some point in the recent past he was armed and fired a shot? Great logic there.

Maybe try looking up "deescalation" in the dictionary. You might find it enlightening.

Don't you people get tired of making excuses for the suspects? Don't you people get tired of always trying to find excuses to blame the police? The ACAB mental gymnastics must get tiring after a while.

mybbqrules posted...

He was still unarmed at the time he was shot 60 fucking times. So you're saying that if a guy has a gun and fires a shot, then throws the gun away, the police are still allowed to shoot him at any point after because at some point in the recent past he was armed and fired a shot? Great logic.

And furthermore, it's ok to shoot him in the back as he's running away and posing no threat in that moment.......why?

They did not know he was unarmed. They had no indication that he had disposed of his weapon. To their express knowledge he was armed.

He wasn't shot in the back. He turned around and made a motion from his hip with his hands.

Now you could argue that isn't an indication of intent, because he could have been raising his hands to surrender, we do not know. However, he dug himself a giant hole with no escape when he fired a shot off during the chase and then bailed out the still moving car and sprinted off.

If he had tumbled out the car and immediately threw his hands up or just laid on the ground and then the cops shot him dead while he was clearly not an immediate threat (hands on ground, nothing in hands) then yeah, you might have a point.

As is, he gave them all the cause, reason and motivation their training dictates to utilize lethal force.

It is shitty, but he did himself no favors.

Dark_Spiret posted...

because that doesnt have jack shit to do with it. it has everything to do with the training involved. prior to the 80's you didnt have cops feel like they needed to mag dump everyone at the slightest bit of resistance and that was before the 1986 machine gun ban where you could actually get a full auto uzi or m16.

This is the dumbest fucking attempt at a rebuttal. Cops shot him because he shot at them first? Cool, then if he had not been allowed to have a gun at all the cops would not have shot him fucking 60 times. Sorry you're not able to trace simple logic

fire_bolt posted...

This is the dumbest fucking attempt at a rebuttal. Cops shot him because he shot at them first? Cool, then if he had not been allowed to have a gun at all the cops would not have shot him fucking 60 times. Sorry you're not able to trace simple logic

what the fuck are you talking about? my point was that it probably wouldnt have even mattered. he didnt have a gun on him when he was shot. people have been killed for even less to the point of showing ANY kind of aggression can potentially get you killed. going for a taser? dead. holding a knife? take one step and dead. make a fast hand movement to your side? dead. struggling to be held down? potentially dead. specifically because the training is too loose in general and cops are taught that EVERYONE is a threat and that they know the system will go out of its way to protect them in 99% of those instances. thats not how it used to be to a large degree. not till the late 80's when the training started to shift towards protecting the system rather than the people.

Dark_Spiret posted...

what the fuck are you talking about? my point was that it probably wouldnt have even mattered. he didnt have a gun on him when he was shot. people have been killed for even less to the point of showing ANY kind of aggression can potentially get you killed. going for a taser? dead. holding a knife? take one step and dead. make a fast hand movement to your side? dead. struggling to be held down? potentially dead. specifically because the training is too loose in general and cops are taught that EVERYONE is a threat and that they know the system will go out of its way to protect them in 99% of those instances. thats not how it used to be to a large degree. not till the late 80's when the training started to shift towards protecting the system rather than the people.

And the rise on attacks on police had nothing to do with the shift in training?

mybbqrules posted...

He was still unarmed at the time he was shot 60 fucking times. So you're saying that if a guy has a gun and fires a shot, then throws the gun away, the police are still allowed to shoot him at any point after because at some point in the recent past he was armed and fired a shot? Great logic.

And furthermore, it's ok to shoot him in the back as he's running away and posing no threat in that moment.......why?

smfh. Yes. So were saying that if you have a gun in your possession and use it to fire at at police, the police will use whatever means necessary to put you down and neutralize the threat. And heres the most important part you cant seem to wrap your head around. Your possessioncannot be verifieduntil you are no longer a threat. Understand? No of course you dont. Lets try once more.

Follow basic logic for the love of God

1) subject has firearm
2) subject used firearm against police
3) subject fails to comply with orders, continues to run, and therefore continues to be a threat

Youll notice that subject doesnt have a gun on his person at the time of being shot doesnt enter the equation now. Why? Because, and let me really drive this home for you: theres absolutely no fucking way for the police to know that until the threat is neutralized. What they do know for absolute fact, is he had a gun. How obtuse you have to be to fail to understand the police cannot, in no way shape or form search someone from shooting distance.

How you cant possibly wrap your head around the fact that hes actively attempted to shoot at police and makes him the highest level of threat there is. and running AWAY from police means hes not complying with orders. It means when he gets shot in the back, he faced the consequences of his actions. And again, he HAD A GUN. You cannot make life risking assumptions that he didnt have it on his person when he fled.

You armchair critics sit here and make the most asinine assumptions and judgements about police work. But if you were in their shoes you would be a complete failure of an officer. Letting a subject get away because you wont shoot them in the back and worse than that, let that threat continue to present itself, giving potential they may kill innocent people, or even your own foolish ass, because of a complete failure of logic of how to respond to an active threat.

Dark_Spiret posted...

what the fuck are you talking about? my point was that it probably wouldnt have even mattered. he didnt have a gun on him when he was shot. people have been killed for even less to the point of showing ANY kind of aggression can potentially get you killed. going for a taser? dead. holding a knife? take one step and dead. make a fast hand movement to your side? dead. struggling to be held down? potentially dead. specifically because the training is too loose in general and cops are taught that EVERYONE is a threat and that they know the system will go out of its way to protect them in 99% of those instances. thats not how it used to be to a large degree. not till the late 80's when the training started to shift towards protecting the system rather than the people.

If you have the stomach for it watch the video from 2020 of 2 Tulsa police attempting to arrest David Ware.

That video bothers me a lot. Because both officers are shot, one doesnt make it home. Because a subject who is not combative, assaultive, but just passively and actively resisting with police who are attempting to arrest him. Then suddenly, in literal milliseconds, produces a gun and kills one officer and gravely injures the other.

It shows you how quick you can go from routine traffic stop and arresting someone who may appear harmless to not going home to your family. Its fucking milliseconds

Yall wonder why the police are so itchy on the trigger. But so obviously fail to see the world theyre up against.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMNA6eVBj/?k=1

Triple posting. This took me a minute to find.

This shows you how fast someone could potentially pull a gun on you and send you to that deluxe apartment in the sky.

Its easy to put yourself in every subjects shoes when you have no experience or understanding from the police side of things. People should be more aware of what these situations can look like from the polices perspective.

Interesting choice of words in your TikTok

Get banned

TyVulpine posted...

And the rise on attacks on police had nothing to do with the shift in training?

You got data or a source for this?

The most I can find is from a website that seems geared toward law enforcement and yet it still shows that the number fluctuate in the past few years and are similar to even 10 years ago. When I go back even farther, the numbers are much higher. Source: https://www.odmp.org/

L_Ratio_Cope posted...

Interesting choice of words in your TikTok

Get banned

Interesting thats the first thing you noticed about that video and not at all the point being made. Also you think its my TikTok I did or create the video and post it That dude did. Also hes black. Take it up with him.

18 karma, sigless user comment.

pistachio12 posted...

You got data or a source for this?

The most I can find is from a website that seems geared toward law enforcement and yet it still shows that the number fluctuate in the past few years and are similar to even 10 years ago. When I go back even farther, the numbers are much higher. Source: https://www.odmp.org/

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/dallas/news/press-releases/ fbi-releases-statistics-for-law-enforcement-officers-assaulted-and-killed-in-the-line-of-duty

59 officers killed between January 1 and September 30, 2021. that's an average of 5.9 officers a month, or just over 1 a week.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Glock 18 holds 17+1 in the flush mag. There are 0 beat cops with Glock 18s(and honestly doubt SWAT even has them). Maybe 17,19,20,21,22,23,24 but not 18. That's the full auto one.

I got some math

60/90 equals 30 shots missed.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220130-stray-bullets-kill-bystanders-as-us-shootings-soar

According to this article, there is a direct correlation in probability of unintended targets being hit by a stray bullet and number of actual shooting occurrences. So much so that as gun violence rose 10%, accidental targets rose by 10% as well.

That would mean that bare minimum, the police increased the likelihood of someone being hit by a stray bullet by 30% in this case.

But yeah, go mask off.

33% of their shots missed. 30 of them.

That is not defensible.

L_Ratio_Cope posted...

Interesting choice of words in your TikTok

Get banned

Lol imagine in your head the kinda person who makes "L ratio cope" as their screen name.

AssultTank posted...

Frankly, 33% of their shots missing is not that bad.

Maybe if you fired 3 shots. They fired 90. The volume of shots that missed is disgusting and shouldn't be defended. Innocent lives were at risk because of their incompetence and trigger happiness, regardless of how you feel about the victim.

TyVulpine posted...

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/dallas/news/press-releases/

59 officers killed between January 1 and September 30, 2021. that's an average of 5.9 officers a month, or just over 1 a week.

See if found that earlier and it shows the increase from 2020 to 2021. Then there is a statement of increased assaults from 2019 to 2020. But it's such a narrow window of time and lacking in more context. The other website is clearly self-reported by police, but at least gives a different outlook.

L_Ratio_Cope posted...

Maybe if you fired 3 shots. They fired 90. The volume of shots that missed is disgusting and shouldn't be defended. Innocent lives were at risk because of their incompetence and trigger happiness, regardless of how you feel about the victim.

It looked like he ran off into a field, plus it was the middle of the night. Even if those missed shots somehow ricocheted at an angle to travel far, was there anyone or any houses past the generalized area that could even be effected? And if they were, a ricochet bullet will have lost a fair amount of its spin and velocity, so while it is theoretical for it to hit someone, even if it did the chances of it actually being a threat to their actual life is increasingly slim.

You're basically talking about astronomical odds.

I'm sure CE would be scoring 10/10 hits after a foot chase if they were cops

AssultTank posted...

If in a stressful situation I fired 7 shots and hit 4 or 5 of them, I would be extremely surprised at how well I did.

That applies to EACH officer. Maybe try arguing using facts and not your inane crybaby nonsense.

Why does it take 13 officers to take down a fleeing unarmed suspect?

AssultTank posted...

Because 13 officers were involved in the vehicle chase where said suspect was shooting at them, and as far as they knew, said suspect still had a gun.

Perhaps they need better intel. It's insane to me that innocent lives can be lost because a department can't figure out how to properly communicate intel about an unarmed suspect fleeing without a gun.

L_Ratio_Cope posted...

Why does it take 13 officers to take down a fleeing unarmed suspect?

Why does a fleeing suspect run from 13 armed cops and not stop even from the the commands to stop and the first deployment of non lethal weapons.

Stop defending criminals. Idk what alt you belong to but I have my guesses.

Fleeing from the scene of a crime is not a capital offense. Stop defending vigilantism. We have laws and courts to determine the fate of the one who commits the crime.

L_Ratio_Cope posted...

Fleeing from the scene of a crime is not a capital offense. Stop defending vigilantism. We have laws and courts to determine the fate of the one who commits the crime.

Youre an absolute idiot and Im done talking to you. Since AssaultTank is here if I get modded for this, so be it.