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

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Not sure how this fits in with your hateful and atrocious take. Unless... you think 81 of those shots were suppression fire and the cops just got lucky they hit him 60 times?

TinglesDingle posted...

Not sure how this fits in with your hateful and atrocious take. Unless... you think 81 of those shots were suppression fire and the cops just got lucky they hit him 60 times?

Trying to figure out what hateful and atrocious take you're on about here.

TinglesDingle posted...

Not sure how this fits in with your hateful and atrocious take. Unless... you think 81 of those shots were suppression fire and the cops just got lucky they hit him 60 times?

TinglesDingle posted...

Not sure how this fits in with your hateful and atrocious take. Unless... you think 81 of those shots were suppression fire and the cops just got lucky they hit him 60 times?

Seriously, this misguided ignorant vagabond makes a lot of moderations in my past make much more sense. There is just no common sense shown there.

Deep cut alts coming out lol

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Dude, they shot 90 times. Period.

Stop defending this, holy shit. NINETY TIMES.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Same amount they fire at white people with guns.

I am not here in this topic to take part in this ridiculous "debate" you have going on -- I'm here to mock your justification of firing 90 times like a bunch of fucking slackjawed psychopaths.

you're a fucking clown if you defend cops at this point

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Like once or twice to stop him in the leg from running from 1-2 officers, and not a firing squad? Dude running away from you in an open field can't really shoot you back. He'd have to take cover. But he was unarmed when he ran away also. If they tried to taze, they were too far away and they'd have to be stationary

But police need to be retrained and handle these kind of situations better, especially with brown people, instead of shoot first and ask their dead body questions later. 90 bullets was overkill and straight up dangerous. Stray bullets can also kill others.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I said 0.

Same amount they fire at white people with guns.

That means 0.

How come post 5 is still up, shouldnt that be modded

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The guy had a gun and was dangerous...so what?

So did the Charleston kid. They bought him Burger King

So did the Shooter today - they took him peacefully.

So did the Parkland kid - they took him peacefully.

Give me a damn break with this "YOU REALLY THOUGHT THEY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN HIM ALIVE WITHOUT SHOOTING HIM" crap

Yes, I do.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Uh uh, better buy me some Burger King.

The only evidence we have is that body cam when they got out and chased him, and we know he was unarmed when he fled. He's dead and can't defend himself. I find it hard to trust cops in situations like these as they can easily fabricate shit and get away with it, including planting drugs or guns. It's happened far too many times. They will protect their own before anyone else.

But lets just say they did seea flash like gunfire coming from his car, before he stopped his car. Did they hear the gunfire. Did he shoot through the window or open his window and shoot out? Do they have any cameras like dashboard cameras to record that?

And if he did.. should cops really shoot to kill suspects that are fleeing (not posing a danger)? It's one thing if he was a mass murderer, but hey.... white mass murders just get handcuffed and free fast food on their way to jail.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile

Castile told Officer Yanez that he had a firearm (Castile was licensed to carry), to which Yanez replied, "Don't reach for it then". Castile responded "I'm, I, I was reaching for...", to which Yanez replied "Don't pull it out". Castile then replied "I'm not pulling it out", and Reynolds said "He's not...". Yanez again repeated "Don't pull it out".[5] Yanez then proceeded to fire seven close-range shots at Castile, hitting him five times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tamir_Rice

On November 22, 2014, Tamir E. Rice, a 12-year-old African-American boy, was killed in Cleveland, Ohio, by Timothy Loehmann, a 26-year-old white police officer. Rice was carrying a replica toy gun; Loehmann shot him almost immediately upon arriving on the scene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor

Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old African-American woman, was fatally shot in her Louisville, Kentucky, apartment on March 13, 2020, when at least seven police officers forced entry into the apartment as part of an investigation into drug dealing operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner

antaleo then placed his arm around Garner's neck and wrestled him to the ground. With multiple officers pinning him down, Garner repeated the words "I can't breathe" 11 times while lying face down on the sidewalk. After Garner lost consciousness, he remained lying on the sidewalk for seven minutes while the officers waited for an ambulance to arrive. Garner was pronounced dead at an area hospital approximately one hour later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd

George Perry Floyd Jr. (October 14, 1973 May 25, 2020) was an African-American man who was murdered by a police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during an arrest after a store clerk suspected Floyd may have used a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill, on May 25, 2020.[3]Derek Chauvin, one of four police officers who arrived on the scene, knelt on Floyd's neck and back for 9 minutes and 29 seconds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Atatiana_Jefferson

Atatiana Koquice Jefferson, a 28-year-old woman, was shot to death in her home by a police officer in Fort Worth, Texas, United States, in the early morning of October 12, 2019.[1][2] Police arrived at her home after a neighbor called a non-emergency number, stating that Jefferson's front door was open

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I agree that nobody should. It's dumb. If they have recorded evidence of him shooting at them, I'd be on board, especially if he hurt them. Obviously 20 20 hindsight too, but someone running away from you in an open field shouldn't be executed like that in this kind of situation. Some things just don't add up. I don't buy the taser thing.

It won't let me edit the post anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Botham_Jean

On the night of September 6, 2018, off-duty Dallas Police Department patrol officer Amber Guyger entered the Dallas, Texas, apartment of 26-year-old accountant Botham Jean and fatally shot him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Terence_Crutcher

On September 16, 2016, Terence Crutcher, a 40-year-old black motorist, was shot and killed by police officer Betty Jo Shelby in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He was unarmed, standing near his vehicle in the middle of a street.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Alton_Sterling

Police were responding to a report that Sterling was selling CDs and that he had used a gun to threaten a man outside a convenience store.[6] The owner of the store where the shooting occurred said that Sterling was "not the one causing trouble" during the situation that led to the police being called.[7][8] The shooting was recorded by multiple bystanders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

In the entire altercation, Wilson fired a total of twelve bullets, including twice during the struggle in the car.[6] Brown was struck six times, all in the front of his body.[7][8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Kinsey

On July 18, 2016, Charles Kinsey, a mental health therapist, was shot in the leg by a police officer in North Miami, Florida. Kinsey had been retrieving his 27-year-old autistic patient,

So don't fucking tell me "Don't shoot at the cops and you'll live"

Fuck the police - goodnight.

EDIT: Oh, there was also that one where the 30 year old veteran cop killed that poor kid a couple of years ago - thinking it was her quote "taser".

Arcanine2009 posted...

The only evidence we have is that body cam when they got out and chased him, and we know he was unarmed when he fled. He's dead and can't defend himself. I find it hard to trust cops in situations like these as they can easily fabricate shit and get away with it, including planting drugs or guns. It's happened far too many times. They will protect their own before anyone else.

But lets just say they did seea flash like gunfire coming from his car, before he stopped his car. Did they hear the gunfire. Did he shoot through the window or open his window and shoot out? Do they have any cameras like dashboard cameras to record that?

And if he did.. should cops really shoot to kill suspects that are fleeing (not posing a danger)? It's one thing if he was a mass murderer, but hey.... white mass murders just get handcuffed and free fast food on their way to jail.

We have dash cam footage preceding the on-foot incident and we have like 13 different body cam footage.

You can clearly see a flash out the driver side window. It is arguable if he was aiming directly at police but at that point its irrelevant. He's armed and he's demonstrated he is dangerous. If he had only flashed the weapon and initial pursuing officer called it in as a weapon without being certain then this conversation changes. But they even went back to the scene and found a casing consistent with the gun found in Jayland's car.

So yes, he did fire a shot during the chase.

We know, post fact, that he's unarmed. The pursuing officers did not and even if one of them had checked the car as soon as he tumbled out the passenger side door, there was no guarantee he wasn't armed.

They only shot at him once he turned round and made a motion, with both hands, from his hips while under the presumption he was still armed (because they had no reason to presume he wasn't armed). This is all from the body cam footage. Not an officers account.

If you don't want to watch him get gunned down, I understand, but it's all on tape. You can infer the knowledge each officer had on hand and see what they saw and understand why they would have acted the way they did.

Yes, 90 shots is overkill but by my own timing they started firing and were done within 10 seconds. Now that's a long time for us watching but when the adrenaline is pumping, that's basically no time.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Seriously, this is so fucking twisted. Cops are supposed to know. Cops are not supposed to shoot unharmed people in the back. That's supposed to be the burden they face to provide the utmost respect for the preservation of life.

At what point does the statute of "he was known to have fired at them" run out? Two minutes is a long time in an active situation like that. It's enough time for reasonable questions such as, "is he out of ammo?" "Has he quelled his aggression?" "is he no longer a threat?" In this particular case, the victim allegedly fired from a moving vehicle. When the pursuit transitioned to on-foot, the cops had a duty to ascertain the answers to those questions before firing one bullet. Let alone 90.

You're wrong, and you know it.

TinglesDingle posted...

Cops are not supposed to shoot unharmed people in the back.

They didn't shoot him in the back, he turned around clearly by the time they shot him.

You can say 90 shots was overkill but it wasn't in the back

The cops shouldnt be firing unless their life or the life of someone else is in immediate danger. If he has a weapon but discarded it or started fleeing or whatever that isnt immediate danger anymore

Kloe_Rinz posted...

The cops shouldnt be firing unless their life or the life of someone else is in immediate danger. If he has a weapon but discarded it or started fleeing or whatever that isnt immediate danger anymore

They did not know he had discarded it.

And saying someone is no longer an "immediate danger" just because they're fleeing is how people (in this case, the police) get shot and killed.

Not saying Jayland was the surest and fastest shot but that's dangerous as fuck to go "Yeah he popped off at police but he's fleeing now so we can't treat him as dangerous". In the eyes of the officers he was still a threat to him and the community (wantonly shooting a gun out a window while driving is dangerous af to everyone around) and they treated him as such because there was no indication he'd disposed of his weapon.

The only thing questionable thing the cops did in this situation is the amount of shots they fired, but considering the amount of officers on scene they likely still followed their training (put a reasonable amount (in this case approx. 7 rounds each) into the threat until the threat is eliminated.

So while 90 shots with 30 misses sounds terrible, it becomes a tiny bit more understandable when you view all the factors in the case.

It's easy to read the headline and get riled up and angry about "Pigs shot another unarmed black man" but once you actually look at the facts and review the body cam and dash cam footage, you should be able to see why the officers did what they did.

There's so many cases to hold against the police. This isn't one of them. It's tragic what happened, yes, but the cops followed the book here a lot better than most cases.

wackyteen posted...

Not saying Jayland was the surest and fastest shot but that's dangerous as fuck to go "Yeah he popped off at police but he's fleeing now so we can't treat him as dangerous".

So at what point do you think the police should be thinking "ok, this guy isn't shooting at us anymore so we should try the non-lethal approach again"?

Kloe_Rinz posted...

The cops shouldnt be firing unless their life or the life of someone else is in immediate danger. If he has a weapon but discarded it or started fleeing or whatever that isnt immediate danger anymore

And to be blunt:

If they believe he is armed, once he turns around and makes a motion from his hips would that not immediately constitute them believing they are in "immediate danger"?

Him turning around negates him fleeing and him making a motion that indicates he's probably pulling a weapon (that they knew he had with him in the car and had no indication he had ditched it) means they have reason to believe they are in "immediate danger".

So by your own logic here, combined with the knowledge the officers had on hand, they did nothing wrong.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

So at what point do you think the police should be thinking "ok, this guy isn't shooting at us anymore so we should try the non-lethal approach again"?

They tried with tasers but missed. I can't comment on if every officer there had a taser but we know of at least two deployed teasers.

The moment Jayland sealed his fate is when he turned around.

If he had thrown his hands out and hit the ground and THEN officers lit him up then I'd be slamming the police but that isn't the case.

wackyteen posted...

If they believe he is armed, once he turns around and makes a motion from his hips would that not immediately constitute them believing they are in "immediate danger"?

Yes

I only saw the video in the OP and the one with the other bodycams, sorry if there was another one itt that I missed. But what I saw was the police chasing someone in the dark but the footage was very shakey so it was hard to confirm what the suspect did based on the video. It did look like he turned around but I couldn't see if he was motioning towards his hips. If he did motion to his hips, again thats fair.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Yes

I only saw the video in the OP and the one with the other bodycams, sorry if there was another one itt that I missed. But what I saw was the police chasing someone in the dark but the footage was very shakey so it was hard to confirm what the suspect did based on the video. It did look like he turned around but I couldn't see if he was motioning towards his hips. If he did motion to his hips, again thats fair.

That's fair, and I've even indicated earlier in the topic that the footage isn't the clearest but I've seen 3 of the cops body cam POVs through and you can see a clear turn around and what definitely looks like his arms swinging up from his hips.

wackyteen posted...

That's fair, and I've even indicated earlier in the topic that the footage isn't the clearest but I've seen 3 of the cops body cam POVs through and you can see a clear turn around and what definitely looks like his arms swinging up from his hips.

Your kind will justify anything in these situations. For god's sake, they put 60 bullets into him, 30 when he was on the ground.

TinglesDingle posted...

Your kind will justify anything in these situations. For god's sake, they put 60 bullets into him, 30 when he was on the ground.

Believe it or not, cops don't always fuck up. They can do things right.

I'm down to clown on cops when they fuck up. They didn't fuck up here.

And among the 13 officers on ground, that equates to about 2-3 shots each once he's hit the ground (going off of what you said). Which is likely where a lot of the 30 shots that missed Jayland, missed him. For context, 2-3 shots when firing a semi-automatic weapon is shorter than the equivalent amount of seconds.

You can argue that the training shouldn't be to shoot until target is for sure deceased/no longer a threat but no department is going to take that seriously. You shoot center mass until you can be certain the threat is neutralized.

Did they go overkill? Sure. However in a situation where it was just one officer hopped up on adrenaline, 7 shots wouldn't necessarily equate to overkill. It being a bulk effort makes it worse than it actually was individually. You could advocate that the training should reflect that in a scenario with multiple (3+) cops that you limit your shots but it's easy to say, hard to implement.

TinglesDingle posted...

Your kind will justify anything in these situations. For god's sake, they put 60 bullets into him, 30 when he was on the ground.

Your kind will always try to make the suspect the victim and the cops the bad guys.

wackyteen posted...

I'm down to clown on cops when they fuck up. They didn't fuck up here.

-stops reading-

TinglesDingle posted...

-stops reading-

Besides the amount of rounds, where did they fuck up?

I'm not seeing it besides the overkill at the end. And even then, it's a very soft fuck up when take the factors into consideration.

Should they be charged with murder because they shot too many rounds? Should they all be fired because they did their job (to the T more or less) individually and collectively it became overkill?

What's your goal here? What's your issue besides the 90 rounds? And if that's your only issue then what's your solution and/or your punishment these officers should suffer?

wackyteen posted...

Besides the amount of rounds, where did they fuck up?

I'm not seeing it besides the overkill at the end. And even then, it's a very soft fuck up when take the factors into consideration.

Should they be charged with murder because they shot too many rounds? Should they all be fired because they did their job (to the T more or less) individually and collectively it became overkill?

What's your goal here? What's your issue besides the 90 rounds? And if that's your only issue then what's your solution and/or your punishment these officers should suffer?

I just want to validate this post because its a legit response and I know you wont get one. Theyre not capable of giving one.

They just want to live in this world where the police are always wrong because they say so.

wackyteen posted...

What's your issue besides the 90 rounds?

Let's leave aside that eight 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 we're gonna conveniently forget that?

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'?

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 shit. There are enough of you that it empowers them to keep doing it.

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.

90 shots just makes them at best clear on their intent to make him dead and unrecognizable and at worst homicidal maniacs. How many people in the history of this planet do you suppose have been shot 60 times?

what's your solution and/or your punishment these officers should suffer?

They shouldn't be cops anymore

TinglesDingle posted...

Let's leave aside that eight cops felt threatened by one guy running away?

This is how far you have to read to see that your ignorance is the thesis of this post.

One guy with a weapon is a threat. What about that dont you understand? It takes milliseconds for him to turn around and end someones day.

And since you cant seem to grasp the fact that the police cant verify he doesnt have a weapon on him, since you cant search a target from shooting distance. Police cannot make assumptions when innocent lives are on the line. Even if they did see a gun in the vehicle. You would be a dumbass to think no one in the history of crime hasnt had more than one gun on their possession

But post #176 already covers this dumbass point and buried it in the ground.

Please read it until it makes sense.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80081255/966333464

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.

So in your (both above posters') idiot logic, the guy was dead the second he fired his gun. No surrender option.

I'm just gonna say it one more time. When they shot him, he was unarmed. Bad kill.

meanwhile a mass murder shooting people from a rooftop in Chicago and killing 7, was taken into custody "without incident."

Robert E. Bobby Crimo III. Of course he was white

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/4/23194354/highland-park-fourth-july-parade-gunfire

TinglesDingle posted...

So in your (both above posters') idiot logic, the guy was dead the second he fired his gun. No surrender option.

I'm just gonna say it one more time. When they shot him, he was unarmed. Bad kill.

Lol You calling us idiots and yet you still havent got the point and now youve imagined a moronic scenario that didnt happen. He didnt surrender. Had he, he might still be alive. Amazing how logic works.

Arcanine2009 posted...

meanwhile a mass murder shooting people from a rooftop in Chicago and killing 7, was taken into custody "without incident."

Robert E. Bobby Crimo III. Of course he was white

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/4/23194354/highland-park-fourth-july-parade-gunfire

Oh this just further proves my point from my last post.

It doesnt matter what cops do. Theyre wrong. They arrest someone who surrendered? I guess they should have just shot him apparently.

You guys have absolutely zero consistency.

Arcanine2009 posted...

meanwhile a mass murder shooting people from a rooftop in Chicago and killing 7, was taken into custody "without incident."

How can that be? He had a high powered rifle that he used to fire indiscriminately at people ranging from 8 to 85 years old. It stands to reason that he would be willing to kill police. And he evaded pursuit.

Akron cops would have literally nuked him.