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

(+) Yeah! (+)

SwayM posted...

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.

It's called how they treat their suspects.

Arcanine2009 posted...

It's called how they treat their suspects.

You have zero ability to understand every situation is different apparently.

Look what happens when you google "unarmed white man shot by police"

It happened! 6 years ago...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/0/8/AAe1L_AADatA.jpg

TinglesDingle posted...

Look what happens when you google "unarmed white man shot by police"

It happened! 6 years ago...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/0/8/AAe1L_AADatA.jpg

This was awful police work and it boiled my blood. Just thinking about the video bothers me.

But yall have no ability to parse incidences as they occur. And because you all immediately respond with ignorance to every single police story, this whole ACAB Bullshit has made it near impossible to have proper discussions about anything.

There are a ton of black murderers who have been brought in alive.

Willie Godbolt killed 8 people, including a sheriffs deputy.

Timmy Earl Kinner stabbed 9 people at a kids birthday party. The child died.

Quentin Smith killed 2 police officers.

Isaiah Martin shot at the police.

Kori Ali Muhammad shot and killed 3 people, specifically targeting white people.

Malcolm Orr killed police officer.

Everett Miller ambushed and killed two cops.

Brandon Bradley shot female officer point blank in the head.

Jahmell Crockam shot officer at point blank range.

Just to make a few higher profile ones.

Additionally, I cant remember his name, but there was just a guy that shot a cop last year or the year before in Florida and fled. I think they ended up locating and apprehending him in Georgia He was armed, still taken alive.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. People are taken into custody without incident every day, but they dont make the news. Youre inundated with the shootings because theyre what draws viewers for TV news and what draws clicks on the web.

Akron is 408 miles from Highland Park.

Stop judging the actions of both departments as if theyre the same place/ same officers, etc.

That shit is dumb.

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.

He didn't exercise his surrender option.

wackyteen posted...

He didn't exercise his surrender option.

Or maybe he did, but by your logic, he was raising his hands so shoot him 90 times

SwayM posted...

This was awful police work and it boiled my blood. Just thinking about the video bothers me.

Because the unarmed white guy got killed. How awful! But wait, the witness said he had a rifle sticking out his hotel window, so the cops must have believed he was armed and acted accordingly... Your logic

TinglesDingle posted...

Or maybe he did, but by your logic, he was raising his hands so shoot him 90 times

If his intent was to surrender, he went about it the worst possible way. There's a variety of other ways he could've surrendered. Hell, just slowing down and letting the cops tackle and cuff him would've been better than turning around like he did.

If he had hit the ground or been forced to the ground or just slowed with his hands up while facing away, and they STILL shot him, even once, then yeah it'd be a real bad fuck up.

Your actions have consequences. Up to that point his actions increased the severity of his potential consequences. Him turning around like that triggered the most severe of consequences he could face and he suffered them as a result.

As flimsy a justification as you may think the arm motion to be, that's the only justification police need when chasing a dangerous (and armed to their knowledge) individual. It's sad but that's the world.

Even in a justice system that would prosecute cops, you'd be hard pressed to get a jury to bring any judgment worth weight against any of these cops.

In a vacuum, I agree that 90 shots is way way too much for him turning and raising his arms like that but I'm not just going to ignore the fact that there were at least 8 (amount placed on admin leave, but there were 13 body cams they shared the video of) officers, all firing at once on the suspect.

We're in aggreance that it was overkill but the difference is that I understand 90 bullets isn't that much when 8+ individuals are unloading at once.

wackyteen posted...

We're in aggreance that it was overkill but the difference is that I understand 90 bullets isn't that much when 8+ individuals are unloading at once.

Are we in "agreeance" that 8+ cops unloading on one guy is too much?

Note, we're not in agreement that 10+ bullets from any one cop is too much. He was likely finished by several of the first rounds fired. If there had been one cop shooting 4-6 bullets into his downed body, that would have been just as reprehensible.

You and the other guy here want to try to skirt around the one single damning issue. HE WAS UNARMED.

TinglesDingle posted...

Are we in "agreeance" that 8+ cops unloading on one guy is too much?

Yes, on paper. However if the 8 cops there all thought "the guy to my left/right will get him" then nobody would have shot and that's potential for the guy they're chasing to kill one of them. That's why their training was for them all to shoot individually. If he hadn't fired out the car, would 8 (or more) cops have even chased him out of their cars immediately?

TinglesDingle posted...

You and the other guy here want to try to skirt around the one single damning issue. HE WAS UNARMED.

This was something the officers learned after the fact.

The cops did not know he was unarmed. Or have any reason to suspect he had ditched his weapon. That's why they responded the way they did.

If they knew, or it comes out that they knew, then it changes the whole dynamic of the interaction and appropriate actions would/should be taken against the officers.

As the facts of the case stand, they did not know and utilized their judgment and training accordingly

It's not good enough to say, "we didn't know". They're supposed to know. When someone is dead, judgment is based on fact not assumption.

TinglesDingle posted...

You and the other guy here want to try to skirt around the one single damning issue. HE WAS UNARMED.

A man breaks into your home in the middle of the night, loudly enough you hear the shattering glass downstairs. You flip on some lights to see what's going on and he fires a gun somewhere in the house. Terrified, you call the police to report a break in by an armed intruder. The cops show up and the guy runs out the back door. Cops tase him but he gets away. He goes down the wrong alley and when cornered at a dead end reaches for his waist.

This is the information you have. Armed suspect attempts to flee. Police have already tried a non-lethal takedown. He makes a hostile action. If he finishes drawing his weapon someone could be hurt or killed. Based on this information, should the police use lethal force?

Man, fuck the police. It's disgusting and upsetting hearing stories almost every other day it seems, about them using force far beyond necessary against minorities.

Caelthus posted...

Man, fuck the police. It's disgusting and upsetting hearing stories almost every other day it seems, about them using force far beyond necessary against minorities.

For sure, definitely disgusting.

90 bullets...wow

metallica846 posted...

And now Ratio_Cope aka Kanjo is warned.

And the moderations have been overturned. Turns out there's mods that disagree with the handling of deleting posts you disagree with when it comes to the police.

On topic:

https://twitter.com/AbbeyMarshall/status/1544124329188810754

Off topic: Oh it's kanjo. Yeah that tracks with the "randomly hostile to people who otherwise agree with him" shtick.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You dropped a comma after unfortunately and it changes your intended message.

Cause I hope you meant "Unfortunately, in this case"

Caelthus posted...

Man, fuck the police. It's disgusting and upsetting hearing stories almost every other day it seems, about them using force far beyond necessary against minorities.

But its okay for civilians to shoot at police?

TyVulpine posted...

But its okay for civilians to shoot at police?

An honest answer to this would get me banned/moderated. Perhaps I will create a new topic about Christopher Dorner

TheBrainbuster posted...

An honest answer to this would get me banned/moderated. Perhaps I will create a new topic about Christopher Dorner

Ill take that as a yes, you do believe its okay for people to shoot police. Thats how people like the man in this case got shot. Because he fired at police, and they didnt know if he was still armed. But, okay, Mr. Internet Tough Guy, keep making excuses for suspects that threaten police and then get shot.

TyVulpine posted...

Ill take that as a yes, you do believe its okay for people to shoot police. Thats how people like the man in this case got shot. Because he fired at police, and they didnt know if he was still armed. But, okay, Mr. Internet Tough Guy, keep making excuses for suspects that threaten police and then get shot.

Police do nothing useful. They pull people over and ticket them for speeding - to siphon money from the middle-class and poor to the city - but when they are truly needed like in Uvalde they sit on their ass then lie and hide the truth.

TheBrainbuster posted...

Police do nothing useful. They pull people over and ticket them for speeding - to siphon money from the middle-class and poor to the city - but when they are truly needed like in Uvalde they sit on their ass then lie and hide the truth.

Sure, Jan.
https://youtu.be/9xuw_abLkf8

Caelthus posted...

Man, fuck the police. It's disgusting and upsetting hearing stories almost every other day it seems, about them using force far beyond necessary against minorities.

This is the correct take. Everything else is enablement, if not outright apologist nonsense for the killing of minorities by those who are given the burden and responsibility to uphold the law

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This is the incorrect take. It is never reasonable for an officer of the law to take the life of an unarmed person. Full stop

We could have "Mental health professionals" and Ex-Vets doing that same work, and guess what they wouldn't be in the news everyday for shooting and choking black people to death.

You're supporting a system, that is all. The job of helping the public can be done by other people.

You're a mouthpiece, in other words.

TinglesDingle posted...

This is the correct take. Everything else is enablement, if not outright apologist nonsense for the killing of minorities by those who are given the burden and responsibility to uphold the law

This is the incorrect take. It is never reasonable for an officer of the law to take the life of an unarmed person. Full stop

Even in self defense? Sure, a cop is wrong for not letting an unarmed person attack, severely wound and possibly kill the officer! SMH

TinglesDingle posted...

This is the correct take. Everything else is enablement, if not outright apologist nonsense for the killing of minorities by those who are given the burden and responsibility to uphold the law

This is the incorrect take. It is never reasonable for an officer of the law to take the life of an unarmed person. Full stop

You really seem loath to accept the fact that the officers did not know he was unarmed by that point.

TheBrainbuster posted...

We could have "Mental health professionals" and Ex-Vets doing that same work, and guess what they wouldn't be in the news everyday for shooting and choking black people to death.

You're supporting a system, that is all. The job of helping the public can be done by other people.

You're a mouthpiece, in other words.

Youre a mouthpiece for anarchy and violence and lumping all police together over the actions of a few. Your ACAB hatred is blatant and unwelcome.

TyVulpine posted...

Youre a mouthpiece for anarchy and violence and lumping all police together over the actions of a few. Your ACAB hatred is blatant and unwelcome.

Having Vets and Psychologists do the work of coming to houses for noise complaints, homeless complaints, etc is not "anarchy and violence"

Like...what

TheBrainbuster posted...

Having Vets and Psychologists do the work of coming to houses for noise complaints, homeless complaints, etc is not "anarchy and violence"

Like...what

Citation needed for Having Vets and Psychologists do the work of coming to houses for noise complaints, homeless complaints, etc actually works.

TheBrainbuster posted...

An honest answer to this would get me banned/moderated. Perhaps I will create a new topic about Christopher Dorner

What a gem.

You gave your answer, by alluding to Christopher Dorner, who is quietly worshipped by the vehemently anti-police crowd as some type of martyr.

Youre unmoored from reality. Get help.

TinglesDingle posted...

This is the incorrect take. It is never reasonable for an officer of the law to take the life of an unarmed person. Full stop

It is never okay for an officer to take the life of a person they 100% know to be unarmed.

The cops in question had no reason to even begin to suspect Jayland had left his weapon.

And even if one officer saw Jayland tumble out of the vehicle and thought to himself "there's no way he's carrying his weapon still" that would a dangerous assumption to make, for his own life and that of his fellow officers.

Taking the time to wholly verify he left his weapon is seconds that would allow Jayland to escape further, lessening the accuracy of any bullets fired at Jayland if it was determined Jayland was still carrying and had did what he did(turned around, raising his arms from his hips like he was drawing a weapon).

Further, if they had established he had left a weapon, there is always the possibility that he had a second on him. Is that a chance officers should take, especially since he already demonstrated a willingness to fire a weapon at them?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Still waiting on citation. Claiming my hometown does (X)! isnt proof.

TinglesDingle posted...

This is the correct take. Everything else is enablement, if not outright apologist nonsense for the killing of minorities by those who are given the burden and responsibility to uphold the law

This is the incorrect take. It is never reasonable for an officer of the law to take the life of an unarmed person. Full stop

@TinglesDingle

fire_bolt posted...

A man breaks into your home in the middle of the night, loudly enough you hear the shattering glass downstairs. You flip on some lights to see what's going on and he fires a gun somewhere in the house. Terrified, you call the police to report a break in by an armed intruder. The cops show up and the guy runs out the back door. Cops tase him but he gets away. He goes down the wrong alley and when cornered at a dead end reaches for his waist.

This is the information you have. Armed suspect attempts to flee. Police have already tried a non-lethal takedown. He makes a hostile action. If he finishes drawing his weapon someone could be hurt or killed. Based on this information, should the police use lethal force?

Stop trying to ignore this and answer the question

TinglesDingle posted...

Because the unarmed white guy got killed. How awful! But wait, the witness said he had a rifle sticking out his hotel window, so the cops must have believed he was armed and acted accordingly... Your logic.

Oh, youre actually just awful. Okay then, Im just done talking to you.

You havent contributed a single worthwhile point to this topic, just completely ignoring logic and blatantly trolling.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It will always be beneficial to add resources and oversight to police

@TinglesDingle posted...

It will always be beneficial to add resources and oversight to police

fire_bolt posted...

A man breaks into your home in the middle of the night, loudly enough you hear the shattering glass downstairs. You flip on some lights to see what's going on and he fires a gun somewhere in the house. Terrified, you call the police to report a break in by an armed intruder. The cops show up and the guy runs out the back door. Cops tase him but he gets away. He goes down the wrong alley and when cornered at a dead end reaches for his waist.

This is the information you have. Armed suspect attempts to flee. Police have already tried a non-lethal takedown. He makes a hostile action. If he finishes drawing his weapon someone could be hurt or killed. Based on this information, should the police use lethal force?

Stop trying to ignore this and answer the question

P.S. for all those in this topic asserting that "ACAB," I broached this incident with a fellow supervisor at work today. He's an older guy who used to be a cop for decades, known for being very non-PC and just speaking his mind.

He actually doesn't agree with the cops on this one. His immediate response to me was "they Swiss cheese'd the poor bastard," then went on to say that you don't shoot an unarmed person in the back, and that 90 bullets was overkill.

When I mentioned that the suspect apparently turned back toward them and made a motion with his hands as if to grab a weapon, he responded sarcastically "yeah, I bet he did," basically implying that's just a line the cops will use to defend themselves.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with his point of view. I'm just posting this to let you know that there are in fact police officers who share your antipathy toward incidents such as this. ACAB is bullshit.

SwayM posted...

Oh, youre actually just awful. Okay then, Im just done talking to you.

You havent contributed a single worthwhile point to this topic, just completely ignoring logic and blatantly trolling.

You are such a coward in reality its amusing. You make Darkprince45 and Fire_Theif/Newportbox100s look like Bob Sapp

fire_bolt posted...

Stop trying to ignore this and answer the question

There's a burden to being a police officer. You take that extra half second to be sure. If it means these's a slightly higher chance that you lose your life as a result, then that is the cost of ensuring you don't make a bad kill.
Last week in Akron, at least 8 of 12 officers weren't sure, and a person who posed them no threat is dead with 60 bullet wounds on his body.

As for your contrived example, you shoot when you see clear intent and means to harm.

TinglesDingle posted...

There's a burden to being a police officer. You take that extra half second to be sure. If it means these's a slightly higher chance that you lose your life as a result, then that is the cost of ensuring you don't make a bad kill.
Last week in Akron, at least 8 of 12 officers weren't sure, and a person who posed them no threat is dead with 60 bullet wounds on his body.

As for your contrived example, you shoot when you see clear intent and means to harm.

Cool, so the perp pulls out a gun and kills two cops before being gunned down. Good job, your decision making resulted in two more deaths than there needed to be

TULPAMANCER posted...

When I mentioned that the suspect apparently turned back toward them and made a motion with his hands as if to grab a weapon, he responded sarcastically "yeah, I bet he did," basically implying that's just a line the cops will use to defend themselves.

But you can clearly see it in the video.

I'd understand the skepticism is it was solely the words of the officers, but video evidence shows otherwise

fire_bolt posted...

Cool, so the perp pulls out a gun and kills two cops before being gunned down. Good job, your decision making resulted in two more deaths than there needed to be

Unfortunately, my assertion isn't reality, and most cops choose to kill the black guy because they're afraid of his imaginary gun. But I would rather die myself than get that choice wrong.

You seem to be a coward narcissist. Apparently, coward narcissists stick up for each other. Or maybe it's worse than that...?