Jayland Walker's family calls for justice and peace amid protests over fatal police shooting caught on video - CBS News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tacos  •  one month ago  •  137 comments

By:   CBSMornings

Jayland Walker's family calls for justice and peace amid protests over fatal police shooting caught on video - CBS News
A preliminary medical report says Walker, who was unarmed at the time of the shooting, had more than 60 gunshot wounds.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



logo-square-32.svg

July 4, 2022 / 11:37 AM / CBS News

Police release video from Ohio shooting Police in Ohio release bodycam video of Jayland Walker shooting03:30

A newly released video of police killing a Black man in Akron, Ohio, has led to angry protests throughout the city while his family calls for peace and accountability.

Jayland Walker was shot more than 60 times after an attempted traffic stop about a week ago. Police say the incident escalated after the 25-year-old drove away and a shot was fired from the car.

The police chief and government officials are trying to assure the public that a fair investigation is underway, and they say they understand the outrage after releasing this video, which they've described as "extremely disturbing."

But protests continued late Sunday, with demonstrators saying police used tear gas to disperse the crowd. Akron police have not confirmed those reports.

Bobby DiCello, an attorney for the Walker family, described the officers' actions as "absolutely excessive." The family issued a statement calling for calm.

"Jayland would have wanted us to channel our anger into peaceful, thoughtful action that can bring long-term change and reform," the statement reads.

The deadly shooting followed a roughly six-minute pursuit. Police say they were trying to stop Walker for a traffic and equipment violation, which was not seen on camera, when an officer reported a gunshot being fired from Walker's car.

"It went from being a routine traffic stop to now a public safety issue," Akron Police Chief Steve Mylett told reporters at a Sunday news conference.

The video shows Walker leading police on a chase before he eventually jumps out of the passenger side wearing a ski mask. Officers tried to deploy a taser while chasing him on foot, but they were unsuccessful, authorities said.

Moments later, eight officers unleash dozens of rounds. Police said the officers tried to render aid, but Walker, who was unarmed at the time of the shooting, died at the scene.

Police said a handgun and a magazine were found in Walker's car and that body camera images show Walker appearing to reach for his "waist area" right before he was killed. But Walker did not fire at police during the foot pursuit.

A preliminary medical report says Walker had more than 60 gunshot wounds.

The eight officers involved in the deadly shooting have been placed on paid administrative leave while an independent state investigation is conducted.

"They need to be able to articulate what specific threats they were facing, and that goes for every round that goes down the barrel of their gun," Mylett said.

The police union representing the officers says it believes the investigation will justify the officers' actions, including the number of shots fired.

Akron's mayor canceled Monday's Fourth of July festivities, saying it was not the time for a city-led celebration.

  • In:
  • Police Shooting
  • Ohio

Thanks for reading CBS NEWS. Create your free account or log in
for more features. Continue Please enter email address to continue Please enter valid email address to continue


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Tacos!    one month ago

A little bit of “both sides” from me.

First, what we see here is ridiculous. The guy is running. You don’t generally get to shoot a guy who for running. If you want to apprehend him, run faster than him. The gun is for defending the cop or others.

This practice of emptying guns into a suspect is a problem. What people want is for cops to take a shot or two and reassess the situation. This arguably makes the job more dangerous, but out-of-control shooting is dangerous for the community and can kill people who didn’t really need killing.

Also, running and shooting? No, that’s not ok. You’re not going to convince me these cops are controlling their weapons while running through a field (although they hit him 60 times, so maybe I’m wrong).

On the other hand, this is being reported as “Cops shoot a guy 60 times for a traffic stop.” That’s not true either. He was stopped, drove away from the stop, and fired a gun (once) as cops pursued him. The dead suspect escalated things to deadly force first.

But that shouldn’t mean that cops go into Berserker mode until they run out of bullets.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tacos! @1    one month ago

1) No sympathy for the suspect that first refused to stop and lead police on a chase an fired at them from his moving car. He wasn't going to surrender no matter what. He was going to keep going and just expected the cops to give up pursuit. He also supposedly grabbed for his waist during the pursuit- since he already fired a shot- the officers have to assume he is reaching for a gun. 

2) Nice to say just run faster than the suspect. When I was 25 I guarantee unless one of the officers was a near Olympic level runner there is no way they would have ever caught me in a foot race. You also run into other problems if the suspect is armed. If one officer manages to catch them; then they are a prime target for being shot. Hoping that the other officers get there in time is not a plan.

3) Given our racially charged climate there are many that say the officers should just let the suspect go if they are black; rather than pursue to conclusion. That is shear BS. The law applies equally to everyone. I feel sorry for these officers- it is already a forgone conclusion they will all be charged with murder; or at least voluntary manslaughter. This was a clean case of suicide by cop; but it will not be treated that way.

You couldn't pay me enough to be police officer in any Democrat run bastion of stupidity.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    one month ago
This was a clean case of suicide by cop; but it will not be treated that way.

You are most likely correct.

I had read that he was mourning the recent loss of his fiancee.  She was killed in a car accident last month.  One source I read said it was a hit and run accident, but it is not turning up in my recent google search.

His family does not know why he fled from police, one of their attorneys, Bobby DiCello, told the AP. He said that Walker was grieving the recent death of his fiancée.

"He was sad, but he was getting through it," DiCello said.
 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1.2  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    one month ago
This was a clean case of suicide by cop; but it will not be treated that way.

I think that’s likely, but these cops didn’t recognize that, and none it seems, even considered it. Just because someone is trying to commit suicide by cop, doesn’t mean cops get to oblige them.

He also supposedly grabbed for his waist during the pursuit

Convenient.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.2    one month ago
He also supposedly grabbed for his waist during the pursuit
Convenient.

There should be 8 body cams to verify it.

I am willing to wait for facts to come out; but it seems the police force, city, and many on the left have already found the officers guilty and are upset that the sentencing isn't taking place.

Again, I have no sympathy for this idiot. He could have surrendered at any time. The second he fired at police they had to assume he was armed and dangerous at all times.

I am waiting for all of the arm chair warriors on the left to sign up to be LEO's. See how far they get when someone is shooting at them; and everyone expects them to be able to tell if a suspect is still armed or not. See how many committing suicide by armed criminal.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.3    one month ago

Yep, resist law enforcement, you pay the consequences.   A long standing rule some of us grew up with.   Shooting at, running from and resisting law enforcement?

You get what you get.    

It’s so easy to judge other people who are being shot at, when you aren’t being shot at.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1.5  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.4    one month ago
It’s so easy to judge other people who are being shot at, when you aren’t being shot at.

They weren’t being shot at. Not at that moment.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.5    one month ago

Oh I see, they were shot at .... at least once ... so they could rub their crystal balls to determine if the guy was going to shoot at them again .... right?

Ridiculous.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.1.7  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.6    one month ago
Ridiculous

No, what’s ridiculous is the notion that it’s ok to shoot a guy who is not currently shooting at all, and is running away from you on the theory that he might be armed.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
1.1.8  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

Were you there? No? So you don’t know what happened. Mother fuckers reach for their pockets and shit all the time when you talk to them, I swear to god I have to tell these assholes to keep their hands out of their pockets every 30 seconds.

This is America, you have to assume everyone has a gun and when they run or are resisting and even look like they are going for the waist you have to assume they are about to kill your ass.

so far I am with them on this one, looks justified to me.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @1    one month ago

Thank you for that thoughtful analysis.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.3  squiggy  replied to  Tacos! @1    one month ago

It's the Mike Brelo Standard - shoot 'em so many times, from so many sources, a cause of death can't be proven.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
2  mocowgirl    one month ago
jumps out of the passenger side wearing a ski mask.

The suspect has already shot at them and was hiding his identity.  Why was the suspect wearing a ski mask?  

Could it be possible that the suspect's desperation to evade police identification and interrogation was a reason that the police believed that they were dealing with a man who was extremely dangerous and a threat to public safety?  

It is possible that the suspect was extremely dangerous and a threat to public safety?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  mocowgirl @2    one month ago

We will hear that he was a good boy from his parents and attorney; an upstanding member of society that never did anything wrong; and who didn't deserve to die in a hail of racist police bullets.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    one month ago

60 shots is 59 too many and the first one would need to be justified given the suspect was unarmed and running at the time of the shooting.    Killing a human being should be done as the last resort.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago
be justified given the suspect was unarmed and running at the time of the shooti

Did the police know he was unarmed?  He shot at them.

Once someone shoots at police they  lose all presumption of harmlessness and are justifiably considered a danger to innocent human life. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    one month ago
Did the police know he was unarmed?  He shot at them.

He was running away.    And clearly he was not shooting at them while on foot since he was unarmed.   So the police knew that he was NOT shooting at them at the time of the shooting and thus they were not returning fire.

Are you actually attempting to justify shooting at a man running away who clearly was not firing a gun while running (and could not since he was unarmed);  and then with 60 rounds??

Those who use excessive force make all police look bad and they do not deserve those optics.   Those defending excessive force exacerbate this problem.   If you are pro-police in general then you are shooting your own foot by defending the small minority of police who use excessive force.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    one month ago
 So the police knew that he was NOT shooting at them at the time of the shooting

What are you missing? They didn't know he was unarmed. It was midnight. They aren't superheroes. They knew he had shot at them.

Do you know what that creates?

The presumption that he is armed and most certainly dangerous.  You are aware that someone running can actually stop and shoot or shoot over their shoulder yes? And you expect police to just run after someone who's already tried to kill them and wait until they try to murder them again before defending themselves.

No wonder it's impossible to recruit for police staff anymore.   The people who murder police are given the benefit of the doubt, while armchair QBs are salivating at the thought of putting police in jail becuase they aren't omniscient beings with super human senses and response times. They are just civil servants trying to go home to their families. 

Those defending excessive force exacerbate this problem. 

The people who are exacerbating this problem are those who expect police to expose themselves, repeatedly, to being murdered before defending themselves.

What a great loophole for murderers you commit. Take shots at the police and you are free from danger as soon as you run. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    one month ago
He was running away.    And clearly he was not shooting at them while on foot since he was unarmed.   So the police knew that he was NOT shooting at them at the time of the shooting and thus they were notreturningfire.

Was he shot in the back or the front?

Either way, I'm not defending 90 shots fired, but when you evade pulling over, then fire at the policed, you have participated in your shooting.  Was he very high or was this suicided by cop or someone that just made several incredibly bad decisions?  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.1.4  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    one month ago
Once someone shoots at police they  lose all presumption of harmlessness and are justifiably considered a danger to innocent human life. 

Forever? Shouldn’t police at least try to to constantly reassess an ongoing event? They apparently were still shooting this guy when he was on the ground. It seems like the only thing that will stop some cops from shooting is if they run out of ammo.

Not to mention, does running while shooting seem like a responsible use of one’s firearm? Are there innocent people around? There’s definitely a building beyond.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.3    one month ago

I see a ton of speculation rather than dealing with the facts as we currently know them.

The man was obviously not shooting at the police when he was running away because he did not have a gun.

The man had over 60 gunshot wounds.

Do the math.    Unless we discover some truly extraordinary new facts that could justify riddling a human body with 60+ bullets that was fleeing and clearly NOT shooting at the police, I am going to go out on a limb and say this was excessive force. 

What do you think, DoW ... excessive force maybe? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.2    one month ago
They didn't know he was unarmed. 

Yeah, Sean, you have already argued that and I already responded.   They did not know he was unarmed but he was running away and WAS NOT SHOOTING AT THEM.   Thus the police were not returning fire; they were firing because he was running away.   They were shooting at a man running away from them who was not firing at them.   Have I over explained this enough for you to acknowledge my response this time?

No wonder it's impossible to recruit for police staff anymore. 

You actually are making excuses for shooting a human being 60+ times while he is running away and is NOT FIRING ANY SHOTS.

I bet the super majority of police officers would find this to be excessive force in an instant.   I bet they do not want extreme fellow officers engaging in such irresponsible use of force.   It makes all police look bad and people like you who are defending this just makes matters worse.

It is best for the police (and people like you who think they are helping matters with your ridiculous excuses) to condemn excessive force rather than make excuses for it.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.5    one month ago
I see a ton of speculation rather than dealing with the facts as we currently know them.

I haven't speculated,  only wondered questions.  

The man was obviously not shooting at the police when he was running away because he did not have a gun.

No, he had previously fired at them less than a minute before.  If he was shot in the front.  Then he had stopped running and turned around.  In the dark, would this appear threatening?

The man had over 60 gunshot wounds.

More than enough.

Unless we get discover some truly extraordinary new facts that could justify riddling a human body with 60+ bullets that was fleeing and clearly NOT shooting at the police, I am going to go out on a limb and say this was excessive force. 

I haven't tried to justify 60 hits.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.7    one month ago
I haven't tried to justify 60 hits.  

Good.   What do you think about those who make excuses for 60+ bullet holes in the body of a man who was fleeing?   Is that sound?   Is that a good thing for the police in general?   

What good comes from making excuses for what, per the facts thus far, is excessive force (we need a new adjective for this case)?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.6    one month ago

Once again an unarmed black man is killed with excessive force and all the dog whistlers come out.

The normal deflectors, projectors and deniers are of course out in force.

This was another young white male and also a fan of whatshisname#45 who killed these people.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.8    one month ago
What do you think about those who make excuses for 60+ bullet holes in the body of a man who was fleeing?  

I don't understand their motivations.

Is that sound?   Is that a good thing for the police in general?   

No, it's not good for the police in general.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.9    one month ago
Once again an unarmed black man

I read that he fired a shot at the cops.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    one month ago
Are you actually attempting to justify shooting at a man running away who clearly was not firing a gun while running

Do you honestly think that the officers giving chase knew he was unarmed at that time?  All the information they have is "the fuckers in this car shot at me and is now running". 

Those who use excessive force make all police look bad and they do not deserve those optics.  Those defending excessive force exacerbate this problem.

Those who play armchair quarterback and knee jerk reactions also make the police look bad.  It's glaringly obvious you've never been in a "him or me" situation.   When you shoot somebody, it's not like you see in the movies where you immediately see blood and the person goes down.  And there are hundreds of reasons you don't (i.e. night, dark clothes, loose clothes, adrenalin levels, etc.).  You don't immediately see where you hit the person.  No blood, they may not even acknowledge they were shot, they may keep coming at you.  So, you shoot again.  I've been through it several times.  Even when I was shot, it was a while before I realized I was shot.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.11    one month ago

Not if one is in denial .....

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.6    one month ago
hey did not know he was unarmed but he was running away and WAS NOT SHOOTING AT THEM

No shit. The point, which is rather obvious, is that the cops had no way of knowing  when he would start shooting again. 

ave I over explained this enough for you to acknowledge my response this time?

Do you struggle with basic English? Of course I acknowledged that. I literally said "You are aware that someone running can actually stop and shoot or shoot over their shoulder".

What a stupid deflection.. 

) to condemn excessive force rather than make excuses for it.

I have no problem condemning excessive police force.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.14    one month ago
I have no problem condemning excessive police force.  

No one does but some attempt to project that BS on those that disagree with them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.12    one month ago
Do you honestly think that the officers giving chase knew he was unarmed at that time?

Not the point.   The point is that the man, SINCE HE WAS UNARMED, was clearly not firing at the officers while he was fleeing.   Thus there is no way that the officers were returning fire.    Get it?  

Those who play armchair quarterback and knee jerk reactions also make the police look bad. 

60+ bullet holes in the man's body is obviously excessive force.   This is not a gray area, this if blatantly obvious.

Buy a vowel.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.14    one month ago
No shit.

That is what I have been telling you.   An unarmed man cannot possibly be firing a gun thus the officers could not possibly be returning fire as they shoot the fleeing man 60+ times.

The point, which is rather obvious, is that the cops had no way of knowing  when he would start shooting again. 

So what Sean?   If someone fires a gun and runs away do you think it is wise and ethical for police officers to open fire and riddle his body with 60+ bullet holes?    The point is excessive force.   See?   The other point is that these extreme actions make the police look bad.   See?

I have no problem condemning excessive police force.  

Then do so instead of putting up an utterly ridiculous set of excuses.


I am in favor of our police and law enforcement but am against rogue cops using such an absurd level of excessive force.   They make the rest of the good cops look bad and those like you who make excuse for excessive force contribute to this. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.16    one month ago
The point is that the man, SINCE HE WAS UNARMED

So I'll ask AGAIN:  Do you honestly think that the officers giving chase knew he was unarmed at that time?

60+ bullet holes in the man's body is obviously excessive force.

Now try actually comprehending my last paragraph in @3.1.12

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.18    one month ago

You are trolling.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.20  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.19    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.19    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.17    one month ago
An unarmed man cannot possibly be firing a gun thus the officers could not possibly be returning fire as they shoot the fleeing man 60+ times

So you are claiming the Cops knew he was unarmed? Otherwise what's the point of the deflection?

Since I (and the legal standard) understand that police are not omniscient superheroes,  the issue is what the reasonably believed to be true at the time of the shooting, not with 20/20 hindsight.

f someone fires a gun and runs away do you think it is wise and ethical for police officers to open fire and riddle his body with 60+ bullet holes? 

If someone who has already fired at police officers  refuses to comply with orders, yes they are obviously a danger.  If for instance, the police in Highland Park  had said "Oh Well, the armed maniac is running away, let him go" and he shot another person after the police declined to shoot him because he was "running away" , would you, or anyone else, be praising the police for their restraint?  That's your standard, you can't shoot armed active shooters if they turn and run. Because, apparently, once someone  runs they are incapable of harming anyone. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.17    one month ago
riddle his body with 60+ bullet holes

Has the coroner said how many of those were exit wounds? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.22    one month ago
So you are claiming the Cops knew he was unarmed?

Where do you see me making such a claim?  

Since I (and the legal standard) understand that police are not omniscient superheroes,  the issue is what the reasonably believed to be true at the time of the shooting, not with 20/20 hindsight.

Pretend that the cops believed he was armed.   Now, put forth the logic that justifies riddling the body of a fleeing man with 60+ bullets.   Note, he was not firing while running (because he was unarmed) so they were not returning fire.

Lay out your 'brilliant' logic as to why 60+ bullets was not excessive force.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.23    one month ago
Has the coroner said how many of those were exit wounds? 

Why is that relevant?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.21    one month ago

Pretend the cops believed he was armed.

Explain why 60+ bullets in this man's body that he received while fleeing and NOT FIRING ANY SHOTS AT THE TIME was not excessive force.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.27  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.25    one month ago

Folks reference the number 60 frequently here so it's important to them how many time he was shot.  I wouldn't be surprised if we don't know yet how many times he was shot.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.28  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.26    one month ago
Pretend the cops believed he was armed.

Were you there?  
No you weren’t so you don’t know.    
Stop being obtuse.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.27    one month ago

In the seed:

Jayland Walker was shot more than 60 times after an attempted traffic stop about a week ago.

We are talking about this seed.   If it turns out that Walker was shot once then we have a very different scenario.   We can dismiss everything in this seed if we play the game of 'but it might be wrong'.   If so, there is no point discussing any seed.

Assume, just for the sake of discussion, that the facts presented in the seed are accurate and discuss this as a hypothetical.

Is it excessive force to place 60+ bullets into the body of a man who was fleeing and was not shooting at the cops while fleeing?

If not, lay out your logic.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.30  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.26    one month ago
Explain why 60+ bullets in this man's body that he received while fleeing and NOT FIRING ANY SHOTS AT THE TIME was not excessive force.

Already explained in 3.1.12.  Shots were fired at officers.  So I'll ask yet a third time:  Do you honestly think that the officers giving chase knew he was unarmed at that time?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.31  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.21    one month ago
"and would rather keep up the idiotic narrative"

That's on you

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.24    one month ago
Where do you see me making such a claim?  

I thought you were trying to make a relevant point.  My bad.  I'm glad we agree that the police did not know he was unarmed when they opened fire.

Pretend that the cops believed he was armed.   

why would I pretend? What evidence do you have that they didn't?  The knew he was armed since he had shot at the police minutes earlier. Do you have any proof they knew the shooter had left his gun in the car when they opened fire? 

 Now, put forth the logic that justifies riddling the body of a fleeing man with 60+ bullets.

They believed he was a danger and since were a number of cops acting in a handful of seconds a lot of rounds were fired. If it were one cop, that would be excessive. But it wasn't one cop, was it? 

So your argument is if they shot him ten times and killed him, that's okay then?  The number of rounds is irrelevant, unless the claim they intentionally shot a corpse or desecrated the body. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.33  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.29    one month ago
We are talking about this seed.

Yes and information usually becomes more clear as an investigation continues.

Is it excessive force to place 60+ bullets into the body

I previously answered you, yes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.28    one month ago

Calling me obtuse is amazingly ironic.

Do you understand the meaning of the word 'pretend'?   Nobody here knows what the cops believed so all we can do is speculate.

Sean and Jeremy cannot seem to get past the point that Walker could have been carrying his gun.   They seem to think that because the police did not know he was unarmed means that the 60+ bullet holes were justified.

Since they cannot get past that I suggested they make the assumption (pretend) that the officers believed he was armed.   Then, with that in mind, I asked them to justify the 60+ bullet wounds in Walker's body.

You apparently cannot comprehend that I am asking them to go with the scenario of their choice.

Buy a vowel.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.30    one month ago

I have no idea what the officers had in their minds.   Nobody does. 

So assume they all believed he was armed.    That is your scenario, so let's pretend that is the case.  

Now explain how 60+ bullet wounds in Walker's body as he was running away while not firing a single shot was not excessive force.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.32    one month ago

They believed he was a danger and since were a number of cops acting in a handful of seconds a lot of rounds were fired. If it were one cop, that would be excessive. But it wasn't one cop, was it? 

Oh so if police officers believe a person running away is dangerous you think it is NOT excessive force to empty their guns into his body?

So your argument is if they shot him ten times and killed him, that's okay then?  The number of rounds is irrelevant, unless the claim they intentionally shot a corpse or desecrated the body. 

Do you not understand the concept of excessive force?    Of course the number of rounds matters.    I stated that one bullet would be a very different scenario.   We are talking about 1 bullet vs. 60+.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.33    one month ago
Yes and information usually becomes more clear as an investigation continues.

And if new information arises the scenario changes.   Until then, it does not.

I previously answered you, yes.

Good for you.   Odd then that you are questioning the facts instead of making a single comment in response to the comments presented by Sean, Jeremy and Sparty which make excuses for officers firing 60+ rounds into the body of a man who was running away and had not fired a single shot while running away (so they were not returning fire).

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.38  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.35    one month ago
So assume they all believed he was armed.

Unlike many, I have assumed that when I read that shots were fired at officers.  

Now explain how 60+ bullet wounds in Walker's body as he was running away while not firing a single shot was not excessive force.

Read 3.1.12.  This time apply critical thinking skills.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.38    one month ago
Unlike many, I have assumed that when I read that shots were fired at officers.  

Did Walker fire any shots at the officers when he was running away from them after leaving his gun in his car?    This is a yes or no answer based on the seed.

Now explain how 60+ bullet wounds in Walker's body as he was running away while not firing a single shot was not excessive force.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.40  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.39    one month ago
Did Walker fire any shots at the officers when he was running away from them after leaving his gun in his car?    This is a yes or no answer based on the seed.

So, let me get this straight, SOMEBODY shoots from a car, you don't know who, then one gets out an runs, in your fucked up head, the one that is running is unarmed all because they DIDN'T shoot at officers?  It's this stupidity that the SJW idiots run on.  

Now explain how 60+ bullet wounds in Walker's body as he was running away while not firing a single shot was not excessive force.

As I've stated 4 or 5 times now, read 3.1.12. The last paragraph explains it to you.  

Either you have comprehension issues or I'm using too many big words for you to get it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.1.41  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.11    one month ago
I read that he fired a shot at the cops.

There is evidence that he may have fired once while he was driving the car. I haven’t seen any evidence that a round hit a police car, or an officer, or came anywhere close to them. Some people here talk as if he was firing constantly at cops and therefore they had to fill him with as many bullets as they could, as fast as possible. I have seen no evidence to support that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.40    one month ago
So, let me get this straight, SOMEBODY shoots from a car, you don't know who, then one gets out an runs, in your fucked up head, the one that is running is unarmed all because they DIDN'T shoot at officers? 

I do not know what your problem is Jeremy but my writing clear answers apparently does not fix it.

Walker was unarmed when he was running because ... pay attention now ... he did not have a gun on him.   Real simple.   Think about it.   If someone does not have a gun within reach they are not armed.   And, now to my point, if someone is unarmed they literally cannot be firing a gun.   So, Walker was not firing a gun at the officers when he was running away.   He was shot, not because the officers returned fire, but because the officers chose to shoot at him while he was fleeing.

It would be different if Walker had been shooting at the officers while he was running.   Then they would be returning fire.   60+ rounds is still absurdly excessive but at least there would have been an arguably valid reason to fire (returning fire; self-defense is typically a sound reason).

Any of this register?

Now explain how 60+ bullet wounds in Walker's body as he was running away while not firing a single shot was not excessive force.

( your 3.1.12 does NOT answer the question )

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.43  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.41    one month ago
I have seen no evidence to support that.

I haven't either.  The coroner report will be important to learn if Jayland Walker was shot in the back while running or had he stopped and turned faced the cops.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.44  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.42    one month ago
I do not know what your problem is Jeremy but my writing clear answers apparently does not fix it

Your premise if completely idiotic at best.  

Walker was unarmed when he was running because ... pay attention now ... he did not have a gun on him.

and now for the 4th fucking time - Do you honestly think that the officers giving chase knew he was unarmed at that time?  

Now explain how 60+ bullet wounds in Walker's body as he was running away while not firing a single shot was not excessive force. ( your   3.1.12   does NOT answer the question )

It actually did.  But because it's not the answer YOU want (or your inability to comprehend), you dismiss it.  Which makes your case look more ridiculous than normal.  What you fail to realize, is despite your unfounded claims of being unarmed somebody shot from that vehicle.  Period.  There is no definitive way to know exactly who fired until tests can be run.  Officers on scene don't have the time to run the tests so they treat EVERYBODY who exits that car as armed.  Being you have ZERO experience in this type of situation, I get why you don't know.  But to push such an fucking idiotic narrative doesn't help.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.44    one month ago
Your premise if completely idiotic at best.  

Yeah, 'brilliant' rebuttal.   Pee Wee Herman would be proud.    256

Do you honestly think that the officers giving chase knew he was unarmed at that time?  

I can only write, I cannot make you read or comprehend.   That is on you:

TiG @3.1.35 ☞  I have no idea what the officers had in their minds.   Nobody does.      So assume they all believed he was armed.    That is your scenario, so let's pretend that is the case.   Now explain how 60+ bullet wounds in Walker's body as he was running away while not firing a single shot was not excessive force.

You have nothing so you keep repeating the same nonsense no matter what I type.   Do you think that trolling is a good substitute for a sound argument? 

There is no definitive way to know exactly who fired until tests can be run.  

So now you resort to equivocation.   Okay, so who do you think fired those 60+ rounds into Walker?   How absurd are you going to go?

Officers on scene don't have the time to run the tests so they treat EVERYBODY who exits that car as armed.  Being you have ZERO experience in this type of situation, I get why you don't know. 

Officers do not need to run tests.   A man is running from them and while running he is not firing at them or anyone else.   Yet, even though the officers were not returning fire, they unloaded 60+ bullets into the man's body.


So assume they all believed he was armed.    That is your scenario, so let's pretend that is the case.   Now explain how 60+ bullet wounds in Walker's body as he was running away while not firing a single shot was not excessive force.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.46  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.34    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.47  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.45    one month ago
I can only write, I cannot make you read or comprehend.   That is on you:

You can only avoid answering the question.    

That’s what you’re doing.    [Deleted]

Nothing new there considering ..

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.48  squiggy  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.16    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.1.49  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.41    4 weeks ago

In their shoes I don’t give a shit if he fired once and it went to the moon or if we were on Omaha Beach, he fired, or appeared to, which means he was more than willing to risk their lives and the lives of anyone in the area. 

You reach for your waist, especially in a situation like that, you are asking to be dead.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.1.50  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.49    4 weeks ago
you are asking to be dead.

Guess I should remember that next time I see a cop reach for his waste.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.51  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.50    4 weeks ago

Wow …. The chip on the shoulder that comment reveals is Everest like ….,

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.1.52  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.51    4 weeks ago

So it’s ok that cops assume everyone is trying to kill them all the time, but not the reverse?

The chip on the shoulder that comment reveals is Everest like

Ironically, you keep accusing me of making it personal.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @3    4 weeks ago

They said he turned and looked like he was reaching for his waist, they already thought he fired a shot during the pursuit, damn right they unloaded on him. I would have too. So far I see no fault in their actions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.2    4 weeks ago

The facts per the seed (which is all we have now) say Walker “appeared to reach for his waist area”.    No mention of turning around.  

Police said a handgun and a magazine were found in Walker's car and that body camera images show Walker appearing to reach for his "waist area" right before he was killed. But Walker did not fire at police during the foot pursuit.

These two scenarios are IMO substantially different:

  1. Walker was shot while running away right after he appeared to be reaching to his waist area while running.
  2. Walker was shot after he stopped running, turned around and made a gesture that looked like he was going to fire on the officers.

Scenario 1 is what the seed reports.  My comments do not speculate (add facts that are not on the table).   

Scenario 2 would justify firing at Walker (given the seed notes he fired once from his car).   I do not, however, see that translating into 60+ rounds that hit his body (no info on rounds that missed) from 8 officers.

The facts will eventually come out and we will then be able to evaluate what actually happened.    If 60+ rounds is deemed a proper  response I will be very interested in the reasoning.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.2.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

I’d read elsewhere that he appeared to be turning and reaching for his waist. Either way, reaching for the waist in this situation is enough for me, I’d have unloaded on him. Totality of the circumstances my friend, and at the end of the day I am going home to my babies.

And 60 rounds from 8 guys isn’t that bad tbh. Each one popping off a few it isnt hard to get to 60.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.2.2    4 weeks ago

I have been interested in this case ... no new info has emerged.   I will be discussing this with my ex-SWAT brother-in-law once they release the findings.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.2.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.2.2    4 weeks ago

I watched the press conference a week after it happened.  According to the chief, he stopped, turned, reached toward his waist, and his arm appeared to be moving forward and upward.  I can't blame police for firing, if this was the case, especially as they already had reason to suspect he was armed.

I do think the number of rounds fired was excessive, and I question why they were chasing him for what started as a traffic incident.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.4    4 weeks ago
According to the chief, he stopped, turned, reached toward his waist, and his arm appeared to be moving forward and upward.

If that is what he did then he did exactly what would cause officers to open fire.   60+ remains to be explained.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    one month ago

So many cops shot so many bullets , they are lucky they didnt shoot each other. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
4.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago

Do you think that they feel lucky today?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.2  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago

It’s a miracle. In the video, you can see a cop right in front of a raised gun.

You can also see a lit up building behind them. I wonder how many rounds made it inside.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5  Hallux    one month ago

There will be a slew of questions, one of which may be: is this a 'not on our watch' response to the ongoing criticisms of Uvalde police? For reasons far too numerous to count the police are now in damned if you do, damned if you don't Skinner boxes.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6  Sparty On    one month ago

Love all the keyboard cops here on NT.

Put on a badge, walk a mile in their shoes and maybe THEN you are capable of make a reasonable judgement ..... but probably not.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Sparty On @6    one month ago

Put on a badge, walk a mile in their shoes and maybe THEN you are capable of make a reasonable judgement ..... but probably not.

Where are our young, strong progressive volunteers ready to don the blue and begin patrolling?
 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.1    one month ago

Tough to get them out of their relatives basements these days ..

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.1    4 weeks ago

Here doing it so go fuck yourself with your horseshit presumptions.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.1    4 weeks ago

How many years did you serve in the military and how many years as a street cop? I got you beat on both so fuck off with your blanket assumptions [Deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.2    4 weeks ago

Presumptions?  No, I asked a question, the punctuation mark at the end should have been a good clue.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.3    4 weeks ago

Was I talking to you?    No I was not but you do sound paranoid about the topic at hand for some reason.     I wonder why.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @6    one month ago

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6    one month ago
Put on a badge, walk a mile in their shoes and maybe THEN you are capable of make a reasonable judgement ..... but probably not.

So if you’re not a cop, you’re not allowed to be critical of them? Do you also think men don’t get an opinion on abortion? Or white people don’t get to talk about racism?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @6.3    one month ago

Ridiculous comparisons.   

A closer comparison: as an engineer I always enjoyed it when without the slightest clue of what that job takes, folks told me how it should be done.    Sure, anyone was free to do that and the reality of it is.    Few were even close to being correct.

Now if they put those shoes on, got the degree, spent decades practicing the trade ..... then they would be really qualified to judge.    Until then, not so much.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.2  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.1    one month ago

By that logic, you would also have to be a police officer to support their actions.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.3  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @6.3.2    one month ago
By that logic, you would also have to be a police officer to support their actions.

If that passes for logic with you then so be it.     The concept of walking a mile in another persons shoes is an age old proposition.    The logic of which is as solid as it comes.

Don’t judge that which you don’t understand but in these days of internet experts and know it all’s, it’s a tough rule for some to follow.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.4  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.3    one month ago
The concept of walking a mile in another persons shoes is an age old proposition.

Sure, but you only demand it when someone disagrees with you.

Don’t judge that which you don’t understand

You have no idea what I might understand and why. Same goes for everyone else here, including you. Your “walk a mile” is just a way to dismiss an opinion you don’t like.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.5  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @6.3.4    one month ago
Sure, but you only demand it when someone disagrees with you.

Not true.    Offer proof before you make defamatory comments like that.

Don’t judge that which you don’t understand
You have no idea what I might understand and why. Same goes for everyone else here, including you. Your “walk a mile” is just a way to dismiss an opinion you don’t like.

I understand what I read here.   You think you are qualified to judge jobs you’ve never done successfully.     You’re special I guess, you apparently don’t need to walk a mile in others shoes to understand what they are going through.     Amazing!

The ignorance at play there is epic.    

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.5    one month ago
You think you are qualified to judge jobs you’ve never done successfully.  

So you will refrain from judging Biden as PotUS, et. al. from here on?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.3.7  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.6    one month ago

I am willing to do that.

As soon as everyone else stops judging Trump, Clarence Thomas, and every other conservative politician.

Till then the human fuck machine (alias Brandon) deserves whatever he gets- he asked for the job. Too bad we can't prosecute him over it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3.7    one month ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.9  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.6    one month ago
So you will refrain from judging Biden as PotUS, et. al. from here on?

Don’t hold your breath.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.10  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.5    one month ago
The ignorance at play there is epic.

Not as epic as yours. You know next to nothing about everyone here (including me) but you think you are in a position to judge commenters, their experience, and their qualifications for commenting. That’s not just ignorant. It’s arrogant.

You won’t see me telling people they aren’t qualified to comment on a seed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @6.3.10    one month ago
"That’s not just ignorant. It’s arrogant."

Agnorant.  Agnorance.  

A new term I learned somewhere.  Very fitting.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.12  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.6    4 weeks ago

Ridiculous analogy.    Tell you what.    I’ll stop judging Biden when you stop judging virtually anyone here who disagrees with you.

I’ve never felt safer ..... guess I’ll get to keep judging Biden as one of the worst POTUS’s in US history.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.13  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @6.3.10    4 weeks ago

Sorry bud, if you’ve BTDT then by all means share.     I’ve never been shot at in anger but I don’t need to have been to offer respect and a level of “innocent until proven guilty” to those that have.

Therefore I don’t judge them, you apparently do and I disagree with you on that.

Stop trying to make this personal.    It’s not AFAIC.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.14  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.13    4 weeks ago
I’ve never been shot at in anger but I don’t need to have been to offer respect and a level of “innocent until proven guilty” to those that have.

I can respect someone and still disagree with the choices they make.

While I haven’t been shot at it anger, I have had cops point their guns at my head on multiple occasions. Each time I was not armed, I was not running, and I was not resisting. Cops also love to curse at you while they’re pointing guns at you.

I have known many cops in my life. My dad was a cop, and a single parent. I grew up in a police station. I have heard them talk when there are no cameras or journalists to record them. When I got older, I rode with them on duty. So I feel like I know a little something about cops. It might interest you to know that they don’t all agree with each other on everything. Cops are not monolithic.

There are a lot of bullies with badges in this country. They see non-cops as the enemy - all non-cops. They fantasize about the people they’re going to shoot. They can’t fucking wait to use their gun on somebody. The Constitution is in their way. They wish people didn’t have rights and they freely ignore them. “I’m sorry” and “I was wrong” are phrases they are incapable of saying. They’re dangerous to society.

There are also cops who take pride in not pulling their guns on people. They think of themselves as genuine public servants. They’re more thoughtful and creative about how to arrest a person. They have the courage and the training to actually subdue a person with their bare hands. They’d rather wrestle with a guy than shoot him, even though it carries more risk to them personally. Those cops, I have massive respect for.

Stop trying to make this personal.

I didn’t make it personal. You’re the one who said the rest of us don’t have a right to judge until we walk a mile in their shoes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.15  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.12    4 weeks ago
Ridiculous analogy.    

It was not an analogy, it was the application of your logic to another situation to illustrate the absurdity.

You stated:

Sparty @6.3.5You think you are qualified to judge jobs you’ve never done successfully.  

So, according to Sparty, if one has not successfully done a particular job then one is not qualified to judge others doing that job.

By your own logic, you are not qualified to judge Biden since you have never been PotUS.

Your 'logic' is demonstrably absurd, as demonstrated here.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.16  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @6.3.14    4 weeks ago

Yeah, your taking it personal.    I guess you just can’t see it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.17  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.15    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.18  Sparty On  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.17    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.19  Sparty On  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.18    4 weeks ago

[Deleted.  Further meta will result in points toward suspension.]

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.20  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.16    4 weeks ago

I am discussing the topic. You won’t even touch my relevant content. All you can do is talk about me.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.21  Sparty On  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.19    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.22  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @6.3.20    4 weeks ago

Okay, we aren’t going to find common ground on this one.   You have a nice evening Tacos.

Later

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @6    one month ago
Put on a badge, walk a mile in their shoes and maybe THEN you are capable of make a reasonable judgement ..... but probably not.

I am very supportive of our police;  my brother-in-law is former SWAT, several cousins are officers, a couple of friends are officers.    The police in general do a tough job, often dangerous and for little pay.   We should be grateful for the good officers (the majority) but in no way does that mean we excuse those who fuck up this badly.

That established, your argument is stupid.  You could use your argument as an excuse for anything.   If 60+ bullet wounds into a body of a man who was running away and was NOT firing shots while running away is not excessive to you then what is?   120+  500+   RPG projectiles?   What does it take for you to recognize excessive force in a scenario?

Try this.   Let's say that your best friend fired a shot at police (bad move) and then ran from the scene (leaving his gun in his car).    When you learn that your friend was shot 60+ times while fleeing (and obviously he was not firing at the police while running since he had no gun) would you hold judgment and claim "Until I put on a badge, walk a mile in their shoes I am not capable of making a reasonable judgement"

Yeah, bullshit.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.4.1  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @6.4    one month ago
Let's say that your best friend fired a shot at police (bad move) and then ran from the scene (leaving his gun in his car).    When you learn that your friend was shot 60+ times while fleeing (and obviously he was not firing at the police while running since he had no gun) would you hold judgment and claim "Until I put on a badge, walk a mile in their shoes I am not capable of making a reasonable judgement" Yeah, bullshit.

Opinions do vary.    My comment stands as written.   Your comment is bullshit.    That’s my opinion.

See how that shit works?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4.2  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @6.4.1    one month ago

You ran away from my challenge question:

Let's say that your best friend fired a shot at police (bad move) and then ran from the scene (leaving his gun in his car).    When you learn that your friend was shot 60+ times while fleeing (and obviously he was not firing at the police while running since he had no gun) would you hold judgment and claim "Until I put on a badge, walk a mile in their shoes I am not capable of making a reasonable judgement"?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.4.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.4.2    one month ago
would you hold judgment and claim "Until I put on a badge, walk a mile in their shoes I am not capable of making a reasonable judgement"?

I am.  It's easy to play armchair quarterback from behind a computer screen.  Want to see what it is actually like then get up off your ass and, at a minimum, run through scenarios like I posted in @6.2.  Or, actually go out there and do the job as Sparty On suggested in @6.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.4.4  seeder  Tacos!  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.4.3    one month ago
It's easy to play armchair quarterback from behind a computer screen.

This entire website is a forum for armchair quarterbacking. Every single person on this site opines on news stories about which they have no particular expertise. This “walk a mile in their shoes” argument to silence debate is absolute bullshit.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.4.5  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @6.4.2    one month ago

You’d have more credibility if you answered questions posed to you before you try to redirect and deflect with more questions.

No one here runs from you Tig.    [Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4.6  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.4.3    one month ago

Let's say that your best friend fired a shot at police (bad move) and then ran from the scene (leaving his gun in his car).    When you learn that your friend was shot 60+ times while fleeing (and obviously he was not firing at the police while running since he had no gun) would you hold judgment and claim "Until I put on a badge, walk a mile in their shoes I am not capable of making a reasonable judgement"?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4.7  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @6.4.5    one month ago
... if you answered questions posed to you ...

Deliver the questions (not meta, taunts, etc. but actual topical, serious questions) you posed to me that I did not address.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.4.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.4.6    one month ago

Did you not see where I stated I do hold judgement and stand behind the statement "Until I put on a badge, walk a mile in their shoes I am not capable of making a reasonable judgement"?

You seem to be stuck on "he left the firearm in the car when he ran" but refuse to consider that law enforcement has literally, a split second to make a decision.  

On another article you mentioned something about relatives or friends being in SWAT and law enforcement.  Run your question through them and see what they say.  I'm willing to bet they would react the same way as the officers in this article.  They would assume he was armed, then when he suddenly turns towards you (in the dark) you go into self preservation mode.  

I'm telling you as somebody who has been in similar situations, that I would have reacted the same way as these officers. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.4.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tacos! @6.4.4    one month ago

It's calling out the idiots who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about (which seems to be a lot here on this site).  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.4.10  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @6.4.7    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.4.11  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.4.9    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.4.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @6.4.11    one month ago

All blathering on and on about situations they have no actual experience in.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.4.13  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.4.12    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.4.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @6.4.13    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4.15  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.4.8    one month ago
You seem to be stuck on "he left the firearm in the car when he ran" but refuse to consider that law enforcement has literally, a split second to make a decision.  

Stuck?   I stated that to establish the fact that he was unarmed.   And because he was unarmed we KNOW that he was not firing at the officers while fleeing.   And because he was not firing then we KNOW that the officers were not returning fire.

So, Jeremy, we have as established fact (assuming this seed is accurate of course) that the officers fired on a man while fleeing who was not (while fleeing) firing on them.   That is quite different from officers firing on someone who was firing upon them.

I have made this clear repeatedly so attempt to acknowledge it.

... a split second to make a decision ...

When someone is running away and not firing where is the split second?   The only timing concern is that the perp would get away.   If you can think of another reason for the officers firing other than to stop him from getting away, please offer it.   Until you do, the facts thus far suggest the officers fired on Walker to stop him from fleeing (that is, they were not returning fire).

So why does it take 60+ rounds that hit his body (not knowing how many rounds hit outside of his body) to deal with a single human being who was fleeing the scene?

They would assume he was armed, then when he suddenly turns towards you (in the dark) you go into self preservation mode.  

This was not established in this seed.   There is no statement that he turned around.  And if he did turn around he could have put his arms in the air or he could have made a gesture that looked like he was ready to fire.   We do not know if any of that happened.   So stick with the story.   If you add to the story while discussing you create a moving target.    All we know is that bodycam footage looks as though Walker at one time was reaching for his waist while running away.

Now, let's take the visibility.   Is there no concern for others who might be in the local surroundings?    Since when do police officers fire so much when not returning fire and risk harming others?   And if Walker was in the dark as you imagine that exacerbates this concern.

I'm telling you as somebody who has been in similar situations, that I would have reacted the same way as these officers. 

That is troubling.   

My ex SWAT BIL says that the details are what matters (of course that is true).   Taking only the facts of this scenario he says that 60+ is excessive but he notes that the facts in this scenario are incomplete and thus the actual reality cannot be judged until all the details are in (again, of course that is true).   He suspects that this was suicide by cop since Walker fired on the cops from his car and then ran (a common scenario he says).   He notes that the officers would hold that if Walker is willing to fire on a cop that he is considered to be armed and dangerous to others.   I have no problem with that either.   But he wants to know the specifics of the scene (how visible the surrounding, did Walker turn around, was he drugged up so that more than a few shots were required to stop him, etc. etc. etc.).    We of course only have this hypothetical as established by the seed.

So he is unwilling to judge the officers until the facts are in and is uncomfortable working with the hypothetical which, again, he would deem as an excessive force scenario.

But we do not have all the facts so all we can do is go by what is in the article and opine on the hypothetical.   So, as I have stated, IF the officers fired (who knows who else might have been in the local surroundings) on a man who was running away and was not firing upon them (since he was unarmed) while running then 60+ shots that hit his body (not knowing how many hit outside of his body) this is excessive force.

If Walker had suddenly turned towards the officers in a stance that appears as though he had a gun and was ready to fire then clearly the officers would fire on the threat.   But even then 60+ rounds is beyond excessive and dangerous for anyone who might be in the vicinity.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.4.16  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @6.4.15    one month ago
"Now, let's take the darkness.   60+ rounds fired into the dark?    Is there no concern for others who might be in the dark too?    Since when do police officers fire into the dark when not returning fire and risk harming others?"
"I'm telling you as somebody who has been in similar situations, that I would have reacted the same way as these officers."
That is troubling.   

Extremely.  Very disturbing as well.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4.17  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.4.12    one month ago
All blathering on and on about situations they have no actual experience in.  

Do you understand the difference between a hypothetical scenario and the actual details of real life?

This story, Jeremy, is a hypothetical scenario because it is missing a ton of details.   The only way to opine on this seed is to take the facts as established in the seed and comment on same.    Don't add your own 'facts'. 

The reality behind this seed remains to be determined.   We do not know the visibility, did Walker turn around and face the officers and point, etc.   Every tiny detail could make difference.

You keep adding your own details while trying to make your case.   You no doubt have a fleshed out scenario in your head where you have filled in the missing pieces.   And in your fleshed out scenario you somehow justify 60+ rounds into Walker's body.

But that is just in your head.   Your scenario is a fantasy.   I could create a fantasy too, but that is pointless.  The reality is yet to be determined.    But if the final reality shows that 60+ rounds were fired into Walker's body (and those are just the rounds that hit their target) while he was running away and not firing a shot since he was unarmed then I will be fascinated to see how that is deemed to not be excessive force.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.4.18  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @6.4    one month ago
Try this.   Let's say that your best friend fired a shot at police (bad move)

I would hope that I didn't have any friends stupid enough, or criminal enough to try that. But after 2016 the stupid part went out the window some of them. As did the friend part as well.

and then ran from the scene (leaving his gun in his car). 

So twice stupid. Did he also pull on a black ski mask before he started to flee? Then he would be thrice stupid. Is this the second chase he is leading officers on, in the dark? Chalk up four and five times stupid.

When you learn that your friend was shot 60+ times while fleeing (and obviously he was not firing at the police while running since he had no gun) would you hold judgment and claim "Until I put on a badge, walk a mile in their shoes I am not capable of making a reasonable judgement"

First, I would call my friend a dumbass- since the police don't know he is no longer armed; they have to assume he is- and still a danger.  Second I would say he committed suicide by cop.

Now, you want to argue that 60 shots is excessive, fine. You want to argue that the police put the public and themselves at risk by firing so many shots (if they were still running after the suspect), fine. They can be discipline for that. You want to claim that the suspect that fired on them and lead them on both a car and foot chase still deserves to be treated as an unarmed innocent- negative. You want to claim they are guilty of murder, intention manslaughter, or any other charge against the suspect- negative. 

All 8 (I believe) of the officers deserve a fair and impartial investigation. The department should discipline those that violated department policy. If all of them are deemed culpable they should all be fired. In no way should charges be pressed against them. In no way should the city of Akron offer the family one damn cent in compensation. In no way is the suspect a victim of anything but his own stupidity and failure to comply with an officer's orders. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
6.4.19  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ronin2 @6.4.18    one month ago

60 is excessive but wasn't there 8 cops firing at the same time? I guess they didn't plan beforehand on who was gonna shoot and who was gonna watch........................../S

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.4.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.4.15    one month ago
They would assume he was armed, then when he suddenly turns towards you (in the dark) you go into self preservation mode.  
This was not established in this seed.

No this is where [Deleted] and brings up the first question I ask you on this (that you have ignored 7 times now).  Do you honestly think that the officers giving chase knew he was unarmed at that time?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4.21  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @6.4.18    one month ago
Now, you want to argue that 60 shots is excessive, fine.

Given the facts on the table, yeah 60+ shots is excessive.

You want to claim that the suspect that fired on them and lead them on both a car and foot chase still deserves to be treated as an unarmed innocent- negative.

False, I make no such claim;  not even close.   Strawman.

You want to claim they are guilty of murder, intention manslaughter, or any other charge against the suspect- negative. 

False, another strawman.

All 8 (I believe) of the officers deserve a fair and impartial investigation.

Correct.   Of course they do.

Wait until the facts are determined before presuming what DID happen and what SHOULD happen in result.

I deem excessive force given ONLY that presented in the seed;  additional facts will be considered and I will adjust my judgment accordingly.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4.22  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.4.20    one month ago

Answered repeatedly;  what is your problem Jeremy?    What words do you need to comprehend that I do not know what the officers were thinking and neither do you?

I have never even implied that the officers knew he was unarmed.   I have stated repeatedly that because he was unarmed he did not fire once he started running.   Obtuse rebuttals are a stupid tactic;  do better.   

Your comment is also a non sequitur from what you quoted.   You are just making emotional claims and have no supporting argument.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.4.23  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.4.22    one month ago
Answered repeatedly;

No you haven't.  It's a simple yes or no question.  You've done everything EXCEPT answer it

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4.24  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.4.23    one month ago

Jeremy, this is so basic a grade-school child could understand it:

Jeremy @6.4.20Do you honestly think that the officers giving chase knew he was unarmed at that time?  
TiG (repeatedly but most recently) @6.4.22 ☞ What words do you need to comprehend that I do not know what the officers were thinking and neither do you?  I have never even implied that the officers knew he was unarmed.  

Now look carefully at what I wrote.  Pay attention in particular to the words in blue.   How, exactly, do you walk away with the notion that I believe the officers giving chase knew he was unarmed at the time?

You are repeating a question that was repeatedly answered and has nothing to do with the point I made.   

Yours is a stupid, cheap tactic that is oft used by those who are simply putting on a show in lieu of formulating a cogent rebuttal.   How stupid do you think NT readers are?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.4.25  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @6.4.24    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7  Thrawn 31    4 weeks ago

Can’t tell shit from the body cam footage. From what I hear they say the dude turned and looked like he was reaching for something around his waist.

Considering they already thought he fired a shot from the car of course they were gonna drop him when he did that. And 60 times may seem like a lot, but if you had multiple LEOs all firing at once it isn’t that crazy. From what I can tell so far the officers in question didn’t do anything wrong, I’d have done the same thing. Lesson here is don’t run from us and definitely don’t do anything that looks like you are going for a gun.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1  CB   replied to  Thrawn 31 @7    4 weeks ago

Several points and then I am likely done.

1. 60 shots without pausing to check out the status of a fellow human being is a bit much. (Police are not going to war against civilians, even when those individuals are in the wrong.)

2. Shooting until a civilian (rightly or wrong) stops SQUIRMING is egregious.

3. Officers are supposed to exercise judgement that if possible can preserve life-not end it.

4. And this is where I take a turn:

It is high time that media anchors and influencers widespread inform young people of every color to stop running from the police.  A human has a better chance of SUCCESS in living through the usually one "event" in his or her lifetime - if he or she simply takes the 'risk' of following the officer/s instructions and do not become an unwilling participate in getting riddled with bullets and becoming a discussion point for SUPPORTERS of police even when a clear case of excessive violence is exposed.

Black men and all others. . . stop fighting "the power of the state". . . you can not win in the moment. . . and questions undoubtedly will arise in court to test why you should win against the state afterwards.

That is all 

 
 

Who is online





shona1
Waykwabu


49 visitors