|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 6, 2022 13:41:17 GMT -8
I'll just throw this out there too: The media has to stop lying. It is sicking. I just heard this on the radio. "Jayland Walker was shot 60 times while running from the police after a traffic stop." If we can't tell the truth, nothing is going to be fixed. And another thing. Stop using stats that just compare one group to another without removing the other variables that would factor into the differences. Those stats are worthless and misleading. Too frustrating. But he was running from the police after a traffic stop. The original incident was a traffic violation. And he was shot 60+ times. Now, if you want to choose to expand on the story with things that do not justify the use of extreme excessive force, go for it. Once again, this is a symptom of a much larger disease. What other variables are you referring to? I mean he's referring to the context that the police shot him 60 times after he shot at them during a police chase. That's pretty relevant.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 6, 2022 13:50:36 GMT -8
But he was running from the police after a traffic stop. The original incident was a traffic violation. And he was shot 60+ times. Now, if you want to choose to expand on the story with things that do not justify the use of extreme excessive force, go for it. Once again, this is a symptom of a much larger disease. What other variables are you referring to? I mean he's referring to the context that the police shot him 60 times after he shot at them during a police chase. That's pretty relevant. Don't know why that huge detail gets glossed over. Or, maybe I do....
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 6, 2022 19:49:29 GMT -8
But he was running from the police after a traffic stop. The original incident was a traffic violation. And he was shot 60+ times. Now, if you want to choose to expand on the story with things that do not justify the use of extreme excessive force, go for it. Once again, this is a symptom of a much larger disease. What other variables are you referring to? I mean he's referring to the context that the police shot him 60 times after he shot at them during a police chase. That's pretty relevant. Why?
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 6, 2022 19:54:43 GMT -8
I mean he's referring to the context that the police shot him 60 times after he shot at them during a police chase. That's pretty relevant. Don't know why that huge detail gets glossed over. Or, maybe I do.... Because the use of deadly force is normally justified with or without it. (No, you're not clever) Philando Castile told the officer that pulled him over that he had a legal, licensed firearm in the car. The officer said "Don't pull it out." And then Castile said "I'm not" before the officer shot him seven times at close range with a child in the car. I don't understand how firing a shot (allegedly) justifies in any way what amounts to an execution. Self-defense? Or "adrenaline"? It was criminally reckless to fire that many shots at a single human being. Period. Nothing justifies the act.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 6, 2022 21:05:16 GMT -8
Don't know why that huge detail gets glossed over. Or, maybe I do.... Because the use of deadly force is normally justified with or without it. (No, you're not clever) Philando Castile told the officer that pulled him over that he had a legal, licensed firearm in the car. The officer said "Don't pull it out." And then Castile said "I'm not" before the officer shot him seven times at close range with a child in the car. I don't understand how firing a shot (allegedly) justifies in any way what amounts to an execution. Self-defense? Or "adrenaline"? It was criminally reckless to fire that many shots at a single human being. Period. Nothing justifies the act. You keep forgetting about the part where after he shot at the police officer from his car, he then fled his car after a car chase, then proceeded to STOP and turn around and face the officers without his hands up, which promoted ALL of the police officers to feel threatened as they opened fire on him at the same time. They did not shoot until that threat was demonstrated. And, of course they had to assume he had a weapon him on him. You can't guess. It may have been an excessive amount of shots fired, but it looks like firing just A shot was justified. We'll see. Would you have been ok if it was just one shot per officer? Would that have been a justified situation to you? Are you only upset about the number of shots? As far as the other case you mention, I don't know enough about it to comment on it, but if it went down the way you say it did, then that's horrible. I'd have to look into it to have an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 6, 2022 21:10:01 GMT -8
I mean he's referring to the context that the police shot him 60 times after he shot at them during a police chase. That's pretty relevant. Why? Because during the foot chase he decided to stop and turn to face the police officers without his hands up, and it was no coincidence that all of the police officers thought it was in a threatening manner, and they had to assume he had the weapon on him. The amount seems excessive, but like I said, all of the officers felt threatened and decided to shoot. Would 10 shots have been ok for you? Or, do you believe they should not have shot at all and taken a chance that he didn't have his weapon on him, and they could die?
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 6, 2022 21:15:47 GMT -8
Because the use of deadly force is normally justified with or without it. (No, you're not clever) Philando Castile told the officer that pulled him over that he had a legal, licensed firearm in the car. The officer said "Don't pull it out." And then Castile said "I'm not" before the officer shot him seven times at close range with a child in the car. I don't understand how firing a shot (allegedly) justifies in any way what amounts to an execution. Self-defense? Or "adrenaline"? It was criminally reckless to fire that many shots at a single human being. Period. Nothing justifies the act. You keep forgetting about the part where after he shot at the police officer from his car, he then fled his car after a car chase, then proceeded to STOP and turn around and face the officers without his hands up, which promoted ALL of the police officers to feel threatened as they opened fire on him at the same time. They did not shoot until that threat was demonstrated. And, of course they had to assume he had a weapon him on him. You can't guess. It may have been an excessive amount of shots fired, but it looks like firing just A shot was justified. We'll see. Would you have been ok if it was just one shot per officer? Would that have been a justified situation to you? Are you only upset about the number of shots? As far as the other case you mention, I don't know enough about it to comment on it, but if it went down the way you say it did, then that's horrible. I'd have to look into it to have an opinion. None of that has been proven. In fact, per the family's attorney, the Akron police chief said nothing on tape indicated an elevated threat to officer safety. Other police officers around the country have stated on the record that the actions taken by the Akron PD were excessive and raised concerns about unnecessary use of force. Throwing around blanket generalizations like one size fits all and "don't flee, just comply" is ignoring the reality of dozens of situations where it literally didn't matter. The justifications always remain the same, regardless of the individual circumstances. You are VERY quick to assume everything the Akron PD has put out thus far is the truth. When it ends up being the opposite, maybe that will open some minds.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 6, 2022 21:19:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 6, 2022 21:46:43 GMT -8
You keep forgetting about the part where after he shot at the police officer from his car, he then fled his car after a car chase, then proceeded to STOP and turn around and face the officers without his hands up, which promoted ALL of the police officers to feel threatened as they opened fire on him at the same time. They did not shoot until that threat was demonstrated. And, of course they had to assume he had a weapon him on him. You can't guess. It may have been an excessive amount of shots fired, but it looks like firing just A shot was justified. We'll see. Would you have been ok if it was just one shot per officer? Would that have been a justified situation to you? Are you only upset about the number of shots? As far as the other case you mention, I don't know enough about it to comment on it, but if it went down the way you say it did, then that's horrible. I'd have to look into it to have an opinion. None of that has been proven. In fact, per the family's attorney, the Akron police chief said nothing on tape indicated an elevated threat to officer safety. Other police officers around the country have stated on the record that the actions taken by the Akron PD were excessive and raised concerns about unnecessary use of force. Throwing around blanket generalizations like one size fits all and "don't flee, just comply" is ignoring the reality of dozens of situations where it literally didn't matter. The justifications always remain the same, regardless of the individual circumstances. You are VERY quick to assume everything the Akron PD has put out thus far is the truth. When it ends up being the opposite, maybe that will open some minds. I'm going to let it play out, and go from there.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 6, 2022 21:46:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 6, 2022 23:17:37 GMT -8
Don't know why that huge detail gets glossed over. Or, maybe I do.... Because the use of deadly force is normally justified with or without it. (No, you're not clever) Philando Castile told the officer that pulled him over that he had a legal, licensed firearm in the car. Yeah but we aren't talking about that case, and we aren't talking about the 60 shots in this one either (we agree that it's excessive and possibly manslaughter) - we are talking about the first shot made by the eight officers.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 6, 2022 23:18:54 GMT -8
You keep forgetting about the part where after he shot at the police officer from his car, he then fled his car after a car chase, then proceeded to STOP and turn around and face the officers without his hands up, which promoted ALL of the police officers to feel threatened as they opened fire on him at the same time. They did not shoot until that threat was demonstrated. And, of course they had to assume he had a weapon him on him. You can't guess. It may have been an excessive amount of shots fired, but it looks like firing just A shot was justified. We'll see. Would you have been ok if it was just one shot per officer? Would that have been a justified situation to you? Are you only upset about the number of shots? As far as the other case you mention, I don't know enough about it to comment on it, but if it went down the way you say it did, then that's horrible. I'd have to look into it to have an opinion. None of that has been proven. In fact, per the family's attorney, the Akron police chief said nothing on tape indicated an elevated threat to officer safety. Other police officers You are VERY quick to assume everything the Akron PD has put out thus far is the truth. When it ends up being the opposite, maybe that will open some minds. Okay but you are quick to assume guilt.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 6, 2022 23:43:39 GMT -8
Because the use of deadly force is normally justified with or without it. (No, you're not clever) Philando Castile told the officer that pulled him over that he had a legal, licensed firearm in the car. Yeah but we aren't talking about that case, and we aren't talking about the 60 shots in this one either (we agree that it's excessive and possibly manslaughter) - we are talking about the first shot made by the eight officers. Exactly, where I'm coming from as well, the justification for them to shoot at all.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 7, 2022 7:02:08 GMT -8
Because the use of deadly force is normally justified with or without it. (No, you're not clever) Philando Castile told the officer that pulled him over that he had a legal, licensed firearm in the car. Yeah but we aren't talking about that case, and we aren't talking about the 60 shots in this one either (we agree that it's excessive and possibly manslaughter) - we are talking about the first shot made by the eight officers. You may be, but I am not. Ignoring the larger picture doesn't really seem like a genuine framing of the argument. What I am arguing is that police policy and the umbrella defense of "threat to life" shields them from consequences and that this shooting is just another example of that. Again, the release of the bodycam footage during a heavily scripted press conference is done so Akron PD can protect their department. Whether or not we ever get the entire truth is debatable.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 7, 2022 7:04:15 GMT -8
None of that has been proven. In fact, per the family's attorney, the Akron police chief said nothing on tape indicated an elevated threat to officer safety. Other police officers You are VERY quick to assume everything the Akron PD has put out thus far is the truth. When it ends up being the opposite, maybe that will open some minds. Okay but you are quick to assume guilt.I am, but somehow others...are not? The officers are guilty of reckless and wonton behavior. That seems obvious. The other side of this crowd wants to use every minute detail of the case in order to crucify Walker and justify the shooting. If this was the first time this had ever happened, maybe. But ignoring context isn't something I subscribe to.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 7, 2022 9:57:08 GMT -8
Okay but you are quick to assume guilt.I am, but somehow others...are not? The officers are guilty of reckless and wonton behavior. That seems obvious. The other side of this crowd wants to use every minute detail of the case in order to crucify Walker and justify the shooting. If this was the first time this had ever happened, maybe. But ignoring context isn't something I subscribe to. There was a REASON they all decided to shoot at the same time. Reasons such as: They all had to assume he had a weapon, and he turned to face them in a way that was threatening to all of them. Let's see if this all can be verified, or not. Yes, the amount was excessive.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 7, 2022 10:04:48 GMT -8
I am, but somehow others...are not? The officers are guilty of reckless and wonton behavior. That seems obvious. The other side of this crowd wants to use every minute detail of the case in order to crucify Walker and justify the shooting. If this was the first time this had ever happened, maybe. But ignoring context isn't something I subscribe to. There was a REASON they all decided to shoot at the same time. Reasons such as: They all had to assume he had a weapon, and he turned to face them in a way that was threatening to all of them. Let's see if this all can be verified, or not. Yes, the amount was excessive. What you are failing to grasp is the slippery slope that that "reason" ultimately leads to. Step back for a second and think about it. Any police officer can just state that they thought their life was in danger to justify deadly force. Truthful? Otherwise? Does it matter? Assumptions get unarmed people killed. Assumptions allow poorly trained police officers with zero vetting to kill and escape consequences. And it's not just about Jayland Walker, it's about justice in every case that fits this exact mold.
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Jul 7, 2022 10:18:07 GMT -8
Because the use of deadly force is normally justified with or without it. (No, you're not clever) Philando Castile told the officer that pulled him over that he had a legal, licensed firearm in the car. The officer said "Don't pull it out." And then Castile said "I'm not" before the officer shot him seven times at close range with a child in the car. I don't understand how firing a shot (allegedly) justifies in any way what amounts to an execution. Self-defense? Or "adrenaline"? It was criminally reckless to fire that many shots at a single human being. Period. Nothing justifies the act. You keep forgetting about the part where after he shot at the police officer from his car, he then fled his car after a car chase, then proceeded to STOP and turn around and face the officers without his hands up, which promoted ALL of the police officers to feel threatened as they opened fire on him at the same time. They did not shoot until that threat was demonstrated. And, of course they had to assume he had a weapon him on him. You can't guess. It may have been an excessive amount of shots fired, but it looks like firing just A shot was justified. We'll see. Would you have been ok if it was just one shot per officer? Would that have been a justified situation to you? Are you only upset about the number of shots? As far as the other case you mention, I don't know enough about it to comment on it, but if it went down the way you say it did, then that's horrible. I'd have to look into it to have an opinion. "You keep forgetting about the part where after he shot at the police officer from his car, he then fled his car after a car chase, then proceeded to STOP and turn around and face the officers without his hands up, which promoted ALL of the police officers to feel threatened as they opened fire on him at the same time."None of that happened...maybe you can point it out or provide a link that says it did...the video clearly shows Walker running...and the cops opening up on him...Walker did not stop...he did not turn around and face the officers...so how could he promote the officers to feel threatened?...there have been so many shootings of unarmed Blacks that you're starting to mix them up: Video Shows Black Teen With Hands Up When Shot by Cop"An unarmed 13-year-old Black boy had his hands raised in the air when he was gunned down by a Chicago Police Department officer in May, new surveillance video obtained by The Daily Beast shows. In the video, the teen—known only by his initials A.G.—ran off the sidewalk and into the light of a gas station parking lot with his hands raised in the air before turning around to his right. It is then that the boy is shot by an officer and collapses to the cement in front of a gas pump." www.thedailybeast.com/video-shows-black-teen-with-hands-up-when-shot-by-chicago-police-department-officer-after-carjacking
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Jul 7, 2022 10:32:03 GMT -8
Michigan Police Apologize for Only Using Pictures of Black Men as Targets"Residents claim they only use black men as targets at their shooting range." "The practice was discovered by a Boy Scout troop touring the department." “I’ll take this one on the chin,” he said at a public meeting. “I apologize to each and every person in this room, this community, my department, my city council, my city manager. I can’t overlook this.” www.yahoo.com/video/police-chief-admits-shooting-practice-140000166.htmlWhite social construction has demonized and criminalized the Black man for centuries...to a point where even the most non-racist person has preconceived notions about him...thus making any excuse to kill him easy to justify and white folks to believe...shooting at nothing but Black men conditions them with extreme prejudicial violence... www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ogI2_z8KjY
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 7, 2022 11:16:19 GMT -8
Okay but you are quick to assume guilt.I am, but somehow others...are not? The officers are guilty of reckless and wonton behavior. That seems obvious. The other side of this crowd wants to use every minute detail of the case in order to crucify Walker and justify the shooting. If this was the first time this had ever happened, maybe. But ignoring context isn't something I subscribe to. I don't believe in crucifying officers without evidence of guilt. Using an innocent until proven guilty framework. I see guilt in the officer/officers that shot him for seven seconds. Not the eight officers who opened fire.
|
|