[bodyfarmer]

Police have released bodycam footage after a black man was found with some 60 gunshot wounds after he fled a traffic stop last week.

Eight police officers in Akron, Ohio, were involved in the shooting of J. W, 25, last week after a pursuit by car and on foot.

Police say they believed he was armed at the time he was shot, but the family's lawyer said his team has not seen any evidence he fired a weapon and that police body-camera footage showed him running with his back to officers when they gunned him down.

Officers played multiple videos at a news conference, one of which they said shows a gunshot being fired from the car driven by him who was being chased by police.

He jumped out of the car and ran away from the authorities, the video showed.

Police say it appears he was turning toward officers, who at the time believed he had a weapon.

A gun was later recovered from his car.

The attorney for the family, Bobby DiCello, had cautioned that the video was "brutal," in comments published on Saturday by the Akron Beacon Journal.

"He is just in a down sprint when he is dropped by - I think the count is more than 90 shots," DiCello said.

"Now how many of those land, according to our investigation right now, we're getting details that suggest 60 to 80 wounds."

The incident led to eight Akron city police officers being placed on paid administrative leave following the deadly encounter.

A lawyer for the family said his relatives feared that protests in response to the killing could turn violent.

In its initial statement last week, Akron Police Department said its officers "attempted to stop a vehicle for traffic violation" around 12.30am on Monday.

The force said the driver refused to stop and officers gave chase, with the police reporting "a firearm being discharged from the suspect vehicle".

Police said he jumped out of his moving car and officers continued their chase on foot.

"Actions by the suspect caused the officers to perceive he posed a deadly threat to them," the force said.

"In response to this threat, officers discharged their firearms, striking the suspect."

He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The shooting was the latest in a spate of killings of black men by law enforcement in the US, including the 2020 murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis that ignited global protests.

[Awake47]

this thread smells like shit

[kellyhound]

the victim

[houseoftechno]

C'mon. Disobeys traffic stop, shoots at cops, bales car and runs from cops. This is a felon, not a victim.

[upinthemountains]

Fuck it. The world is fucked. I don’t even care anymore.

[Soldierforsatan]

running from the cops is never a good idea...yet blk ppl keep doing it...oh fucking well

[Sinil]

I can't tell if the "flash" on the driver's side was a gun shot or a f-ing cigarette being thrown out the window. The gun shot sparks seemed to be slow burning... Like ashes... Muzzle flashes from a Glock don't really produce sparks like that... It's just a quick flash. Don't believe me.. Just YouTube it.

Source: Glock .45 owner

[hughjardon67]

60 to 80 hits of 100 fired at a moving target? Ohio PDs must have been practicing. Geeezzzeez.

[Sinil]

Originally Posted by houseoftechno ↗

C'mon. Disobeys traffic stop, shoots at cops, bales car and runs from cops. This is a felon, not a victim.

So, I do agree that this guy made ALOT of bad decisions from beginning to end.

So let's say, for the sake of argument, each one of his actions individually warranted the use of deadly force. My concern is not that the split second life or death decision was the wrong one. My concern lies in the magnitude of the actions taken. Did the "Platoon" of officers need to shoot a single suspect the 60-90 times shown in the footage?

Think about it this way. If you are attacked and you punch your attacker 15 times to neutralize him, you more than likely will be able to prove self defense. Now, what if the attacker steals you, then you and 6 of your friends chase him down and beat him into a coma? Do you think you can still prove self defense?

For me, professionals are trained to measure their responses to a reasonable extent. In this case it means neutralizing the perceived deadly force. The department reported that the officers believed the suspect was armed, however none of the officers believed or saw him with a gun. By extention, this also means no saw him point a gun at them... So may be authorized to use deadly force, but the goal isn't to kill the suspect... It's to neutralize the perceived threat if there is one. Yes, sometimes that means shooting the suspect... and if he gets up and reaches for a weapon after being shot, then yes you fire again.

If we (soldiers deployed to Iraq) had done what these officers did, to their suspect, to an enemy combatant (whose sole job is to kill you) while deployed in war zone... We would be in prison. That's saying something when you think about it. Police charged with protecting the public, and our job was to kill the enemy. Yet we had a standard of how we treated the enemy. Enemy soldier aren't any less human just becuase they are on the other side of the line. The US Army treated captured Nazi soldiers better than our police treat our citizens in alot of the "sensationalized" incidents.

[Silent_steve]

Originally Posted by Sinil ↗

So, I do agree that this guy made ALOT of bad decisions from beginning to end.

So let's say, for the sake of argument, each one of his actions individually warranted the use of deadly force. My concern is not that the split second life or death decision was the wrong one. My concern lies in the magnitude of the actions taken. Did the "Platoon" of officers need to shoot a single suspect the 60-90 times shown in the footage?

Think about it this way. If you are attacked and you punch your attacker 15 times to neutralize him, you more than likely will be able to prove self defense. Now, what if the attacker steals you, then you and 6 of your friends chase him down and beat him into a coma? Do you think you can still prove self defense?

For me, professionals are trained to measure their responses to a reasonable extent. In this case it means neutralizing the perceived deadly force. The department reported that the officers believed the suspect was armed, however none of the officers believed or saw him with a gun. By extention, this also means no saw him point a gun at them... So may be authorized to use deadly force, but the goal isn't to kill the suspect... It's to neutralize the perceived threat if there is one. Yes, sometimes that means shooting the suspect... and if he gets up and reaches for a weapon after being shot, then yes you fire again.

If we (soldiers deployed to Iraq) had done what these officers did, to their suspect, to an enemy combatant (whose sole job is to kill you) while deployed in war zone... We would be in prison. That's saying something when you think about it. Police charged with protecting the public, and our job was to kill the enemy. Yet we had a standard of how we treated the enemy. Enemy soldier aren't any less human just becuase they are on the other side of the line. The US Army treated captured Nazi soldiers better than our police treat our citizens in alot of the "sensationalized" incidents.

Exactly