‘Preservation of life’ is hard to hear over 94 gunshots: John P. Gross

Akron news conference

Screenshots from Akron police body cam footage of Jayland Walker's death.

MADISON, Wisconsin -- When police officers can impose a de facto death penalty for a broken license plate light, it’s difficult to see the criminal system as legitimate.

On April 18, a grand jury in Akron, Ohio, failed to charge officers involved in the June 27, 2022, death of Jayland Walker. The 25-year-old Black man was shot 46 times in 6.7 seconds. That doesn’t even account for the 48 bullets that missed.

In Ohio, the instigating traffic violation, which led to a pursuit by car and then on foot, is only punishable only by a fine. Yet the law allows room for police officers to create situations where the use of force becomes inevitable and the level of force is certain to be fatal.

Walker was unarmed at the time he was killed and had no criminal record.

When police attempted to pull Walker over, he refused to stop. Officers began to chase him on a highway and then onto city streets. Police pursuits are inherently dangerous, and many departments only permit officers to engage in them when the person fleeing is suspected of committing a violent offense. For example, Cleveland and Cincinnati law enforcement departments only permit pursuit when the person is suspected of a violent felony.

Akron’s pursuit policy states that an officer should take into account the “seriousness of the original offense,” adding that a pursuit must be based on the officer’s reasonable belief that “the immediate danger to the officer and the public created by the pursuit is less than the immediate or potential danger to the public should the suspect remain at large.” The policy doesn’t specifically prohibit the pursuit of someone suspected only of a traffic infraction, but even under Akron’s permissive standard, it seems impossible to justify the initial decision.

Forty seconds into the pursuit, officers reported hearing a gunshot, which created an obvious additional justification. Once Walker stopped and fled on foot, he was pursued by eight police officers carrying semi-automatic handguns. A trained officer can fire more than three rounds per second. All eight of the officers pursuing Walker had their guns drawn, meaning they could unleash a fatal barrage of more than two dozen bullets in under one second. Three of the officers who shot Walker managed to fire all 18 rounds in their handguns in just over six seconds.

All f the officers involved were trained to fire until the perceived threat had ended, a policy they refer to as “shoot to stop.” Police policies do not label this “shoot to kill,” but almost all departments reject the idea that officers should “shoot to wound.” Use-of-force experts also agree there are a few seconds of delay between when officers perceive someone is no longer a threat and when they stop shooting. When officers are using semi-automatic handguns, this gap translates to three or four more bullets, and when eight officers all have their guns pointed at a suspect, this gap is fatal.

Another factor that makes Walker’s death almost an inevitability at this point in the pursuit is that the law permits officers to use deadly force when it is reasonable under all surrounding circumstances. What that means is officers don’t have to visually confirm that someone has a gun; they just need a reasonable belief that the person might be reaching for a gun.

When Walker stopped running on foot, he could have been surrendering, but officers predisposed to think he was armed said he took a “shooting stance.” I believe this phrase will now be added to the police lexicon of justifications for using deadly force.

John P. Gross

John P. Gross is a clinical associate professor of law at the University of Wisconsin Law School and director of the law school’s Public Defender Project. (Beth Skogen Photography/University of Wisconsin Law School, 2020)Beth Skogen Photography

While video captured images of Walker shooting once from his car and a handgun was eventually found in the car, at the time he was shot, none of the officers had seen him with a weapon.

This case shows how the law, which focuses on the decision to use force, ignores the ways officers escalate the dangers and end up using a disproportionate amount of force.

Akron’s use-of-force policy states that “preservation of life is the highest value in the Akron Police Department.” It is hard to hear that over the sound of 94 gunshots.

John P. Gross is a clinical associate professor of law at the University of Wisconsin Law School and director of the law school’s Public Defender Project. His research focuses on the structure of indigent defense systems, criminal defense, and police policies and practices regarding the use of force.

Have something to say about this topic?

* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments or corrections on this editorial to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.