It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police video of killing an illegal camper.

page: 5
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Nobody has answered my question yet...

I will try again:

If you are armed, and someone comes at you with a knife and you fear for your life, would you believe yourself to be justified to shoot that person in self defense or not?

I see by the allotment of stars on this subject that my position is not the popular one, but I never cared about the popular opinion to begin with. What I care about is the truth, and I see many of you disregarding it in favor of bias.

I only wish all of you were policing our streets so that you could be put under the microscope if you happened to make a similar split second decision. The entire world would be a better place because apparently, you would all solve such situations without violence 100% of the time. Why local police departments don't recruit ATS members is beyond me. Must be the work of illuminati lizard people.




posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


If someone is at a distance, across rough ground...(and we'll just use the distance in that video for a handy example).... No. I would not shoot them to death when they had absolutely zero chance of actually making it to me with a speed which makes the extra second to second and a half to raise my own weapon, matter.

When the ultimate outcome is death, and you have the absolute and unquestioned power to inflict that outcome at any point you choose, then it is entirely within your hands whether to grant patience, or mercy or grace to another human being...or just shoot them because policy says it may be technically justified.

I'd choose to give patience until circumstance simply left NO choice. Not "no choice within defined policy" or "policy allows for the ultimate option .....now", but the kind of certainty one actually can live with later.

I'm not sure how those cops live with themselves. Any one of them who were in on the flash bang decision and actions beyond that point. I sure would find it difficult to shave every day when I couldn't stand to look at myself in a mirror any longer.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   
clearly not necessary at all.

The guy was not threatening, didnt charge, didnt pull a weapon system up or anything, this is completely ridiculous.


Wrabbit2000
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


If someone is at a distance, across rough ground...(and we'll just use the distance in that video for a handy example).... No. I would not shoot them to death when they had absolutely zero chance of actually making it to me with a speed which makes the extra second to second and a half to raise my own weapon, matter.


bam, 100%

heck, the poor guy isnt even facing them when hes shot. what on earth possessed them to kill him beyond not complying?

sorry but one guy with or without a knife doesnt constitute being murdered by a squad of automatic assault weapon cops.


did they just forget their tazers that day?

"hey bob should we take our tazers for this camper? oh whats that just take an AR15 and shoot, yeah okay"
edit on b3636247 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Wrabbit, I respect you and appreciate your posts. I really do feel you are the most objective person in this thread, but I don't think you are fully aware of the facts. Did you watch the mythbusters segment I posted? An individual with a knife can close the gap with you VERY quickly. Given all of the issues I've highlighted, can you honestly say that this was some kind of brutal gang murder by the police?



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


not over rocky terrain.

He couldnt even throw it fast enough.

this was NOT REMOTELY a suicide by cop.



edit on b4949223 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


It's one of those issues that is open to interpretation, but if you can leave your bias at the door, the fact it's not an open and shut case lends credence to what I am saying.

For instance, this (to me), is an open and shut case of someone who deserves to go to jail for murder, and abusing their authority:



I am not going to excuse such actions when I see them. But I didn't see them in the video presented in the OP. What I saw, was a regrettable situation that could have ended better, but was NOT a shooting gallery as some here would like to make it seem.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


I'm looking at the same video you are, and I'm looking at the time it took for the dog to cross the ground as a sense of scale and distance where my eyes aren't reliable in a 2 dimensional display. The idea he could possibly have posed an immediate and deadly threat is absurd beyond reason to me.

The only justification I can see, and it's a justification born of flat wrong decision making to having gotten there in the first place, is the suspect appearing to be about to use his knife on the dog. That would bring cops to shooting, instantly, in most cases. Right or wrong, that's the one factor I saw in the video to explain anything, and that's assuming something I never actually saw happen with my own eyes. Just the only possible thing I could imagine.

The rest? They're ignorant cowboys. Look at the shot(s) fired by the camera guy. It was ACROSS THE BACK of another officer, at a bit of range. Well, that's another cop right on the right of his line of fire and close enough to the path of the bullet to have gotten that lovely SLAP anyone who knows , knows too well.


I don't think they went up there to kill him. No. Of course not. That's silly talk. Cops aren't terminator machines or something. We have entirely too many who seem to LACK any skill between harsh language and lead stuff into red stuff, though. We have too many college children being handed guns and badges....who would likely still get their butts handed to them by a pissed nerd in the commons area. These aren't cops to put down and handle a violent situation with confidence. They are the type to shoot, because they're as scared as what they are killing.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


i respect your angle, but he was not actually threatening anyone, no hostages, nothing.

do you really think a man with a little knife would charge several automatic assault weapon cops over rocks and bolders?

He was clearly sane, knew the law, knew his rights all his did was simply not comply with a basic request, yes that was bad, but being shot multiple times with 5.56mm armor piercing bullets from several cops? what the hell?

grotesquely uncalled for in every sense.
edit on b0707301 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Nobody has answered my question yet...

I will try again:

If you are armed, and someone comes at you with a knife and you fear for your life, would you believe yourself to be justified to shoot that person in self defense or not?

I see by the allotment of stars on this subject that my position is not the popular one, but I never cared about the popular opinion to begin with. What I care about is the truth, and I see many of you disregarding it in favor of bias.

I only wish all of you were policing our streets so that you could be put under the microscope if you happened to make a similar split second decision. The entire world would be a better place because apparently, you would all solve such situations without violence 100% of the time. Why local police departments don't recruit ATS members is beyond me. Must be the work of illuminati lizard people.



Plenty answer that, it makes no sense in this situation and if you look at the video that is not blurred out you can this may turned around and was shot in the back
The truth was these men did not show police should carry out their job's. They were violent to this man which led to him defending him self. NOT the other way around...

That "raw" footage was blurred for a reason, it showed just how cowardly this event really was.

Did you hear the cop say booyah???
What could he possibly be saying booyah about!?
Look at how they treat this man and tell me they were just doing their job
www.liveleak.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


i completely agree, at the end of the day if you corner anything and subject it to violence unless it complys, its going to defend itself, approach a rabid dog with a stick and see what happens.

this automatic assumption everyone should instantly give up themselfs on a simple command is just not how nature works, and shooting them in the back is completly outrageous.

when i watched the video, after reading the title, i assumed he would lunge or make a move, he does not. The impatient cops just murder him outright.
edit on b2727348 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 





do you really think a man with a little knife would charge several automatic assault weapon cops over rocks and bolders?


Yes. That is clearly what the video shows. People are unpredictable, people with violent histories more so. That is just the first issue (the knife). If I am on the scene, I don't know what the guy has in his backpack. Could be anything.



He was clearly sane, knew the law, knew his rights all his did was simply not comply with a basic request, yes that was bad, but being shot multiple times with 5.56mm armor piercing bullets from several cops? what the hell?


What makes you think he was clearly sane? Not that I think such a determination should decide if a man lives or dies, but it could affect the way officers react, could it not?

As for your last statement, I agree he did not deserve to be shot. The issue isn't if he deserved it or not. It's if the officer who fired the first shot was justified in doing so.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


My answer is simply that my judgement told me he was not violent and would not dare charge a squad of heavily armed men.


That does not mean i could be wrong, but armoed heavy assault police dotn exactly die easy and id much prefer they shot a man that tryed to attack them than one thats shot in the back simply because he disagreed with them.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Biigs
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


My answer is simply that my judgement told me he was not violent and would not dare charge a squad of heavily armed men.


That does not mean i could be wrong, but armoed heavy assault police dotn exactly die easy and id much prefer they shot a man that tryed to attack them than one thats shot in the back simply because he disagreed with them.


And that's fine. In your case, if you were the cop, you'd be willing to take the chance that it could be your life on the line, or the life of your buddy. In this case, the guy that pulled the trigger wasn't willing to take the chance. That is what it boils down to.

You may have done the same thing in his shoes. This is NOT some kind of firing squad as some of you are making it out to be.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


if i had a trained assault weapon on him and i had a crew of others with the same, do you think for one second a knife wielding manic poses any threat to me?

let him make a move first. shooting first is war not policing.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


He DID make a move first. That's the point. Again...

Would you have enough time to do all these things before a guy with a knife closed the gap to you:

-Disengage your firearm safely from the suspect

-Reach for a nonlethal means of subduing the suspect

-target the suspect with the non-lethal weapon

-Deploy non-lethal means of subduing the suspect

If you answered yes to even one of these things, you are kidding yourself because you never watched the video I posted, and you don't understand how these people are trained to respond to similar threats.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


He did NOT make a move
Watch the video that is not blurred



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


what happened to innocent before proven guilty?



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Biigs
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


what happened to innocent before proven guilty?


Don't even go there man. It's not the issue. If YOU are on the scene, you are trained to handle it a certain way and there is a REASON for that. It's so that police stay safe, civilians stay safe, and the suspect himself stays as safe as possible. I know that seems WAY FAR OUT to you, but it's the truth.

Innocent until proven guilty applies to a court of law. You know as well as I do that police officers are often tasked with engaging with and arresting dangerous criminals (some of which shoot first and ask questions later). Are they to be given no ability to protect themselves while you yourself would claim self defense?

Why is a police officer not permitted to defend himself against a knife wielding assailant but YOU are?



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


did you even watch it?

how on earth is one guy with a knife, on rocks, 20 feet away remotely dangerous when hes not crazed, not agitated, not complient

they murdered him, they were in no danger AT ALL.

HELLO tazer?[

they KILLED him




edit on b5656349 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 





Why is a police officer not permitted to defend himself against a knife wielding assailant but YOU are?


Please stop presenting this as the case when there is video evidence that this man did not assault any one with a knife

They did nothing outside of throwing a flash bang to solve this peacefully...
They shot a man in the back!
They won't even say how many times he was shot cause they know it is embarrassing they shot 6 times for a man that did nothing out side of some verbal threats, which remember those don't mean a thing. The florida congressman that threatened to kill a reporter on camera proves that. All he had to do was say he was sorry, why was this man not allowed that same option?



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join