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.

 

Gov. Jay Nixon signs exec. order to send Missouri National Guard to Ferguson

page: 64
96
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: scghst1
Yes.
I am sure the cop would be happy to hear that if true.




posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: scghst1

originally posted by: truckdriver42


I'm not buying any of this false outrage. Brown was a thug and at least 12 people are reporting he charged the officer. At that point he deserved to be shot however many times it took to put the rabid dog down.



Been following this story from Day 1. Can you please post a source for this unsubstantiated claim you have made?

I too would like to see 12 witness statements saying he charged the officer. Since the one's I have heard about are he was fleeing.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: scghst1

originally posted by: truckdriver42


I'm not buying any of this false outrage. Brown was a thug and at least 12 people are reporting he charged the officer. At that point he deserved to be shot however many times it took to put the rabid dog down.



Been following this story from Day 1. Can you please post a source for this unsubstantiated claim you have made?


You haven't been following too close or you just ignore the truth. I suspect the latter.. Did you see the video of people saying the thug charges the cop? No? hmm.. Agenda?
www.youtube.com...

Or how about this twitter feed?
twitter.com...

This is nothing more than a modern day sacrifice and I hope those people in Ferguson are satisfied with their narrative of lies and deceit. Useless liars is what they are.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
You posted something that showed what the reporter called a Molotov cocktail that was thrown after the police had already attacked.


Man, that was a long one. Ok well I also posted an image showing three thugs attempting to light MOLOTOV COCKTAILS, what don't you understand???


Let me be clear here---that was not a Molotov cocktail. I've seen cocktails thrown and the results are more like the image posted by someone earlier.


I don't care what you have seen before, or missed during these riots, because not everything gets filmed, plus smoke hides a lot. Already went over all this.


sigh...it's a sad day when I have to explain to people what a Molotov cocktail is...


It's even sadder when you don't know what you're talking about. My childhood older neighbor use to make and throw them at the end of our street.


Just because a reporter doesn't know what he's seeing and makes an error in reporting---like the guy who thought foam ear plugs were rubber bullets---doesn't mean that we have to go along with their error.


You don't know what the reporter was seeing because you were not there. That my friend, is much closer to the truth.


Your claim that the Chop Suey was burned down was completely false as shown by Vice's report as he walked by it earlier this evening. It is obviously still standing and not noticeably damaged by fire.


Again, I posted the Video that showed the protestors putting the fire out, you're very confused and stuck on a merry go round. Point is, someone caused a fire. It being put out makes no difference.


To keep repeating that it was a Molotov cocktail is simply spreading dis-information.


Well you better get busy with phone calls and e-mails to the President and many various media outlets, cause they are spreading it to many more people than I.

Molotov cocktail, Molotov Cocktail, it was a Molotov Cocktail. Just like the Molotov Cocktails that the three thugs were attempting to light.


You are correct in saying that some of us get passionate. We lived through 1968 and saw the damage that these thugs can do to entire towns. We watched the police departments turn dogs and water cannons on people who were doing nothing but standing or sitting for their rights as human beings.


Yeah I grew up during the L.A Riots, whole Rodney King deal. I watched maniacs drag innocent people out of their cars and violently attack them like animals.

It's a terrible thing when innocent people take the blame for everything. Hopefully this situation here eventually calms down. ~$heopleNation



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: jholt5638

I have a feeling you will very soon. Even if they had clear video of the foaming rabid Mike Brown charging the officer, people will continue to believe Mike Brown was an innocent angel.

On the other side, this is a 28 year old cop with no reports or incidents on his record but people give a thug that committed strong armed robbery the benefit of the doubt? LOL.. Classic ideology of the lazy left.

I can't wait for the cop to be exonerated as I am almost positive he will be. Then we will see Ferguson burn again. This time they should let it all go..



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: truckdriver42
a reply to: jholt5638

I have a feeling you will very soon. Even if they had clear video of the foaming rabid Mike Brown charging the officer, people will continue to believe Mike Brown was an innocent angel.

On the other side, this is a 28 year old cop with no reports or incidents on his record but people give a thug that committed strong armed robbery the benefit of the doubt? LOL.. Classic ideology of the lazy left.

I can't wait for the cop to be exonerated as I am almost positive he will be. Then we will see Ferguson burn again. This time they should let it all go..


i don't know about thinking he was an innocent angel, that seems a bit naive.
Given the history of police forces exonerating their employees, i would say you're probably right.
I think the issue most people have is that if the officers story is true then why would he not use his taser to stop an unarmed man who was charging him rather than kill him out right. Why carry non-lethals like that and then not use them?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

Might it be since he tried to take the officer's weapon, the officer saw this as a very deadly situation. I would think if someone goes for a firearm their intent is to inflict serious injury. The officer also doesn't know if the man has a concealed weapon (firearm, knife) when he starts his pursuit.

Just bringing up some possible thoughts.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

Might it be since he tried to take the officer's weapon, the officer saw this as a very deadly situation. I would think if someone goes for a firearm their intent is to inflict serious injury. The officer also doesn't know if the man has a concealed weapon (firearm, knife) when he starts his pursuit.

Just bringing up some possible thoughts.

I understand that and don't rule it out but the thing is once contact is broken and the suspect becomes distanced then turns back, its not imminent threat to life and limb anymore, still a serious situation but not life threatening.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

Might it be since he tried to take the officer's weapon, the officer saw this as a very deadly situation. I would think if someone goes for a firearm their intent is to inflict serious injury. The officer also doesn't know if the man has a concealed weapon (firearm, knife) when he starts his pursuit.

Just bringing up some possible thoughts.


The only reason to go for an officers gun is if you are going to use it on him. That is how that act will be viewed. Every action after that is built on that initial deadly force encounter. A person looking at an officer who has their gun drawn and pointed at you should result in the person stopping their action.

If the person continues then a deadly force encounter is very much present.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I doubt any person in that situation is going to stop and try to switch to a tazer in the short time ase a person starts to move back toward them, if that is what happened.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut





I understand that and don't rule it out but the thing is once contact is broken and the suspect becomes distanced then turns back, its not imminent threat to life and limb anymore, still a serious situation but not life threatening.


Uhm no. Its a continuation of the same event, which became deadly force the moment he went for the officers gun. Running is another felony offense, and stopping and turning back to the officer while ignoring verbal commands demonstrates the suspects intent. rushing the officer, and based on the initial encounter, very much is the same Situation and deadly force is still present in the encounter.

Even officer history with a person who has fought in the past can be considered when dealing with the individual.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Xcathdra

I doubt any person in that situation is going to stop and try to switch to a tazer in the short time ase a person starts to move back toward them, if that is what happened.



A TASER is a step below deadly force. Generally speaking when a TASER is used during a deadly y force encounter, there will be a second officer present with deadly force capable and present - IE a duty weapon is present and pointed at the threat.

When u are in a deadly force encounter alone, you don't go to a TASER. Like bullets, a TASER can fail and it only takes a person a few seconds to cover 21 - 26 feet.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hey, whats good for the goose should be good for the gander right?
everyday citizens get charged with murder all the time for their actions in similar situations simply because of that one small event that happens right after the perpetrator flees the immediate personal space zone.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut
If Mike Brown had already been shot while punching the officer in his SUV, and still he had not stopped aggressive actions, what makes you think the cop should then resort to less effective means at stopping the threat to his life? Have you never seen criminals pull the taser darts out? Mike Brown was an out of control criminal.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hey, whats good for the goose should be good for the gander right?
everyday citizens get charged with murder all the time for their actions in similar situations simply because of that one small event that happens right after the perpetrator flees the immediate personal space zone.


In this case evidence suggests he stopped and charged the officer. But by all means try and use situations with completely different facts and laws to support your attempt explain a situation where you are in fact incorrect in your analysis.

What you are suggesting is if a person is armed and shoots at an officer, and then runs, the officer catches up and all of a sudden the suspect must be treated as if its a first encounter.

It does not work that way.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mikeultra
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut
If Mike Brown had already been shot while punching the officer in his SUV, and still he had not stopped aggressive actions, what makes you think the cop should then resort to less effective means at stopping the threat to his life? Have you never seen criminals pull the taser darts out? Mike Brown was an out of control criminal.


Because the guy ran, thats why.
tasers have a secondary stun gun function when the dart pack is removed.
Killing should be the absolute last resort by police.
edit on 8/19/2014 by EyesOpenMouthShut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
im not incorrect in any analysis as this is hypothetical situation since there is no official evidence to begin with.

"What you are suggesting is if a person is armed and shoots at an officer, and then runs, the officer catches up and all of a sudden the suspect must be treated as if its a first encounter."
im not suggesting anything about an armed suspect.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut
He ran away at 1st, but according to witnesses he turned back around and charged at the officer. Like an elephant charges the hunter after being wounded. A head shot is the only thing that will stop that, not a taser.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
But doesn't the officer have the duty to apprehend the suspect? He doesn't just stop and say threat is over. The suspect could also be a threat to the public. Not the same as the average citizen.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
Because the guy ran, thats why.
tasers have a secondary stun gun function when the dart pack is removed.
Killing should be the absolute last resort by police.


Running is not relevant. Its still a criminal offense.

Secondly only a cartridge deployment from a TASER can cause temporary interruption of the CNS system. Use of the tip is pain compliance.

In this case it was a last resort.
edit on 19-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join