It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: milkyway12
The police officer thinks the guy was on some kind of narcotic, too.
perhaps they should be looking into what substances the cop had in his system
originally posted by: Libertygal
a reply to: Iamthatbish
Every LEO would have made the same decision, because, it comes down to Stand Your Ground.
He had a right to defend his own life, which, from the evidence that has come out thus far, is exactly what he did.
Police are not taught to shoot to maim, or to shoot to slow down. They are taught to kill. This is real life, not television.
He had already been assaulted, been in a fight for his sidearm, which he clearly won, and preserved his own life.
I fail to see, at this point, where he needs more training. He did everything by the book.
When he first stopped Michael and Dorian, and asked them to get out of the road, he was not aware of the robbery. They said they would be off the road momentarily.
He advanced forward, observing them in his mirror. He then got the radio call about the burglary and recognized them as the suspects, reversed his car, and went back to them.
When he tried to exit the vehicle, Michael aggressively slammed the door shut on Darren, and that was the beginning of an assault. That constituted his first felony on a police officer.
From thereon, every action Michael took was one more felony, which gave Darren the right to pursue, and attempt an arrest.
Nothing he did was wrong.
People are going to hate it, but, it is likely he will get a No Bill from the Grand Jury, or, if they install a special prosecutor, he may be arrested to appease the Ferguson uprising, which is just pitiful.
originally posted by: jaxnmarko
a reply to: 727Sky
They are separate issues. The one does not justify the other. Nor does rioting and looting become justified by what happened either. He was not shot from behind, as the autopsy showed. Witnesses are saying that he was approaching the police. I think the police over-reacted. They spend too much time practicing unloading a complete clip rapidly at the firing range instead of shot placement that can put a man down. A bullet to the knee does wonders for ambulatory threats, and there are two knees.
originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Libertygal
Also, days before, the DA had said he had a clean criminal background. This only shows he hadn't been caught, yet.
Wow, just, wow!
Some people are just criminals that haven't been caught yet eh?
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
How about this. Instead of dismissing violent crime and even some other crimes as "they didn't deserve to get shot"...we instead allow all citizens to carry guns and inform the potential criminals that they WILL be shot if they are a menace to society, rob someone, violate someone, etc. That way, if someone decides to strong-arm a purse away from a woman...they get shot...and either won't do it again or can't do it again?
I like that idea. The key is to make sure everyone is well aware that if you steal a car, you can be shot and killed for doing so. Then...only the uncontrollable will still commit such crimes and will be "removed" from society. Others who are smart enough to NOT want to get shot, will abstain from committing such crimes.
Then we would have a society of law abiding individuals and finally be rid of the violent criminals and maybe all you liberal asses who pretend that depriving someone of property or assaulting them is somehow, in your screwed up minds...just fine. You know...like back in the good ole days when people thought twice about committing crimes because they would get their ass kicked.
And again...only the uncontrollable (see: Furguson) would be shot and we don't need or want these people in our society anyway. PROBLEM SOLVED!
originally posted by: bjarneorn
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
To any sane human, there is no justification for shooting in the head, twice
There is no justification for even ONE bullet in the head ... and last I knew, people were supposed to be shot in the legs, not the arms.