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.

 

Fighting with a cop, reaching for his gun will earn you six bullets. What's wrong with that?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Now that more of the facts have come to light supporting the Furguson deputies version of events, I'm noticing a pattern here. It's much like the Treyvon Martin case:

1. The media reports the story usinginnaccurate information or none at all.

2. The media portrays the thug as the victim.

3. Black community leaders act outraged, and inflame the situation.

In both cases in accurately reported information lead the public to call for an arrest, WHEN NO SUCH ARREST WAS WARRANTED. I worry the same thing is occurring here.




posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatwoods

What does dignity of life mean to you. Due process? No other way to subdue the man? Was the weapon secured? Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Not this time. This needs to go right to a Grand Jury. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Why? One violation makes it a crime carried out by the officer.

As officers tell others. Nothing to fear, nothing to hide.

The light switch is on.

PS, department policy does not override our Constitutions.


edit on 19-8-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I have wondered if it will even be possible for this officer to get a fair trial if it turns out that he needs one.

There will be a lot of people that will not accept it if he is found innocent of any wrongdoing. There are always plenty of people riding (insert your favorite horizontally challenged mode of public transportation here) of their own free will because they can not fathom that they were/are wrong from the get go.

I don't know who is guilty and who isn't here. I just hope that this can end sooner rather than later without further loss of life, and in a way that justice will have been served.


edit on 8/19/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Its an idiot show for sure. What's worse is even after courts determined, by examining all evidence, that George Zimmerman was innocent, there are people who still believe Trayvon was the victim and didn't do anything wrong. These people would rather believe that racism against blacks is rampant throughout the country and play the victim rather than look at facts. In reality, the only people stirring racial tensions is them. Idiots.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
these people have the wrong job they should be in the armed forces.

And instead of forcing a cop to resign or relocate they should just throw them in a unit stationed where their murderious activities will be more culturally accteptable.

They are still civil servents same as the police force. And with police training that should bump them up to active duty.

Anyone have a problem with that idea? I think it's a great idea.

If you want to execute criminals, Join the armed forces. Not civilian public servants. That is the wrong place to be.
If you or anyone joined the police force to kill criminals, You joined the wrong team.
Any officer suited for the job would agree, These new cops are not suited for the job and play to much CoD.






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



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized

I'll meet you halfway here. There does seem to be a huge misunderstanding between the way cops are portrayed on TV, and the way shootings happen in real life. On TV, bad guys shoot at cops and good guys, then run, but in the end they either die or surrender. In real life, I get the sense that there are times when a suspect goes beyond the point of no return, a point at which they can no longer surrender. It doesn't just happen with cops; we see occasional situations in which gun owners, when face with a burglar, will shoot first and ask questions later...sometimes even shooting the burglar in the back as they are fleeing.

Is this excessive force? It's possible we need to re-educate both the police and the public for situations like this.

As for the Ferguson police officer, try to imagine this scenario: You find yourself patrolling a high-crime neighborhood and see a couple of jaywalkers obstructing traffic. After telling them to get the hell out of the road, you receive a call that makes you suspect one or both of them have committed a robbery. You pull up to them and start to get out of your car to question them, but suddenly the larger of the two young men shoves you back into your vehicle and attempts to either hold you there or reach for your gun( this part is in dispute).

You have no partner to help you at this moment while you are struggling with the suspect. The suspect then walks away, ignoring your calls for him to stop. Your gun is drawn, you are probably very scared, when the suspects suddenly turns around and approaches you, again ignoring your commands. If he overpowers you and takes your gun, you will probably die.

Do you fire your gun, or draw your tazer? It's one or the other, but remember this...you are alone and his associate(s) are still there. Your taser will fire at a distance, but only once. With a gun in your hand you have up to fifteen rounds, and your life is at stake. WHICH OPTION DO YOU CHOOSE?



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatwoods

I'm surprised that the media hasn't posted the dead suspect's baby pics to try to make the public believe that a police officer unloaded his weapon into a 2 year old.

Does the media not understand that if a civil war or extreme civil breakdown occurred-that they would not be any safer than anyone else?

The gov won't be around to protect them-or us.

The gov will be protecting THEIR OWN assets.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
"Fighting with a cop, reaching for his gun will earn you six bullets. What's wrong with that?"

Well, I guess that's OK as long as you're legally entitled to pump six bullets into any cop trying to take your gun.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
But he didn't get the 6 bullets for the trying to grab the gun, he got it for 'charging' the officer, or that is their story.

If he didn't charge, he did not deserve to die. Once he ran away, the officer was no longer in fear for his life.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I agree one should not fight with an armed police officer and possibly reach for his gun.

But still, what is the point of tazers and the like?

It seems police officers NEVER draw for their tazer anymore, it is always draw for the gun and unload first thing.

A tazer would drop any 18 year old on his ass. It would be even more effective than a few shots to the arms or legs....

The point is they carry less than lethal weapons for a reason - however it seems they never go for these options.

The Brown case is not a good example for this outrage I agree. However there have been countless other cases where police have shot and killed unarmed people who were not striking them - there has even been cases where they have shot and killed a handcuffed man. That is absolutely unacceptable - they do not need to be playing executioner out there. If I were a cop - I'd much rather go home without a murdered soul on my conscious.

Then there is the other method cops love - where they dig their knees into a handcuff persons back who is 'resisting' until they literally squish the life out of them by collapsing their lungs. This has happened many times as well.

If a person is lying down handcuffed and are still resisting - they could just be left there to struggle. Simple as that really.

I know the above does not apply to the Brown case - but it happens all the time. And I am sure we have all seen the videos of police beating the crap out of people - even women with their fists simply for mouthing off because they cannot control their anger. One with anger management issues should not be a cop. There should be no place for revenge in the field.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: lightedhype However there have been countless other cases where police have shot and killed unarmed people who were not striking them - there has even been cases where they have shot and killed a handcuffed man. That is absolutely unacceptable - they do not need to be playing executioner out there. If I were a cop - I'd much rather go home without a murdered soul on my conscious.

Then there is the other method cops love - where they dig their knees into a handcuff persons back who is 'resisting' until they literally squish the life out of them by collapsing their lungs. This has happened many times as well.

If a person is lying down handcuffed and are still resisting - they could just be left there to struggle. Simple as that really.



Thanks for your reply, and I agree with you, at least in part. If this case ever goes to trial, I think the central argument will involve the very issue you outlined above.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
"Fighting with a cop, reaching for his gun will earn you six bullets. What's wrong with that?"

Well, I guess that's OK as long as you're legally entitled to pump six bullets into any cop trying to take your gun.


Well, since society gives the police officer the legal authority to take away your gun, and not vice-versa, I wouldn't recommend it.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatwoods

I'm fine with halfway. But, if the detainment is unlawful, the law enforcement officer becomes the the principal if it goes south. It then becomes deprivation of rights, under color of law.

No immunity at that point. All the laws in my signature became applicable to the officer, and more. Including the death penalty.

Having a badge, carries enormous responsibilities. It carries with it an oath. It is never right to abuse it. Ever.

If lawful and your example happens? Of course they can defend themselves. Preferably with sanctity of life in mind.

The question is unlawful vs lawful. One is illegal.
edit on 20-8-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized
If Michael Brown shoved the cop back into his car and reached for his gun, then the cop had a right to detain him. No question about that.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: lightedhype




A tazer would drop any 18 year old on his ass. It would be even more effective than a few shots to the arms or legs....


Let me just clarify that your statement is not true. I am not commenting on any other aspect of the incident or your post however as I have first hand experience with being tazered by LEO's and it had little to no effect on me. Maybe tazrs have improved but I doubt it. The report read.

Tazered..no effect..tazered no effect...officer two fired his tazer and his had no effect. I think there were a couple more lines stating "tazered...no effect". That was the last time I ever touched tequila I din't even have a shirt on I lived at the beach back then and decided to go surfing in the middle of a hurricane after dark during curfew.

Yes it was a poor choice on my behalf but my point is tazers are not guaranteed to drop a person. It did feel like everything was in slow motion but the tapes sowed that every-time they shocked me I was like the energizer bunny and got all charged up literally and figuratively. It made me lose what little reason I had left and go wild.

I am sure the cops know tazers are not guaranteed to drop everyone either so just rethink about the scenario with that bit of knowledge.

IMO a tazer should always be used first to subdue someone over using a gun when there is backup there (another officer) if it fails to do what it is designed to do.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   
nm, heated response.


edit on thWed, 20 Aug 2014 01:10:48 -0500America/Chicago820144880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatwoods

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
"Fighting with a cop, reaching for his gun will earn you six bullets. What's wrong with that?"

Well, I guess that's OK as long as you're legally entitled to pump six bullets into any cop trying to take your gun.


Well, since society gives the police officer the legal authority to take away your gun, and not vice-versa, I wouldn't recommend it.


Who exactly is "society" and how can they grant anyone the legal authority to violate the Constitution?



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
Its an idiot show for sure. What's worse is even after courts determined, by examining all evidence, that George Zimmerman was innocent, there are people who still believe Trayvon was the victim and didn't do anything wrong. These people would rather believe that racism against blacks is rampant throughout the country and play the victim rather than look at facts. In reality, the only people stirring racial tensions is them. Idiots.


Innocent according to Zimmerman's story...and we all know the court system and 'evidence' has never been wrong...Brown? not so sure...but yeah

if Brown did what the cops said he did I get it...I get the response...but we shall see...or at least we will see what the cops feed us and what Ferguson feeds us...exactly how I feel about Zimmerman (who I still believe got away with murder)
edit on 20-8-2014 by KyoZero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatwoods
Now that more of the facts have come to light supporting the Furguson deputies version of events, I'm noticing a pattern here. It's much like the Treyvon Martin case:

1. The media reports the story usinginnaccurate information or none at all.

2. The media portrays the thug as the victim.

3. Black community leaders act outraged, and inflame the situation.

In both cases in accurately reported information lead the public to call for an arrest, WHEN NO SUCH ARREST WAS WARRANTED. I worry the same thing is occurring here.


Apparently you are playing your role of spreading disinformation. #2 is reason to dump your input into the trash bin.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: Flatwoods
Now that more of the facts have come to light supporting the Furguson deputies version of events, I'm noticing a pattern here. It's much like the Treyvon Martin case:

1. The media reports the story usinginnaccurate information or none at all.

2. The media portrays the thug as the victim.

3. Black community leaders act outraged, and inflame the situation.

In both cases in accurately reported information lead the public to call for an arrest, WHEN NO SUCH ARREST WAS WARRANTED. I worry the same thing is occurring here.


Apparently you are playing your role of spreading disinformation. #2 is reason to dump your input into the trash bin.


You might want to hold off on that. New evidence and witness testimony shows that Officer Wilson suffered serious injury to his face, including fractures due to Mr. Brown beating him during the encounter.

No. 2 holds true, I'm afraid.

My mind is made up, I've heard enough. Officer Wilson deserves a medal, and the protesters in Ferguson are stupid liars. I'm done with this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join