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.

 

Graphic Video Released in “Firing Squad” Style Police Killing of Milton Hall

page: 6
58
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

They had a little less than a minute from the time the video of the incident started to when he was shot.

That is hardly enough time to formulate any sort of complicated plan.

Especially when they are all concentrating on the man with the knife.

Do you even know what kind of physiological changed happen during a flight or fight response?

One physiological change is tunnel vision. The other is diminished HEARING.

Please do some research. I don't think you are fully informed on the subject and you are confusing fiction with non-fiction.




posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: roadgravel

They had a little less than a minute from the time the video of the incident started to when he was shot.

That is hardly enough time to formulate any sort of complicated plan.

Especially when they are all concentrating on the man with the knife.



There's eight of them and at no point are any of them in danger or charged.
They had guns drawn and the suspect utterly at their mercy.
Shoot his arms, legs and incapacitate him.

Designate one person to shoot.







Do you even know what kind of physiological changed happen during a flight or fight response?

One physiological change is tunnel vision. The other is diminished HEARING.

Please do some research. I don't think you are fully informed on the subject and you are confusing fiction with non-fiction.



And these "officers" have been through comprehensive training on how to deal with this exact scenario and I guarantee that it doesn't say in the handbook

"When the suspect is surrounded, all eight (or six of the eight) officers should completely unload their weapons into the suspects and when he drops to the floor, keep shooting as he may be superhuman and get back up and attack you"

As a complete last resort shoot the guy, disable and incapacitate him.... not encircle or L-Shape the guy and completely blow him to pieces.

FFS
edit on 29/10/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Police just like the military NEED to have rules of engagement that they must follow or face real disciplinary action. They should not be allowed to fire their weapon if no shots have been fired at them. Tasers and spray only unless lead is flying.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR


What's the opinion of the posters regarding the UK cops that taser the guy wielding two machetes. They seemed to have found a solution to the problem at hand with out resulting in unnecessary force.

Again, the two scenarios are completely different.

In the UK scenario, the man was holding the knife to his own neck threatening himself.

In the Michigan scenario, the man was holding the knife as to threaten the officer.

In the UK scenario, if the man is only threatening himself, I do not believe the officers would have been justified to shoot the man. That means they are more inclined to try other means to disarm him. They did and it worked.

Stop trying to compare two completely different scenarios.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel


I suppose they did come up with a plan.

"When we get tired of standing here, we all shoot him"

Again, the video clearly shows they shot him because he took a few steps towards the officers on the left of the screen.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut


Again you spout nonsense

Get real.

the twenty one foot rule applies if you have to unholster abd cock yiur gun

The twenty one foot rule applies to a very many different situations.

The "unholster" part just compares the time it takes the average person to unholster and fire two shots center mass. The real discovery was the fact that it only takes an average person 1 to 1.5 seconds to close the distance of 21 feet. Meaning a person, armed with a knife, can close the distance with you in the time it takes for you to draw and fire.

There is nothing in the article about cocking the weapon.

Please, instead of relying on mythbusters, go to the actual source of the 21 foot rule or Tueller Drill

Read up.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


Should we get some ballistic protection on hand?

What?


11/47 = 23
23 percent.

When I make an assertion, I provide a link to where I found the information.

Please, can we get a source?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: areyouserious2010



Look if you are trying to insult the officers, it doesn't really matter to me.

Good.
Because I am.
I am for good reason.
In addition to seeing cases like this, I have had the opportunity to shoot with a fairly large number of LEOs. From local yokels right up to federal agents. Most of them have very poor shooting ability. Pretty sad when they have time provided to shoot at a range and ammunition supplied for the task.
I have to buy my own ammo.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: butcherguy


Should we get some ballistic protection on hand?

What?


11/47 = 23
23 percent.

When I make an assertion, I provide a link to where I found the information.

Please, can we get a source?

They fired 47 shots.
They hit him 11 times.
That is their on target percentage.

When I asked about ballistic protection.... I was referring to what cops do when they get irritated. Meaning, 'Should we be afraid?'



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR


Dude the 21 foot rule applies to a holstered firearm. Not one drawn on a suspect 40 feet away with a good bead on the guy for several seconds or minutes.

I have already gone over the 21 foot rule. Please, read above.


Oh yeah and to add. I have walked up to a guy holding a knife.

But in your story, you were stabbed. Reasonable people, along with myself, do not expect police to put themselves in a situation where they are going to be stabbed.

I don't know what else can be argued. You think police should put themselves in situations of unreasonable risk. I, like many other reasonable people, do not.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
So.... how many cops were killed with knives in the line of duty in 2013?

FBI


Offenders used firearms in 26 of the 27 felonious deaths. These included 19 incidents with handguns, five incidents with rifles, and two incidents with shotguns. One victim officer was killed with a vehicle used as a weapon.


I count zero.

Those knives must be a big threat... according to the statistics.
edit on bu312014-10-29T14:47:28-05:0002America/ChicagoWed, 29 Oct 2014 14:47:28 -05002u14 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR


Simple two guys walk up to him each with a taser. One is going to be the guy who zaps him. The second guy his back up incase the guy charges them. Simply shoot him at 15 feet. Telling me two tasers at once aren't going to drop some 145lb old man. He won't at the least let go of the knife?


You clearly do not know how tasers work. Tasers are not always effective even if they hit. And when they do hit, the electrical charge causes your muscles to contact. If you are holding a knife, it can make you clench it rather than drop it.


Wait a few minutes and have the fire department blast him with a hose to drop the knife, bum rush him after wards and handcuff him.

They did not have a few minutes for the fire department to leave the station and get there. They had a little less than a minute from the video of the incident started to the point he started approaching the officers and was shot.

And, that depends on the policy of the local fire department. Some fire departments will not respond to violent situations and will stage away from the scene until it is rendered safe.

Again, you chose to place a police officer in an unreasonably dangerous situation.

If you are such an "expert," or have consulted with "experts" why have you or these "experts" not joined the police department or advised such?

Probably because these so called "experts" like being paid by people to put on a nice show that they call "training." But when it really comes down to it, you would probably be better off running away or shooting the guy.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup


Actually this was my argument

It didn't look like they were equipped with a riot shield. And even if they were, the guy could still stab around a riot shield.

Tranquilizer guns require a certain dosage, based weight, to be effective. Too high a dose and the person dies. Too low a dose and it does not have the intended effect. So you expect an officer to arrive, guess the weight of the person with the knife, dose the needle, aim and fire, then do it all over again if they miss or it has no effect? Remember, this particular incident was only less than 1 minute from the start of the video to when he was shot. Remember fiction vs. non-fiction.

It did not look like any officers were equipped with rubber bullets.

I already went over the water hose above. Please read.

Riot gear is not stab proof.


Any compassionate, reasonable, sane and decent human being watches that video and is shocked and disgusted at what they see.

Yes, these types of incidents are very ugly even when everything is done correctly.

But reasonable people can look past the ugliness of what happened and see why instead of having a purely emotional response.


What these officers did and how they acted is completely indefensible and utterly reprehensible.

I hate to say it but the officers were found to have committed no crime.

If all the reasonable people agreed with you, the State's Attorney will not be reelected because of this incident. I doubt that will happen.
edit on 29-10-2014 by areyouserious2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyouserious2010

I don't know what else can be argued. You think police should put themselves in situations of unreasonable risk. I, like many other reasonable people, do not.


If dealing with a single individual with a knife without a flurry of gunfire is an unreasonable risk then law enforcement is worthless. We give them the tools to avoid using deadly force as a coverall and they, along with their supporters, give every excuse not to use those tools. Instead they arm themselves with weapons of war.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup


There's eight of them and at no point are any of them in danger or charged.
They had guns drawn and the suspect utterly at their mercy.

If he was completely at their mercy, why did he not drop the knife?


Designate one person to shoot.


People keep bringing up this false argument. Based on the circumstances, it does not matter how many cops shot. They each must articulate why they fired. The number of officers that fired has no bearing on the situation.


And these "officers" have been through comprehensive training on how to deal with this exact scenario and I guarantee that it doesn't say in the handbook

"When the suspect is surrounded, all eight (or six of the eight) officers should completely unload their weapons into the suspects and when he drops to the floor, keep shooting as he may be superhuman and get back up and attack you"

First, I don't think one of them emptied their weapon because you would be seeing them reload if they did.

Second, it would say shoot until the suspect is incapacitated. Once he fell to the ground, the brain must recognize the man is no longer a threat and tell the body to stop shooting. This has to do with basic physiological responses by the human body.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: tmeister182

They do. It is codified in the laws of the State they work in. Every State has these laws. Just research them.

And comparing these laws to military rules of engagement is a bad analogy.

The laws do not change but are broad enough to cover any situation that arises.

Military rules of engagement are specific an change based on current diplomatic statuses. For example, military rules of engagement could be more restrictive and troops could be ordered to not fire unless fired upon. Military rules of engagement could also be less restrictive and any military aged male in a certain area who is holding a weapon can be shot on sight.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


In addition to seeing cases like this, I have had the opportunity to shoot with a fairly large number of LEOs. From local yokels right up to federal agents. Most of them have very poor shooting ability. Pretty sad when they have time provided to shoot at a range and ammunition supplied for the task.
I have to buy my own ammo.

I don't see how you can extrapolate you personal experience with a few officers to every law enforcement officer. Maybe you saw them at the range because they needed practice? Should I assume all the officers you didn't see at the range were expert marksman and needed no further training?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


They fired 47 shots.
They hit him 11 times.
That is their on target percentage.

I was referring to the percentage of people with mental disorders who are killed by the police due to actions caused by their mental disability.


When I asked about ballistic protection.... I was referring to what cops do when they get irritated. Meaning, 'Should we be afraid?'

The cops didn't shoot the guy because they were "irritated" by him. They shot him because at that point in time, they believed they, or the lives of their coworkers, were in imminent danger. I, along with other reasonable people, would say it is reasonable for the officers to think that in this scenario.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


So.... how many cops were killed with knives in the line of duty in 2013?
I count zero.

Those knives must be a big threat... according to the statistics.


Wow talk about false arguments.

So, what you are saying is a knife is not deadly? A knife cannot be used to seriously injure or hurt someone?

Did you try to research how many officer were assaulted with a knife? Did you research how many murders were committed using knives? I can guarantee you no officers died from a knife wielding individual not because of a lack of trying.

Also, go to the officer down memorial page and look back, by year, for the cause of death for the officers. Most of the officers who were killed by stabbing were corrections officers. Why? Probably because corrections officers don't have access to firearms and only less lethal means. I would bet if they did have a firearm at the time of the attack that ended their lives, they would still be alive today.
edit on 29-10-2014 by areyouserious2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

He was at least 20 feet away, not a threat to anyone and then "pop pop pop" one trigger happy pig sets off the firing squad

No tazers , no mace

A gang land execution in cold blood done by a bunch of fat cowards. Im going to go google police obituarys to make myself feel better.

edit on 29-10-2014 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join