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.
originally posted by: 3u40r15m
Idk. If a police shoots my friend for no reason. That police is going to be no longer.....but who knows what the case is here. I just don't see how over 20 can surround 10 cops and not do anything...
originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: Shamrock6
Not saying some don't, but I have never in my career witnessed any officer carrying a "burner" gun.
Many carry backup guns but they must record the make, model, and serial number with the department. You also have to qualify with it.
From the surface this incident appears very cut and dry to me.
originally posted by: 3u40r15m
a reply to: Krakatoa
Lucky for you you have the opportunity to think that way....doesn't mean you're right though....far from it
you didn't for the ferguson one either. the transcripts show something like 5 said he was and 15 or so that said he wasn't. and some of the 5 were clear liars. (said shot in the back when he wasn't and so forth; one of those was the fellow strong arm robber as well)
originally posted by: deadeyedick
The biggest clue here that it was justified and not like the other shooting near there is that we do not have 15 witnesses stating that he was on his knees with hands up. Instead we have a bunch of nwo supporters on the scene blindly ignoring reality claiming an officer should not protect us. The only claims being made about no gun are mainly on the internets. We have to listen to the masses.
thats not how any justice system determines the truth. one guy who was busted on film robbing the store with the decedant says the cop shot him in the back execution style ... well i guess we got to disregard that he has a motive to lie and that the forensic evidence says he's full of crap and the other witnesses pretty much say he's full of crap... so i guess because this one twit said that; we rule the cop guilty and march him out and burn him at the stake.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Well it only takes one voice to tell the truth. That case was clearly hijacked by tptb. Other than comparing statments too a video a gj should not dismiss multiple witnesses. That mistake cost millions of dollars and a few lives. I am glad here we can see how the reactions of the witnessed varied from those in the other case. These here are just claiming harsh treatment and the cop should have been fired on before he shot and we can all understand why that is bs. Big difference in the witnesses to the two crimes and just point to why that other case should be in court and this one should not even get a thought of court.
originally posted by: 3u40r15m
a reply to: Krakatoa
Lucky for you you have the opportunity to think that way....doesn't mean you're right though....far from it
originally posted by: doompornjunkie
a reply to: Shamrock6
A citizen has the right to resist an unlawful arrest, up to and including taking an officer's life. Key term: unlawful arrest.
lol that is the most ridiculous and skewed thing I have heard all week! Totally false as you stated it. One can only use force if the officer is BEATING them, not to resist arrest. It is up to the courts to decide whether it was lawful or not...
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
To the modern, enlightened man these legal opinions would seem to be taken straight out of the pages of the Anarchists Cookbook. Some readers may be shocked to see them for the first time and consider that the old courts were sanctioning lawful murder of policemen. Do You Have the Right to Resist an Unlawful Arrest?