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.

 

BREAKING NEWS: Clashes Break Out Following Another Police Shooting Near St Louis

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: opethPA


I just want to know, at what point does someone become accountable for their own actions?

At the point actions become criminal. On both sides of the "law".




posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Because it's been said that the teen fired first...

Why not just show that part of the video instead of stopping the footage...?
We'd see the muzzle flash & this would all be done & dusted.

I think he was armed, but I still wonder about that question & one other...
What happened to the dash board camera?

He was about 3 feet from the front of the the vehicle...
It'd be pretty clear cut evidence to shut down speculation & help to avoid an uprising of this.


You would think they would show convincing evidence right now before the city explodes. I am getting very convinced this is what they want. I was amazed that one person shot two fireworks into the gas pump area and did not get a hail of bullets in return. I guess they want more cops to die so they can get even white Americans so pissed they revolt. What is sad though its probably only the good cops that will get shot and not the ones who really deserve it.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


the clear objective here is the same tactic used with the Mike Brown case to make him seem like a poor black kid that got killed by a monster policeman……..

Mike Brown didn't do anything to the officer. Haven't you heard? Witness #40 lied her ass off, twice.

A monster didn't kill him, an officer of the "law" did.

Not excusing that.


No , one witness may have lied .......that doesnt discount the mulitude of other witnesses........

Just because you WANT to believe something doesnt make it true......

Forensics even corroborate the story, but I suppose you want to throw that out too because it doesnt jive with the narrative you want to keep pushing.......

Besides that fact........THAT case has nothing to do with this case.......

My point is the same tactics are being used by the media and other people to push the same line.......



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: opethPA


I just want to know, at what point does someone become accountable for their own actions?

At the point actions become criminal. On both sides of the "law".


Then pointing a gun at an officer falls under this and totally negates youre earlier rebuttal that him being 18 negates his actions in any form or fashion......



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Shamrock6


18 is still legally an adult. Lots of 40 year olds can't control their emotions. They're still legally adults.
Except "Peace" Officers should know the difference and be trained to control their pride.

Unlike many of the criminals they face, insults are not an excuse to go ballistic.


Okay so an 18 year old points a gun at you, it's probably just because he's young and stupid. A 40 year old points a gun at you, well by god he's a "real" adult so he must mean business! Is that the point you're trying to make here? Because if that's not the point you're trying to make, I have no idea how the legal definition of "adult" ties in to LEOs showing restraint.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


No , one witness may have lied …….that doesn't discount the mulitude of other witnesses........

Witness stories in the media? You mean the same media that has the guy holding a gun but doesn't (show) the gun in his hand, beyond a reasonable doubt?

As far as siding with the police due to a preponderance of evidence, well…
edit on 24-12-2014 by intrptr because: clarity



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

please, i'm tried of hearing that.

here is just small cut from the chart provided in the link below. this is just for people who make over 1,000,000.
that doesn't include those that make from above the poverty line to $999,999.

seems to me that there is a flaw in folks thought pattern. i'm also sure that many of those in the cowrds looting are making over the poverty line.



Where Are the U.S.’s Millionaires?



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


Then pointing a gun at an officer falls under this and totally negates you're earlier rebuttal that him being 18 negates his actions in any form or fashion…...


Now you're twisting my arguments to fit your agenda.

There is no evidence of him pointing anything or what happens next. The video cuts off. But you are in a position to tell what happened next and clear;y see "the gun"?

Or do you just assume like you do with my "agenda".

You discredit my arguments because I question the "official" story.

That could go on all day if you let it. Almost done here…



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Well actually he pointed something. Just can't tell what it is from the video. Was probably a finger gun or something. Or like I said in the other thread, his Junior Police Officer badge.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


Then pointing a gun at an officer falls under this and totally negates you're earlier rebuttal that him being 18 negates his actions in any form or fashion…...


Now you're twisting my arguments to fit your agenda.

There is no evidence of him pointing anything or what happens next. The video cuts off. But you are in a position to tell what happened next and clear;y see "the gun"?

Or do you just assume like you do with my "agenda".

You discredit my arguments because I question the "official" story.

That could go on all day if you let it. Almost done here…





Im not twisting anything, im taking your own words.........

I discredit your arguments because on one hand your claiming that we can assume the cop shot this kid in cold blood because theres not enough evidence......(even tho theres a video that leads one to believe at least it could be true)

then you go on posit that the cop planted the gun, when theres absolutely NO evidence of that.......come on man
edit on 12/24/2014 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Yall swear like calling some one a kid is this huge deal.
I bet your grandparents, those that still have them, called you a kid for a while.
Look this guy got what was coming to him if he pulled a gun, but it doesn't negate the fact that he was young and people will call young people kids.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

My argument there is no "proof" the "subject" did anything.

Twist that in your agenda grinder.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


Well actually he pointed something. Just can't tell what it is from the video. Was probably a finger gun or something. Or like I said in the other thread, his Junior Police Officer badge.

Lol, I can live with that. Cause we don't really know. If I had to wager though, he raised the cops 'bet' with a middle finger and a foul mouth.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

yes, because you think that "proof" and "evidence" are things that only "count" if they're shown to you in a court. and that anything that doesn't go to court doesn't "count." so now, for whatever reason, you're trying to use a definition of a word as your argument for things.

goalposts = moved again.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: TechUnique
Can people drink at 18 in the US? If they aren't allowed to drink or buy alcohol but they can be charged as adults, surely something is twisted there.


21 is the legal drinking age in the US, for me personally though I don't see that as being a benchmark on being responsible.

If people are going to make the argument that as an 18 year old you shouldn't be responsible for your actions because you are so young then multiply that by a billion if you lowered the drinking age. You would have more selfish , idiotic , drunk-high-txting teenagers on the road who would be able to say" oh hey im only 18 , i should get a pass even though I just slammed into another car and killed 3 people"


If you're legally responsible for your actions you should be able to do anything that is legal, for someone who is in legality an adult. (responsible for own decisions)
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

ok, sorry didn't know. that's me , a day late and a dollar short to the party.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

only state i can think of off hand that lets people under 21 drink is Wisconsin and that is only with parental permission and supervision(have a beer with dad at the bar ) my source for this is my current tenants who are from Wisconsin but generaly drinking age is 21 federaly accross the board and has been that way since they changed in in the 1970'ish from 18-21

read an article last night that said they had found a gun but that it had been "modified" which i think they were refering to the serial number(was a crappy article) can any one confirm if that was the case and they did find and show a weapon



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

well it's not legal for an 18 year old adult to drink, so your argument is kind of invalid. an 18 year old can do anything a 40 year old can do that's legal. it is legal for a 40 year old to drink. it is NOT legal for an 18 year old adult to drink. so...an 18 year old can already do anything a 40 year old can do that is legal for them to do.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: TechUnique

well it's not legal for an 18 year old adult to drink, so your argument is kind of invalid. an 18 year old can do anything a 40 year old can do that's legal. it is legal for a 40 year old to drink. it is NOT legal for an 18 year old adult to drink. so...an 18 year old can already do anything a 40 year old can do that is legal for them to do.


Lol I think you get my point. You're just being nit picky now.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

My argument there is no "proof" the "subject" did anything.

Twist that in your agenda grinder.


and theres no "proof" that the cop planted a gun either but you had no problem jumping to that conclusion




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join