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.

 

Video reveals unarmed man told to raise hands before officer fired three shots killing him - Mexican

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

And like a said, the POS was involved with a shooting, armed and dangerous is a true statement.

If it were racism, the others would have been shot as well.

Plain and simple. Turd didn't comply, Turd was shot because it was believed he was still armed from his most recent venture.




posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: macman


The POS was shot because he was involved with a shooting just a little bit before and was not obeying lawful commands, and the LEO believed he was reaching for a firearm.

Dehumanizing people is good before shooting them during shooting them and while were at it lets attend the funeral with signs that read "POS got what he deserved".

What assholes they would be seen to be.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

If i had the time, I would.

With my own 2 hands, would make some posters and such.


Dehumanizing a POS criminal is not really a sad venture for me.

Don't want to be labeled as such??? Don't be a POS criminal. Very simple.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: macman


Don't want to be labeled as such??? Don't be a POS criminal. Very simple.

Labels don't bother me as much using them to justify killing someone without due process.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
He's a "POS" in the past so its okay to kill someone is a POS attitude.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

He wasn't shot due to a label. He was shot due to his actions.

His actions are what deemed him a POS.

The POS caused this to happen. No one else.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Maybe if the police gave him a stern talking to, he would have straightened out his lif.......
bbwwwaahahaha!
I almost got that typed without cracking up..



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


He's a "POS" in the past so its okay to kill someone is a POS attitude.


Well, I guess the night before is technically the past, so yeah.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: macman


He wasn't shot due to a label. He was shot due to his actions.


If by "actions" you mean "reaching", thats in and of itself not an excuse to kill someone, either.

Oft used as well in this day and age though. Was a weapon found where the "suspect" was seen to be reaching?

Convenient that being omitted after the fact. I wasn't there either. If police are so paranoid they are shooting people for "reaching" during a traffic stop, then they shouldn't be "policing".

A traffic stop is a complex affair. If the suspect is a known felon the police should have handled the stop entirely different to insure the safety of both parties.

They are trained for that and that that wasn't done is also telling.



edit on 7-1-2015 by intrptr because: change



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I am well aware of the complexities of a traffic stop.

Now, for a felony stop, there are protocols involved. But, if the POS, who was deemed armed and dangerous, was acting in a manner that lead the LEO to believe he was drawing a firearm........like the one he used during his ventures earlier, a shooting is justified.

Here is how the report goes, condensed of course.
LEO "on such and such a date/time, I was informed that Richard Ramirez was involved in a shooting earlier and is known to be armed and dangerous. I conducted a traffic stop at which time it was discovered that Richard Ramirez was driving. Once this was realized, I contacted dispatch and informed them that I required additional officers for this. I gave verbal commands to all occupants within the vehicle. All complied except Richard, who started reaching for something out of my range of sight. Knowing that he was a violent and potential armed person, I fired x number of rounds as I feared for my life. He appeared to be reaching for something unknown."


Don't want to be shot by LE??? Don't be involved with a shooting recently, get pulled over and not comply with LE verbal/lawful commands.

ALL of this could have been avoided if.....and a very big if.....the POS Ramirez did not engage in violent and armed criminal activities, and then not comply with LE.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: macman


I gave verbal commands to all occupants within the vehicle. All complied except Richard, who started reaching for something out of my range of sight. Knowing that he was a violent and potential armed person, I fired x number of rounds as I feared for my life. He appeared to be reaching for something unknown."

So he unloaded into a vehicle with others inside because of unknown movements?

Tilt.

Further: He conducted a felony stop on possibly armed and dangerous suspect, by himself?

Tilt.

He should of followed at discrete distance unit support could have arrived. Intent again to force an issue justifying use of deadly force on all these breaches of LEO protocol.
edit on 7-1-2015 by intrptr because: further:



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: macman


I gave verbal commands to all occupants within the vehicle. All complied except Richard, who started reaching for something out of my range of sight. Knowing that he was a violent and potential armed person, I fired x number of rounds as I feared for my life. He appeared to be reaching for something unknown."

So he unloaded into a vehicle with others inside because of unknown movements?

Tilt.


No...he fired 3 rounds into the criminal, with all three hitting his target, because the criminal was the only one not complying with commands and reached to his side. No unloading...that would imply all rounds from the pistol were spent.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Done had my say here. Go back to cop school…




posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
the thing that scares me is that same old song and dance, he was reaching for something, i feared for my life, yet no weapon is found. as long as police are allowed to do this and get away with it we are going to see more and more of these incidents and yes we are going to see more protests. pos criminal or not there is still a judicial process in this country, leo's do not have the right to be judge, jury, executioner. we do not want this country to have a gaza strip mentality, we have to figure this out and train leo's better so these types of events stop happening and yes we also have to find a way to keep people from growing up to be pos criminals.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Hhhh, Tilt.

Guess you have never dealt with a fluid felony stop.

Tilt again. Guess you live and enjoy a static world.

Tilt 360 degrees. He didn't "unload" anything, as no other people were shot, as they complied to the lawful commands.

Tilt 45 degrees, then back another 90 degrees. Protocols are protocols, not laws.


When was the last time you conducted a felony traffic stop?



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

What does POS mean?

If it was a "traffic stop", how could the officer have possibly known that an occupant in the BACK SEAT was a suspect in a crime that happen the night before?

So many questions.....

If it was a traffic stop, why did the officer demand all the occupants of the car put their hands up, as he approached the vehicle with his gun drawn?

If I get pulled over for speeding, and my nieces and nephews are in the back seat playing video games on their smart phones, are they at risk of getting shot?

So many questions left unanswered in the article....





edit on 7-1-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Turns out he was "unarmed", huh?

Somehow, that keeps on being overlooked.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: macman


He wasn't shot due to a label. He was shot due to his actions.


If by "actions" you mean "reaching", thats in and of itself not an excuse to kill someone, either.

Oft used as well in this day and age though. Was a weapon found where the "suspect" was seen to be reaching?

Convenient that being omitted after the fact. I wasn't there either. If police are so paranoid they are shooting people for "reaching" during a traffic stop, then they shouldn't be "policing".

A traffic stop is a complex affair. If the suspect is a known felon the police should have handled the stop entirely different to insure the safety of both parties.

They are trained for that and that that wasn't done is also telling.




I've been stopped by police many times, in multiple countries.

Is a SIMPLE affair. WTF are you talking about?

The police approach the car. They tell you what to do. You do it. You don't argue. You don't try to negotiate. You don't try to explain yourself. You for sure don't disobey a direct command. And for sure don't disobey a direct command and go reaching for something in your car.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

The driver can be identified by many different methods. Vehicle registration, BOLOs, actually seeing the driver and match it up with pictures provided during the start of shift briefing and roll call.

A traffic stop with a person driving known to be armed and dangerous will produce bad happenings for occupants. All the more important to make a decision to obey lawful commands.

As for you getting stopped for speeding?? Do you have a BOLO on you, indicating you to be involved with a shooting earlier and known to be armed and dangerous? If not, you are probably okay.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: macman

What does POS mean?

If it was a "traffic stop", how could the officer have possibly known that an occupant in the BACK SEAT was a suspect in a crime that happen the night before?

So many questions.....

If it was a traffic stop, why did the officer demand all the occupants of the car put their hands up, as he approached the vehicle with his gun drawn?

If I get pulled over for speeding, and my nieces and nephews are in the back seat playing video games on their smart phones, are they at risk of getting shot?

So many questions left unanswered in the article....






POS means Piece of Sh#@....and he knew the guy from having had interaction with him before as well as from the night before he was a suspect from a shooting/drug bust.

The guy had NUMEROUS run ins with the law and a long record. One of the reports I read said he recognized him.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join