It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: SlapMonkey
You shouldnt become a police officer if you think the answer to every threatening sitruation is to shoot.
Why does your wife and kids deserve to have you back but not the unarmed man you shoot.
originally posted by: dreamingawake
Wow, RIP, no words...
Updates: local news is saying it's not racially motivated as earlier suspected.
Also, more protests:
PASCO, Wash. - Residents angry that police shot and killed an orchard worker accused of throwing rocks at officers are planning more protests in an agricultural area of southeastern Washington.
originally posted by: ronjer
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Is it too far out of reach for police these days to act in a manner that does not rapidly escalate violence? It seems that in too many of these LEO shootings that the police are on some kind of timeline to bring about a resolution within seconds...be it peaceful or not. In that short of time there is no way to find out what is going on and they go into kill mode really fast.
I believe that the police should not have any more rights to deadly force than the average citizen, and I know if I were carrying and someone were throwing rocks at me, I would not even think about my weapon...unless I were to become suddenly and REASONABLY fearful that I was going to be gravely wounded.
I am not so naïve to know that police also have about a million times more exposure to situations such as those, and hence the chance of deadly force being needed is exponentially higher than Joe Citizen, but what if one officer just covered the guy with his weapon while the other two performed a takedown? One to distract him and bait his throw and the other two could rush him at that range (remember the 21 foot rule they teach the cops could work FOR them as well as they say it does against them).
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: network dude
But you don't have to feel a need to defend it, you just have to watch the video and realize many things, like:
- We don't know what the guy was saying at any point to the officers
- We don't know why the officers would have fired at him when they were by the police car, especially with the risk that many people and vehicles around (my implication being that it must have been for a good reason to take that chance)
- It's possible to presume that he was holding and pointing a weapon (or something) at the officers right before they opened fire the second time
- it's way too early to have enough details to make any sort of intelligent assessment of what happened
Yet, here we are, with these ATS lawyers and judges already condemning the officers without any real knowledge of the details in the case, just a phone video without pertinent audio. My only wish is that people would have some damn patience before automatically blaming the cops and dismissing the criminal acts committed. That's not a biased way to view the case, and it's not taking an apologist stance in favor of the officers--it's just an intelligent thing to do. (and I feel you personally do that in most cases, I'm speaking in a generalized fashion now)
originally posted by: mcChoodles
YOU CAN'T SHOOT A BURGLAR EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOUSE IF HE DOES NOT POSE A THREAT OF DEATH.