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.

 

Washington police shoot and kill man throwing rocks

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: stirling

No, I'm pretty sure now, that this is their training.




posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
A taste of what Palestinians have to deal. What i would like to know is why are police so gun happy. They have no obligation to protect peoples or anyone's property. Nothing is preventing them from getting back into police car and just leave the area.

The cops should be charged with murder. None of us can chase down someone that damaged another person property, shoot them once they stopped running. We would be facing 1st degree murder charges.

You have to be one sick person to open fire on unarmed person that stopped running. You wear a bullet proof vest and scared a person might have one or two rocks on them.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

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.


Because I wasn't the one breaking the law and acting in a manner that could be perceived as threatening to people with guns.

And who said anything about "the answer to every threatening sitruation is to shoot?" I certainly didn't, and I'd be willing to bet a paycheck that these officers have all been in threatening situations before and didn't shoot anyone.

Can you dispense with the hyperbole for a moment and look at this particular situation objectively instead of having to generalize to try and make a trivial point? If so, let's discuss. If not...meh, not worth my effort and time.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Anyone else notice they opened fire early in the video before the final murder, shooting directly into a BUSY intersection ???

Wonder if they clearly identified their backstop wasn't a family-filled vehicle....

Actually no, I don't need to wonder much.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nice art work. But I see you did not take stills when the cops fired on him with his back turned as he was running away...



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

I noticed that as well. At first I thought maybe the guy shot at the cops, and that would "kind of" explain the shooting, but there was no mention of him being armed that I saw.

I hate to make armchair statements about cops in these situations since we don't have the whole picture of what happened, but unlike most of the recent cop stories here, this one is REALLY hard to defend.

In light of the way the public is outraged over police behavior recently, you would think police everywhere would be extra careful in these situations so they DON"T end up on you tube.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: SkipperJohn

Well, from what I've seen reported, those first firings were tazers, although I agree that they do sound like gunshots. But like I said, even Ben Swann--a skeptic concerning police killings--reported them as being failed attempts to tazer him. But I don't know about that, and I certainly didn't screencap those instances because that's not the claim to which I was responding.

But, hey, way to derail my response and make it seem like I'm trying to hide something.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
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)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

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.

Source


It just so happened that 3 white cops shot an unarmed Mexican.... Not racial at all. Which cop said "on my three, everybody shoot while he's down"

They shot at him while he was running away www.youtube.com... another video you can see it all in the first two minutes.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I am with you on waiting for the facts, as you know. And in this instance, unless there are some really compelling new facts, it doesn't look good for these officers. I really hope I am wrong and feel the need to apologize for jumping to conclusions. I know too many good cops to fall for the "all cops are bad, mkay" garbage.

Maybe I should stay quiet until all the facts are out, but then if we all did that, what would we do with all this spare time?

I honestly did read the whole thread, then watch the videos a few times before posting.

Time will tell. I do agree that something must have transpired for that much anger to come out. In this case, it "appears" more restraint should have been used.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I would have to agree that waiting for all of the facts to come out would be best, but I also have to question the training and/or tactical thinking in this case of what was recorded.

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 some brave tough-guy either. I have had rocks thrown at me and it is not too hard to avoid and they do not kill you if you get hit by one. I know they CAN kill you if they hit you just right...yada yada, but really not a deadly threat to three officers.

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).

I know it is armchair QB'ing from a video, but it does seem they are rather excessive these days with the killings. Better training...better screening...Trying to be part of the solution, but don't really know how, and it is sad to see our citizen growing fearful of the police.


edit on 13-2-2015 by ronjer because: left off half a sentance



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Possibly, but appearances can be deceiving...my buddy who didn't realise he was hitting on a cross dresser in Germany can attest to that. But, he was really drunk, and the other guy was quite convincing.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

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.


Actually, you may not be too far off with that timeline comment. Take this video, for example--the amount of bystanders that could have been injured was very, very high had this criminal had a firearm and intended to use it. I stand by my images I posted earlier that lend creedence to the possibility that it appeared the guy may have pulled out a weapon and pointed it at the officers, regardless of if he had one or not. When something like that happens in 1.5 seconds, with so many bystanders around, there absolutely begins to exist a kind of timeline to where a resolution needs to be brought about within seconds. That doesn't always mean lethal force, of course, but in this case, that was the resolution (and based on the hand movements and way the victim suddenly stopped and turned and went toward the officers, a peaceful resolution may be what was out of the question, here). Whether or not it was justified remains to be seen--I'm still very interested in anything the victim may have been saying to the officers both before and during this video. Hopefully that will come out and there will be some dashcam audio or something.


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.


Again, as I described and supplied screencaps in an earlier response, there appears to be movement by the victim that could reasonably be considered as threatening to the officers. An assault does not have to entail actual physical contact on another person, nor do threats have to be verbal. His body language communicated a threat (if I'm interpretting the video correctly) and instilling fear of grevious bodily harm into the officer(s) constitutes an assault.


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).


Again...1.5 seconds once the victim turned around to determine if he was a deadly threat, and with his body language, I can see how they may have mistaken his movements for having removed and aimed a firearm at them. For all I know, that may have been his goal...it has happened before, and it'll happen again (cop-assisted suicide). That is absolute speculation, and I don't subscribe to that notion, I'm just saying that the victims body movements right before he gets shot really make me wonder what he was doing.

But, I agree that LEOs need a lot more training on dealing with things like this to reduce the number of deadly encounters. My biggest issue comes in when people--like some in this thread--come in and start implying or outright stating that the cop knew the dangers of his job and should just be willing to get shot instead of using his weapon in defense. More training: Yes! More LEOs letting themselves get shot first: No!



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I was focusing on the first half of the video for the suggestions above. I admit that once re ran across the street...it was already on and things happened too fast for the officers to stop and reassess. I believe they could have ended this before he ran off though.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

He was scared, at least that is how I see his body language.

Forget the freeze frames, when you watch it in real time he runs turns and you can see he isn't sure what to do.
Probably cause he is being chased by 3 people with guns that already shot at him.

Tired of the what if this and what if that shoot first find out later attitude.
Other countries cops seem to be able to get by with out killing people so much, wonder why that is.
/shrug.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

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)


The reason people are condemning the cops is because the evidence speaks for itself, prima fascia, with no need for the details. The law is very clear regarding one person defending himself against another. YOU CAN'T SHOOT A BURGLAR EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOUSE IF HE DOES NOT POSE A THREAT OF DEATH.

Its simple. Somehow the pigs in this country can execute anybody with no apparent penalty. If this trend continues, it won't be long before there is a natural reaction. Eventually the self preservation instinct kicks in.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
that one's a summary execution anyway you slice it.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: FraggleRock

The police in the US is nothing more than a state-sanctioned gang. Its infuriating to see these stories roll in at such an incredible rate. I wish there was a way for the citizens to do something about this problem, but it only seems to get worse as time goes on. Unfortunately, they will probably use this video to ask for more funds for training, and then turn around to use it for more weapons and gadgets.




posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: mcChoodles
YOU CAN'T SHOOT A BURGLAR EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOUSE IF HE DOES NOT POSE A THREAT OF DEATH.


Not true, you can shoot a burglar in your home.

If there are any requirements which alter the calculation, it is that you are essentially required to kill said assailant or you will be put in jail yourself. Any less force is considered to be an indication of the absence of perceived mortal danger.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join