police shoot man and claim he was driving AT them. yet no bullet holes in front of car?

yet another shooting. the police in smyrna georgia claim a man was attempting to drive AT them and run them over. thus using the car as a weapon. they opened fire. yet there are NO bullet holes in the windshield or any where on the hood or grill. ALL damage is in the rear/back of the car. witnesses all say that the police fired at him from behind and in no way was he attempting to hit them with his car.

thefreethoughtproject.com...

Another lie in the ocean of lies they are going to get away with it they will find a way to prove their innocence. . reply to: blackthorne

a reply to: blackthorne

Its a fact, police kill people when they feel their lives are threatened even if its just brushing a cop with the side of a vehicle.

a reply to: blackthorne
Happened not too far from me. All the witnesses were saying that he drove "by them" not at the police officers. And from the entry points on the side glass, that would back them up. And that means they already had their weapons drawn .

Maybe the guy was driving in reverse

a reply to: here4this

Yep, that goes along with the narrative. He drives past them, gets hit, loses control and hits the curb, they unload through the back.

It doesn't matter what you see police doing, if they are interacting with civilians start filming it. Everyone. Everywhere.

They have no accountability other than social media shaming at the moment :\

a reply to: blackthorne
And the Hits keep on coming..I'm so glad that ATS has this forum to expose the corrupt/evilness that resides in "Law enforcement".

Tennessee V. Garner states that an officer "may not use deadly force to prevent escape UNLESS the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

If the suspect truly did try to run them over with a vehicle, which can obviously be used as a deadly weapon, they could articulate the fact that the suspect is a danger to not only the officers, but also the public.

As such, deadly force, including shooting through the rear of the car, could be/would be justified.

Your source said it was over unpaid traffic fines. From my research that is not true as he had a felony warrant. Also he had an arrest history including other fleeing charges.

That said, I wasn't there, so I couldn't accurately comment on the actual situation.

That's a weird story. Red Flag for me!

Maybe it's time the cops had there weapons taken away and replaced with boxing lessons.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Well when an officer punches somebody they are generally accused of brutality.

Also, if I was trying to run you over with a car would you try to punch me?

IN a lot of these recent cases they have been going after people who have been doing non violent crimes and escalating so quickly to lethal means. I almost wish the police had a profile up of the people there going after before hand so they could say alright I should not need to much force when apprehending this guy.

I know what I am saying is almost minority reportish but I just want this stop. I want the police to be able to go home at night but I also want them to show some restraint if possible

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: Soloprotocol

W

Also, if I was trying to run you over with a car would you try to punch me?

No, I would follow you home, wait till it's dark then shag yer sister...What a stupid question. I dont foresee any possible reason why you would want to run me over.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

That was a very mature response.

You responded to a thread about police officers shooting a man in a car that allegedly tried to run them over with, "maybe it's time the cops had their weapons taken away and replaced with boxing lessons."

So in reality, your response to this thread was, as you said, "stupid."

I won't lower myself to disrespecting your sister though.

You know,
there are these things called "cameras" that can mount on police firearms.
They're no bigger than the flashlights mounted on so many pistols...


Still can't come up with a single valid reason they aren't mandated. Every shot fired by a police officer should be recorded, no excuse.
Then we'd see how many of these bullets were fired at a legitimate threat, and how many were fired into the backs of citizens fleeing for their lives from thugs.

They like to tell us that if we're not doing anything wrong than we've got nothing to hide- why doesn't this apply to their firearms?