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.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
You immediately jump to wrong, I immediately jump to "let's look at what happened and see".
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Cop was in the right.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: Mandroid7
Don't you think it would make more sense to train the police to deal with mental illness and drug/alcohol intoxication, since it is part of society?
Yes, and I also think when someone is a bloody mess and their choice to do drugs is putting the life of the officer in danger the officer should put his life first. If the kid was not bleeding all over the place I might be more inclined to say the officer acted with too much force.
Blood is no joke, especially when dealing with drug users who are out of their mind.
The only one to blame is the person who INTENTIONALLY took a drug that caused this entire situation.
originally posted by: diggindirt
The witnesses (on the links I saw) all agreed that he had his hands up and was simply walking toward the cop. Nobody mentioned that he was acting aggressively. Or did I just blank that out?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: Mandroid7
Don't you think it would make more sense to train the police to deal with mental illness and drug/alcohol intoxication, since it is part of society?
Yes, and I also think when someone is a bloody mess and their choice to do drugs is putting the life of the officer in danger the officer should put his life first. If the kid was not bleeding all over the place I might be more inclined to say the officer acted with too much force.
Blood is no joke, especially when dealing with drug users who are out of their mind.
The only one to blame is the person who INTENTIONALLY took a drug that caused this entire situation.
originally posted by: NthOther
Sounds pretty definitive to me.
Anyway. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt? What rational argument is there for that at this point?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
You on the other hand just jump to "cops bad" even with evidence supporting this being a good shooting.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Mandroid7
No, he died because he was on drugs, a bloody mess, would not respond, and was going at the officer. Good shooting, although tragic. Not everything is the cops fault, that man chose to do those drugs, he did this, his fault. There are plenty of bad shootings to choose from without jumping on an officer for making a call that is reasonable.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: diggindirt
The witnesses (on the links I saw) all agreed that he had his hands up and was simply walking toward the cop. Nobody mentioned that he was acting aggressively. Or did I just blank that out?
I already quoted the witness saying exactly that, and the cop seemed to think he had no choice after the man wouldn't stop. So yes, they did.
originally posted by: NthOther
The kid wasn't even armed.
originally posted by: diggindirt
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: diggindirt
The witnesses (on the links I saw) all agreed that he had his hands up and was simply walking toward the cop. Nobody mentioned that he was acting aggressively. Or did I just blank that out?
I already quoted the witness saying exactly that, and the cop seemed to think he had no choice after the man wouldn't stop. So yes, they did.
So, in today's cops' world, walking toward someone with one's hand raised over one's head, from which blood is pouring, is an aggressive act worth of instant execution.
He was "walking" toward the cop. All the witnesses said "walking" not charging or running at, or anything that would suggest aggression. Where does it say in the law that a cop can't back off and wait for help if he feels threatened rather than taking a life?
I say give that cop a drug test. Let's see what he's been ingesting that made him so paranoid.
originally posted by: diggindirt
or anything that would suggest aggression.
"He (Morad) was like coming toward him like this all bloody from head to toe, it was quite a scene. He was acting very aggressive," said witness Bob Garner. "At that moment he (the officer) was solo and I think in his mind he had to make a decision, and his decision, I believe from what I saw, was two tasers and a fall from a second story did zero. 'I have no other choice,' that's what it appeared like to me."
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: diggindirt
or anything that would suggest aggression.
Are you unable to read?
"He (Morad) was like coming toward him like this all bloody from head to toe, it was quite a scene. He was acting very aggressive," said witness Bob Garner. "At that moment he (the officer) was solo and I think in his mind he had to make a decision, and his decision, I believe from what I saw, was two tasers and a fall from a second story did zero. 'I have no other choice,' that's what it appeared like to me."
The guy was high on HARDCORE drugs, was not following commands, kept going at the cop, tasers did nothing. Take some responsibility. The only one to blame is the guy who chose to create this situation via drug use.
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: diggindirt
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: diggindirt
The witnesses (on the links I saw) all agreed that he had his hands up and was simply walking toward the cop. Nobody mentioned that he was acting aggressively. Or did I just blank that out?
I already quoted the witness saying exactly that, and the cop seemed to think he had no choice after the man wouldn't stop. So yes, they did.
So, in today's cops' world, walking toward someone with one's hand raised over one's head, from which blood is pouring, is an aggressive act worth of instant execution.
He was "walking" toward the cop. All the witnesses said "walking" not charging or running at, or anything that would suggest aggression. Where does it say in the law that a cop can't back off and wait for help if he feels threatened rather than taking a life?
I say give that cop a drug test. Let's see what he's been ingesting that made him so paranoid.
If the kid was "walking toward the cop" and being totally non-aggressive, why did the officer tase him repeatedly (with no effect) and use his baton on him (with no effect) before resorting to a sidearm?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The guy was high on HARDCORE drugs, was not following commands, kept going at the cop, tasers did nothing. Take some responsibility. The only one to blame is the guy who chose to create this situation via drug use.
originally posted by: Mandroid7
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: diggindirt
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: diggindirt
The witnesses (on the links I saw) all agreed that he had his hands up and was simply walking toward the cop. Nobody mentioned that he was acting aggressively. Or did I just blank that out?
I already quoted the witness saying exactly that, and the cop seemed to think he had no choice after the man wouldn't stop. So yes, they did.
So, in today's cops' world, walking toward someone with one's hand raised over one's head, from which blood is pouring, is an aggressive act worth of instant execution.
He was "walking" toward the cop. All the witnesses said "walking" not charging or running at, or anything that would suggest aggression. Where does it say in the law that a cop can't back off and wait for help if he feels threatened rather than taking a life?
I say give that cop a drug test. Let's see what he's been ingesting that made him so paranoid.
If the kid was "walking toward the cop" and being totally non-aggressive, why did the officer tase him repeatedly (with no effect) and use his baton on him (with no effect) before resorting to a sidearm?
Sounds like he didn't wanna get blood on him.