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.

 

Long Beach Police Officer Kills unarmed 20 year old college student

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

You immediately jump to wrong, I immediately jump to "let's look at what happened and see".

Sure about that?


originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Cop was in the right.

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?

I maintain that a robust distrust of authority is essential in any society that claims to hold freedom from tyranny as it's highest ideal. And it is, in fact, rational. You try to dismiss what I'm saying ad hominem--"he's just a cop hater".

No. I'm just paying attention, and I don't like what I see. Calling a spade a spade, man.




posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   

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.


I agree there can be blood borne pathogens in blood. But to say his life was in danger and a firearm response is justified is retarded.

You shouldn't kill people because you feel uncomfortable, or your authority has been questioned.

Drugs, mentally ill, def, or blind people exist in society. If you cant do your job without killing them, you are worthless to society imo



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   

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.


Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that he was on "hard drugs"? Have you seen the coroner's report? Where is it available?
The mere fact that the tazer didn't take him down is not evidence, it is supposition. Could have been a faulty tazer. Could have been a faulty operator.
If that was your son, would you want the cop to blast away or would you prefer that he back off and keep a sharp eye on this injured person until help to subdue him could arrive?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Sounds pretty definitive to me.

Yes. I looked at the evidence, and decided. I don't know how that is hard for you to understand. You on the other hand just jump to "cops bad" even with evidence supporting this being a good shooting.


Anyway. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt? What rational argument is there for that at this point?

Thank you for proving my suspicion true, that everything they do is bad and you don't care about evidence to the contrary, your mind is made up without any need for evidence or context.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

The evidence of drug use is in the OP, did you even read it?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh the old "hands up, don't shoot" routine.

Also, he probably couldn't breathe... sounds totally legit.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

You on the other hand just jump to "cops bad" even with evidence supporting this being a good shooting.

A "good" shooting?

The kid wasn't even armed.

Well, I guess he was armed with his own blood and tears. If the cop was afraid of being touched...

...why didn't he, you know, get out of the way?

Contemporary LEO training, ladies and gentlemen.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   

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.


Yeah, one witness said he was leaning, looked intoxicated, had his hands up, didn't look like a threat and didn't look like he needed killed.

Your picking the witness you want to fit your narrative.

You don't kill unarmed people bottom line.

How many cops are on this thread right now anyway?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   

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 worthy 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.
edit on 4-6-2015 by diggindirt because: spelling



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Yay another ATS thread where everyone makes up their mind based on A SINGLE NEWS STORY before all the facts are out.

When are you people going to learn?

If the cop seems to be in the wrong, you trust the first source.

If it seems like a legitimate shoot, you say "I'll wait til I see all the evidence that the shooting was actually justified."

Bunch of double-standard embracing ninnies.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
The kid wasn't even armed.

Case closed, guess he posed absolutely no risk whatsoever then. You cop haters are ridiculous. Especially funny since there are so many terrible shootings where the cop should be locked up for life and you sit here and focus on all these shootings that are reasonable, destroying all your credibility on the actual bad shootings.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   

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?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   

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.


Well crap.. you sure now how to dampen my night.... you mean 1000s of jobless "individuals" are not going to loot and burn the town? CNN just got duller you debby downer.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   

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.

How did the cop know his mental state at that point. Could he be incoherent from the fall?
Maybe he was groggy and disoriented by the fall.

When I was assaulted and robbed by the cops down here. They tasered me twice in the spine while handcuffed. It had no effect on me. It hurt when they yanked the barbs out though.
edit on 6 by Mandroid7 because: typo

edit on 6 by Mandroid7 because: edit



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   

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.

Mushrooms are "hardcore drugs"?

I think we'll find, and you can flame me all you want for speculating, that either alcohol or prescription drugs (or both) had a heavier hand in this than any mushroom.

Mushrooms do not inspire people to jump out of windows and attack cops.

I guarantee you that has never happened in the history of this planet.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   

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.



The officer apparently used verbal commands, his taser TWICE, his baton, and "physical force" meaning his own body to try to subdue this person.

You all seem to think that the kid fell out of the window, the cop arrived, the kid tried to give him a hug, and he shot the kid.

Get real.

Even the woman who was whining about the guy getting shot said "I think 10 people from the neighborhood could have held him down and got him some help..." 10 people!? 10 people to hold down 1 normal size man?! This proves that he was putting up one hell of a fight against the officer before the shooting occurred.
edit on 6/4/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

Just because the cops did the wrong thing to you does not mean everything they do is wrong. Were you high on hardcore drugs so bad you jumped out a 2nd story window and then kept going as if nothing happened?




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join