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: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Deleted because I butchered whatever is the language of "quote" and "reply".
edit on 6/4/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

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?


I have no earthy idea why the cop did those things. It is not a normal reaction to a bloodied person, even a person assumed to be intoxicated who has just fallen from a second story window. That's why I want to know what on earth was in that cop's system that would make him shoot that poor guy.


At some point the rest of the story will come out.

The male witness said "he was being very aggressive and going after the cop." The female witness says "I think 10 people from the neighborhood could have held him down and got him some help."

Clearly he was not simply walking up to the cop to ask for help if the woman says it would take TEN PEOPLE to hold him down.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Is the PD not offering an emotional response?
They are covering their ass IMO, they need to do all they can to justify the shooting.
ETA: A little biased I know, just saying that generally they are going to say what needs to be said to justify and be creative about it.

I agree they might not have seen everything, just saying what I saw.

Police do in fact lie, case in point: Walter Scott.

If it wasn't for the video, we would have never known and the PD would have backed it.
edit on thThu, 04 Jun 2015 01:17:17 -0500America/Chicago620151780 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace


If a US Marshal from 1880 encountered an idiot on PCP during that time period, would they shoot them or beat them? My bet is they'd beat them into submission. It makes one wonder... were the peace keepers from the wild west made of sterner stuff than today's law enforcements.
Why would you guess that? I would say people from the era of gun fights in the street would shoot someone.


So you know that because of all the Westerns you've watched? The ones where they walk up to a drunk with a gun and just smack em on the head with the butt of their pistol and drag them off to the jail cell to sober up?

Please...
edit on 6/4/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Shoot an armed person... yes.


Shoot an unarmed person. No.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Love how this kid is now high on PCP at the time...

But we are the ones jumping to conclusions...



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

So basically you have no facts and just want to offer an opinion to make cops look bad because you think so.

Nothing much more to add I haven't already said.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: EternalSolace


If a US Marshal from 1880 encountered an idiot on PCP during that time period, would they shoot them or beat them? My bet is they'd beat them into submission. It makes one wonder... were the peace keepers from the wild west made of sterner stuff than today's law enforcements.
Why would you guess that? I would say people from the era of gun fights in the street would shoot someone.


So you know that because of all the Westerns you've watched? The ones where they walk up to a drunk with a gun and just smack em on the head with the butt of their pistol and drag them off to the jail cell to sober up?

Please...


It would seem to me that their moral responsibility would help them differentiate between the armed and unarmed.

It has nothing to do with Hollywood. More to do with factual evidence of research and moral aptitude.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

No one is saying it as PCP, PCP was offered as a guess. It fits the story, it's quite possible it was another similar hardcore drug.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Answer
ETA: Why is "window" missing from my statement?


You used a forbidden word. Like d o n g l e or c o c a i n e, _ is a word that must not be typed unaltered.



I typed window and it was changed to _.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What facts do you have?

Are you not just offering an opinion as well...



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

If you put a . after window it won't show.
Coding issue.

Window
Window .
The window.
Think words need to be in front of it
edit on thThu, 04 Jun 2015 01:20:10 -0500America/Chicago620151080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sremmos80

No one is saying it as PCP, PCP was offered as a guess. It fits the story, it's quite possible it was another similar hardcore drug.


I've taken on an individual whom was on PCP. Not by myself, of course. Blood tests confirmed by on site medical staff. While a difficult task, we were not required to shoot him or take their life.
edit on 6/4/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Answer

If you put a . after window it won't show.
Coding issue.

Window
Window .
The window.
Think words need to be in front of it


That might be the weirdest error I've ever heard of.

I think ATS staff just has an agenda against clever puns.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Shrooms are not hardcore...
Not like acid or '___'.

If by some chance it was PCP, I doubt it was intentional.
Quite the contrast in shrooms and PCP.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Love how this kid is now high on PCP at the time...

But we are the ones jumping to conclusions...


Yes, and they know this because the neighbor reported that he had jumped through the glass. There is no concept that he might have fallen or been pushed through said opening, something the neighbor failed to notice.
Anyone who is a witness who upholds the story is automatically accepted and the worst case is automatically assumed, therefore because the neighbor said he jumped, that suddenly becomes "evidence" to show that he was on hard drugs.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Love how this kid is now high on PCP at the time...

But we are the ones jumping to conclusions...


Yes, and they know this because the neighbor reported that he had jumped through the glass. There is no concept that he might have fallen or been pushed through said opening, something the neighbor failed to notice.
Anyone who is a witness who upholds the story is automatically accepted and the worst case is automatically assumed, therefore because the neighbor said he jumped, that suddenly becomes "evidence" to show that he was on hard drugs.



Even still, the fact of the matter is that the current situation isn't known by law enforcement. So long as the man is unarmed, and the officers have backup on scene, there is no excuse in the world for firing on an unarmed individual.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: diggindirt
You're not seriously saying that a tv reporter saying someone was on drugs is evidence?

Him jumping through the window and the taser having no effect is evidence of a hardcore drug such as pcp. Why are you cop haters ignoring every part of the story you don't like?


How do you know that he jumped through the window.?
Do you know with 100% certainty that the tazer was in full, working order?

I see no actual evidence that he jumped out the window. I don't see a lot of real evidence at all except the bullet-riddled corpse of a young man.

Since you declined to answer my question from an earlier post I will ask again: If that young man were your son would have preferred that he just blast away or would you have liked the outcome better if he had waited for backup or simply swatted him with the baton?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Love how this kid is now high on PCP at the time...

But we are the ones jumping to conclusions...


Yes, and they know this because the neighbor reported that he had jumped through the glass. There is no concept that he might have fallen or been pushed through said opening, something the neighbor failed to notice.
Anyone who is a witness who upholds the story is automatically accepted and the worst case is automatically assumed, therefore because the neighbor said he jumped, that suddenly becomes "evidence" to show that he was on hard drugs.



Even still, the fact of the matter is that the current situation isn't known by law enforcement. So long as the man is unarmed, and the officers have backup on scene, there is no excuse in the world for firing on an unarmed individual.


Exactly!

Why the "weapons at ready" approach? That's why I want to see what was in this officer's bloodstream that would make him so paranoid that he would shoot an unarmed man with his hands above his head.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Love how this kid is now high on PCP at the time...

But we are the ones jumping to conclusions...


Yes, and they know this because the neighbor reported that he had jumped through the glass. There is no concept that he might have fallen or been pushed through said opening, something the neighbor failed to notice.
Anyone who is a witness who upholds the story is automatically accepted and the worst case is automatically assumed, therefore because the neighbor said he jumped, that suddenly becomes "evidence" to show that he was on hard drugs.



Even still, the fact of the matter is that the current situation isn't known by law enforcement. So long as the man is unarmed, and the officers have backup on scene, there is no excuse in the world for firing on an unarmed individual.


Exactly!

Why the "weapons at ready" approach? That's why I want to see what was in this officer's bloodstream that would make him so paranoid that he would shoot an unarmed man with his hands above his head.



Because no officer has ever been severely beaten or killed by an unarmed man...

Oh wait.

Beaten to death



Some of you need to realize what sort of world you live in. Police brutality is deplorable but when you start to paint every single incident as a case of the cop using unjustifiable force, you turn into static that nobody cares about.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join