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.

 

4 police shoot and kill violent felon ---- and his girlfriend

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You and others misunderstand the issue.

It isn't just that they have poor aim, but also that they initiated the encounter. The police had him under surveillance (for all of 30 minutes).

They knew his history. They knew exactly who they were looking at. Yet, they still approached him while he was with completely innocent people. They still returned fire while he was with completely innocent people.

If the police did not approach this vehicle, would this woman have died that night?




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: karmicecstasy

If you want to know how to make a home grown terrorist, please look no further than this case. While I hate extremism and you will see me fervently fight it amongst threads, home grown extremism born in America often times is a result of failed policy's,and abuse of power oppression. Therefor, we all must be willing to take responsibility and change things for the better as a society, or we can carry on, but then we must also accept the flack and casualties of failed policy's.


This. Look at how bad our inner city areas are after generations of police being the enemies. That hatred for the police and what they represent is being brought to everyone now. In 20 years this kid will have the means and motive to get revenge. What about that girl who had to stand outside naked with her mom on a failed drug raid? What's she going to think in 10 years?

These things add up, and people will act out. We're creating the mass murderers of our children's generation with our actions right now.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Greven

The minute that this guy reacted to police with deadly force and reckless abandonment for the danger in which he was putting his girlfriend and child, he sealed her fate, and luckily not the fate of his child.

You can blame the officers all you want for her death, but if her baby-daddy hadn't acted in the manner in which he did, she wouldn't have been caught in the crossfire because there wouldn't have been any firing of rounds.

Terrible situation for the baby and the girlfriend and her family/friends (and the cops who have to live with the death of a supposed innocent person), but the burden of guilt does not lie solely, or even mainly, on the shoulders of the police officers--at least not from what you presented in this OP.


Incorrect. It lies 100% with the police. Why couldn't they have retreated momentarily and waited for a better opportunity to capture the guy? That man and woman didn't shoot themselves. Your rationalization here is disturbing, it's like the bully who makes someone hit themselves while chanting "stop hitting yourself", and then claiming the victim made the bully do it.

How would this have been handled in other countries? How do you think Iceland would have handled it? How about a relatively violent police force like the UK?

I bet they would have treated it like a hostage situation. Unless you're an actor in the movie Speed, the resolution to a hostage crisis isn't to shoot the hostage.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I don't misunderstand anything.

What I also don't do is use "what ifs" to try and change facts.

What if the subject hadn't pulled a gun? What if he wasn't carrying one to begin with? What if he had bailed out and took off on foot to get away from the car carrying his girlfriend and child? Would she have died that night?

What ifs are fun. And generally pointless. But hey we have to blame somebody right?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I don't misunderstand anything.

What I also don't do is use "what ifs" to try and change facts.

What if the subject hadn't pulled a gun? What if he wasn't carrying one to begin with? What if he had bailed out and took off on foot to get away from the car carrying his girlfriend and child? Would she have died that night?

What ifs are fun. And generally pointless. But hey we have to blame somebody right?

Well let's see here...

FACT: The police initiated the encounter, they didn't seek out the police.
FACT: The woman died from a police officer's bullet.

No, you can't change facts.

Yeah, we have to blame someone for an innocent person's death:

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The blame for this woman's death lies 100% at the hands of her boyfriend.

He didn't shoot her, so he couldn't be 100% responsible.
edit on 18Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:31:36 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Shamrock6

You and others misunderstand the issue.

It isn't just that they have poor aim, but also that they initiated the encounter. The police had him under surveillance (for all of 30 minutes).

They knew his history. They knew exactly who they were looking at. Yet, they still approached him while he was with completely innocent people. They still returned fire while he was with completely innocent people.

If the police did not approach this vehicle, would this woman have died that night?


This.

Also, anyone wants to comment about those 30 rounds shot by police? Remember the Christopher Dorner Manhunt, when Police opened fire and struck the car with 102 bullets? But well, they acted just like they were trained to. To Kill.

Police should be better than criminal thugs, net equal as.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Danowski because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Incorrect. It lies 100% with the police. Why couldn't they have retreated momentarily and waited for a better opportunity to capture the guy? That man and woman didn't shoot themselves. Your rationalization here is disturbing, it's like the bully who makes someone hit themselves while chanting "stop hitting yourself", and then claiming the victim made the bully do it.


Hmmm...so my opinion of the situation is incorrect because your opinion differs. Furthermore, my opinion attributes personal responsibility to the person who instigated the whole barrage of bullets, and yours attributes the responsibility to the LEOs because they responded to deadly force with deadly force.

It is disturbingly apparent that you know nothing about this type of situation, save for your emotionally charged opinions, so debating this with you will waste a portion of my life that I will never regain--I'm not willing to do that.


How would this have been handled in other countries? How do you think Iceland would have handled it? How about a relatively violent police force like the UK?

I bet they would have treated it like a hostage situation. Unless you're an actor in the movie Speed, the resolution to a hostage crisis isn't to shoot the hostage.


Ah...there we go, proof of my above statement that you know nothing about this situation, because you're insinuating that the girlfriend was intentionally killed. There is no proof of that, nor any reason to believe it was intentional.

Well, unless you base your opinion off of emotional ramblings...



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

You know, food companies who inadvertently let contaminated food get to the shelves, get purchased by people, and then people get ill or die from the contamination did not force those people to purchase and consume their product, yet they are still held accountable for the illness and death caused by their actions (selling contaminated product).

Car companies who sell products that later get recalled because they were faulty and caused injury or death didn't make people buy their product or drive their product, yet they are still held responsible for the injuries and deaths of the people harmed by their actions (selling unsafe product).

But why is it that, when a known violent criminal decides to purposefully put the lives of his girlfriend and child in harm's way by opening fire on multiple police officers, this thug scum isn't held responsible, only those acting in self defense trying to eliminate the threat get the blame?

Damn hypocrites.

You know, in high school, one of my friends was riding in a car where the driver was drunk. He drove off of the road and into a chain-link fence. The top pole went through the windshield, hit my friend in her chest, pushed her into the back seat and pinned her against her sister--her sister had to sit there, unable to get out of the car, and watch her sister (my friend) die a slow, bloody, painful death as they were waiting for an ambulance to arrive.

I don't blame the fence for being there, I blame the driver for having made the decision to drive drunk with her in the car.

Try using some damn logic and trace the entire incident to the source of the problem--the jackass who decided to open fire against police, knowing full well that they would return fire, while his innocent girlfriend and child were in the car with them. The criminal was the food company; the criminal was the car company; the criminal was the drunk driver.

The criminal deserves the blame, because what he did caused the death of his girlfriend, even if it was a contaminate/faulty part/fence pole that may have done the killing.

The criminal forced the hand of the LEOs there that day. If you refuse to accept this, then you're part of the problem with society today that jettisons personal responsibility and replaces it with blame attributed to "the man" in every situation.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
Where does it end? Could and should the police officers have treated this like a hostage situation ? They knew others were in the car. They have been trained to know.To me , just another innocent killed in the line of police actions
Sad.....


I know where it ends...when waste of flesh criminals don't fire on the police first..
no no..It's the ATS PC forum...Criminals never do it wrong..only the police..

Could and should the waste of flesh criminal treated this like a mature situation and NOT FIRED AT POLICE APPROACHING HIS CAR while is girlfriend and a kid were in there. He knew they were in the car....

But hey..Violent Criminals, they are the victims..



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Ah...there we go, proof of my above statement that you know nothing about this situation, because you're insinuating that the girlfriend was intentionally killed. There is no proof of that, nor any reason to believe it was intentional.

Well, unless you base your opinion off of emotional ramblings...


She wasn't intentionally killed, but the police made zero effort to try and save her. That's the problem, serve and protect. They didn't do anything to protect.

It reminds me of this case
www.usatoday.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
She wasn't intentionally killed, but the police made zero effort to try and save her. That's the problem, serve and protect. They didn't do anything to protect.

It reminds me of this case
www.usatoday.com...


So we're jumping from the entire thing was the police's fault, to (I'm paraphrasing, here), "Well, they didn't try to save the girlfriend's life, so they weren't protecting?"

Where in the hell do you have evidence that the police officers "made zero effort to try and save her?" I have just read through 8 articles, including the one in the OP, and nowhere does it mention that. Not one story. So, do you have a link to prove that claim?



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Sure. They decided to shoot into the car. Nothing says they had to return fire, and if they cared about the well being of the woman and her child they wouldn't have done so.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Maybe they cared about the assumed innocent bystanders who may be struck by the stray bullets of the guy firing at, but missing, the police officers.

Maybe they know that making assumptions that the other person in that car is either non-violent or a hostage is what gets people in their profession killed.

Maybe the best thing to do in this situation is exactly what they did, all history of violent encounters between LEO and aggressive shooters considered, and they used this knowledge to make an educated decision on how to proceed.

Maybe the fact that they were tipped of that this guy was armed and already on his way to commit a crime gave them all the justification needed to fire into that vehicle after he fired at them before themselves or someone else got hurt.

And maybe they didn't know that there was an infant in the car, so you can quit using him as a means to incite emotional outrage.

Have these thoughts ever crossed your mind? Maybe they were serving and protecting the public at large instead of assuming that the other person in the driver's seat with the guy shooting at them was Mother Teresa and meant them no harm.

Maybe this is a case of guilty by association for the girlfriend, maybe it was an accident--I don't now the facts behind those two maybes. But what I do know, and you keep making painfully apparent, is that you have never been trained in how to react in situations like this as an LEO or anyone in a position to do the job that they were doing that day. You're arm-chair quarterbacking--while that is expected by some and is permeating this thread, that's really all it is.

Maybe you should wait until the 7-11 surveillance video is released before making the types of assumptions that you are making?



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Maybe they know that making assumptions that the other person in that car is either non-violent or a hostage is what gets people in their profession killed.


So if they don't indiscriminately open fire when they don't have a clear shot, they won't go home at the end of their shift. Got it.
edit on 10-9-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
So if they don't indiscriminately open fire when they don't have a clear shot, they won't go home at the end of their shift. Got it.


No, you don't "got" anything.

Nothing was "indiscriminate" in them opening fire on an individual who was firing at them first.

But what was indiscriminately done was putting one's infant and themselves in a car with an apparent violent criminal who had a 9mm handgun and some unspecified "semi-automatic" firearm in a bag in the car.

So there are some things that you keep saying that have a lack of proof behind them, so please clear these up instead of just cherry-picking small portions of my comments for one- or two-sentence responses that mean nothing:

- How do you know that they didn't have a clear line of sight on the suspect? I mean, he opened fire on them, so he must have had a clear line of sight, right? Or was he indiscriminately firing as well?
- You still haven't told me how you know that the LEOs made no attempt to save the passenger after she was shot
- You have outright stated that the shooting of the girlfriend was an accident--how do you know this? Is there evidence that she did nothing that could be perceived as aggressive by the LEOs during that high-adrenaline 15 seconds of gunfire?
- And how do you know that they "indiscriminately" fired into the vehicle? We know that it's claimed that they didn't know the child was in the car, but you have no proof that the female wasn't acting aggressively as well.

See, you're attaching words to your responses that attempt to incite emotional responses while, at the same time, avoiding discussing anything of substance when I bring it up. So, if you're willing, please address those four points I have listed out for you. If you don't want to do that, then this discussion is over (like it should have been the first time I said that I was done).

Thanks in advance...



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
How dare those police approach a known felon!
They should have called 911 and waited for help.

edit on 10-9-2015 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Sure. They decided to shoot into the car. Nothing says they had to return fire, and if they cared about the well being of the woman and her child they wouldn't have done so.


Except for the fact that the criminal fired on them first and so they had reason to believe he would do it again..

How about this..the criminal caused the situation and if he didn't want his innocent girl friend shot then maybe the right move isn't shooting at Police as they approach your car..

Nah..cops fault all the way..



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I don't misunderstand anything.

What I also don't do is use "what ifs" to try and change facts.

What if the subject hadn't pulled a gun? What if he wasn't carrying one to begin with? What if he had bailed out and took off on foot to get away from the car carrying his girlfriend and child? Would she have died that night?

What ifs are fun. And generally pointless. But hey we have to blame somebody right?

Well let's see here...

FACT: The police initiated the encounter, they didn't seek out the police.
FACT: The woman died from a police officer's bullet.

No, you can't change facts.

Yeah, we have to blame someone for an innocent person's death:

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The blame for this woman's death lies 100% at the hands of her boyfriend.

He didn't shoot her, so he couldn't be 100% responsible.


FACT: nobody made him pull out a gun while sitting in a car with his girlfriend and child.

FACT: by approaching him, the police did not give him any legal reason to pull out a gun and start shooting at them.

FACT: had he not pulled out his gun when approached by police he couldn't have shot at anybody, thereby causing fire to be returned at him

FACT: he is, according to Virginia law, 100% liable for her death.

FACT: Facts are fun. Especially when they're actual facts and not just an opinion based on ignorance of actual law.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Police officers in the United States are criminals with badges.
I believe there are good cops and they're the ones buried
in the ground unable to exploit and extort and terrorize citizens
anymore. I understand this may seem extreme but that thin blue
lines keeps me from finding an alternative.
Shame that woman lost her life.
Shame the officers didn't treat it as a hostage situation.
Shame none of them were fatally/critically wounded in
the process. This is what happens when you allow more
and more soldiers become police officers.
Use to treating everyone as a combatant and not
a neighbor.

-Toy the Bear



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TOYBEAR
a reply to: Greven

Shame none of them were fatally/critically wounded in
the process.


So, it's a shame non of the cops were killed but it's not a shame that the criminal caused this situation?
Normal ATS PC junk...never the criminals fault always the cops..




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join