It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Police Killed An Unarmed White Man In Iowa And His Community Didn't Seem To Notice

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 08:24 PM

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RomeByFire

Incorrect -

Walk with a purpose is a descriptive adjective used to describe the persons behavior. Make fun of it all you want but ignoring it because you dont understand it does not make the info null and void.

You're absolutely right, I don't understand it.

Walking with a purpose is a way to describe someone's behavior, as is:

- They are chewing bubblegum
- He walks with a limp

And no, walk with a purpose is not a descriptive adjective, it's quite a vague one.

Where was he walking to?
What were his intentions?
What was his purpose?
How did this officer determine his purpose of walking?
Can she read minds, is she an X-Men?

The info is null and void on its own, regardless of my understandings, opinions, comments, etc etc

The only thing I can find regarding "Walking with Purpose," is a female Bible group or something like that.

It is a very blatant attempt to convey this man as a criminal who has in the wrongdoing.

Here is how it should read:

"Man walks with purpose" (to kill police officer) because that is the assumption made as to his purpose for walking.

Which - and I apologize, I do not believe the officer, you, or myself, had any true knowledge as to what this mans purpose was.

However, what we DO know, is that his "walking with a purpose," is what led to his death.

Just seems like a pretty basic cop-out (pun intended) to me.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 08:24 PM
a reply to: RomeByFire

Police dont shoot to kill - They shoot to stop the threat.

1. Disruptive
2. Non-compliant
3. Annoying
4. Drunk/high
5. Possessing cannabis
6. "Walking with a purpose?"

You forgot blocking an officer inside of his car on a traffic stop - Obstruction.
You forgot engaging in a motor vehicle pursuit - Resisting arrest / fail to stop for emergency vehicle.
You forgot he hit the patrol vehicle - felony assault on an officer.

We do not have the complete reports from either of the officers nor do we have any reports from the dual investigation into the incident from Des Moines or the State Police (I think they are the second agency investigating).

Taking each incident individually is problematic. Taking them all together, or totality of circumstances, and it shows a different story.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 08:26 PM
a reply to: RomeByFire

Congrats. You've completely detracted from the OP with your intentionally ignorant page long rants about what the meaning of "walked with a purpose is."

Job well done

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 08:32 PM

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: smurfy

They are required to submit stats to the State since that is the governing authority for law enforcement at the state level. for some strange reason foreign news sources don't grasp the concept of how the government of the US operates. if you want state stats then look at the state government. If you want federal then look at the federal government.

State stats are based on violations of state law.
Federal stats are based on violation of federal law.

the attempt to use federal stats for reporting on state crimes gives the paper the ability to skew the information in their favor since it will give an erroneous picture that will show gun crimes as being out of control. It allows them to use stats from all states to compare against one incident occurring in one state.

Its a sham attempt to attack the 2nd amendment.

That is is a poor defense, you should know damn rightly that any national reporting is a voluntary self reporting to the FBI, which everybody and their granny knows is total crap, and years behind.
So, what about these 10 states below...there is not even a statute on lethal force, which makes a nonsense of justifiable homicide for instance,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, alongside Washington DC where no law enforcement officer lethal force statutes exist.
Don't think for an instant that supreme court rulings will protect you either, in North Dakota they have a statute that permits deadly force against, “an individual who has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving violence”
How vague is that...shoot a runner..probably okay then.
So, what happened here then? A er um, peace officer shoots and kills a guy through her car window because he looked like a man on a mission..or was it a funny walk, and how far down that road do you need to go for justifiable homicide..farting beside a police officer, Oh! that'll come soon enough don't worry?

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 08:42 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

I will be flamed this, but oh well.
If only I lived in an era where discourse was seen as healthy, but I don't. Not agreeing with something or seeing it a different way provides fertile ground to be attacked (not saying I have, couldn't care less if I have)

I am also white, and live in a small town of roughly 3,000 that is about 98% white folks.

I can tell you that almost any instance of an officer killing someone (regardless of ethnicity, age, etc etc), the cops are almost ALWAYS defended.

"He/she shouldn't have broken the law,
That's what happens when you disrecpt authority,"

You can show them case after case of unarmed teenagers "committing suicide" while in handcuffs, officers shouting racial slurs, belittling, demonizing, while using extreme force while saying "Stop resisting arrest!" Well officer the arm is not meant to bend that way, that's why you are having issues arresting your suspect.

But yes, I feel like you are exactly correct with your statement, and I live around it daily.

Most of the people I come into contact with, don't think it possible to have themselves or someone they care about have a scenario regarding life/death at the hands of an officer. They seem themselves as law-abiding, respectful, nothing to hide my hands are open, yes sir, no sir, approach.

And they see all those who have fallen at the hands of police as "thugs, racists, criminals, etc etc"

I'm going to tell you a story about a cop in my hometown.

His name is not this, but we will call him Nick for discussion sake.

Nick seemed like an alright dude. Good dad, he even dated someone in my family, and I got to meet him. Coolest police officer I've ever met.

Well one day, Nick was at the local gas station, buying a fountain drink. Another man, let's call him Lenny, was also at the gas station.

You see, Lenny is a veteran, and is in a wheelchair. He was given the Purple Heart, which is an honorable thing. Lenny likes to hang out at the bars - bah, he's a veteran in a wheelchair. He fought for our freedoms, no? Let the man have some freedom himself, yes?


See, while at the gas station, Nick was behind Lenny in line to pay. On the back of Lenny's wheelchair he had his memorabilia from his days in the service. Nick, being behind Lenny, removed (ripped off) one of Lenny's pendants, and proceeded to get in Lenny's face saying:

"You don't deserve this you crippled #####, I want to take your #### lifeless body out of your #### chair and beat your ##### ###."

Shocked by the comment and aggression, Lenny asked the woman in the gas station to phone 911. She responded:

"There is already a police officer here, what do you need?"

Lenny says, "I don't feel safe around Nick," (explains what happened), "I want a different officer to come before I leave because I do not feel safe."

Nick became very belligerent at the idea of having a different officer arriving, so then proceeded to place Lenny under arrest. After asking multiple times, "why am I being arrested," and being given no straight answer, Lenny himself dialed 911, asking for another officer.

What did Officer Nick do? He got on his walky, and cancelled the call that Lenny placed.

Then, Nick accused Lenny of making a false police statement.

A class 4A felony in the state of Illinois.

Lenny is now in prison.

The same officer, also beat another man, breaking his own fist on the mans head, resulting in the man having brain damage and spending six months in the hospital.

Nick pressed charges because of the injury he sustained.

Nick is well on his way of becoming a prominent figure in our local PD.

And it is absolutely shameful in every single way.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 08:56 PM
a reply to: butcherguy
A man walking with a "purpose", whatever that means because it is open to interpretation, that is neither running nor brandishing a weapon, the cops should have used non-lethal force. This is over the top, and no not over the top cop haters!

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 09:16 PM
a reply to: smurfy

Which is why I stated local agencies are required to report to their respective state governments and the federal agencies are required to report to federal agencies (FBI).

Law Enforcement at the state level does not take directions from the feds and the feds dont take direction from the states. They are 2 completely different levels of law enforcement enforcing completely different laws.

Its not an excuse or defense - its a fact.

The Use of lethal force is dependent on the individual state law within compliance of SCOTUS (United States Supreme Court) rulings. Any time a person is killed by another person its classified as a homicide, including when law enforcement officers kill a person or when the state executes a person. The individual factors that led up to the death is where you get justified homicide or an actual homicide that is prosecuted as a crime.

Supreme Court rulings are pretty clear on an Officer use of deadly force and a civilians use of deadly force, with the civilian standards being less than law enforcement.

As I pointed out a few times now, if you fixate on the single line of "walking with a purpose" and intentionally ignore everything else then you are not going to ever understand what happened. Totality of circumstances, from start to finish and not from where you think it should start and where you think it should finish.

For Law Enforcement -
An officer has the ability to escalate force one level higher than the level of force being used against them to overcome the level of resistance. Reviewing an officers use of force, per SCOTUS, is what did the officer perceive the moment force was used? If the shooting is justified then its a Homicide - justified. 20/20 hindsight can NOT be used.

A civilian falls into the what would a reasonable person do in the situation. One must also take into account the various state laws on the subject. Some states are a duty to retreat state, which requires a civilian to disengage if possible. If a civilian fails to disengage when the option is present and safe they can be charged with a crime if they continue to engage.

In other states where there is no duty to retreat, a civilian is not required to go anywhere and can stand his ground.

Every state and federal districts have murder statutes. Those statutes spell out what a murder is. The investigation determines if the right of self defense mitigates against the charge or if their actions were not justified, allowing the prosecutor to charge and prosecute.
edit on 29-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 09:25 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

False. The entire case should be built solely on the comparative second or two that it took the officer to draw and fire. Nothing else should ever be taken in to account.

Oh, and we should only do this after the fact. In hindsight. Because that's when you have the best vision.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 09:28 PM
a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh right right right...

/shakes head....

my bad

For some reason I keep seeing the phrase "Ignorance is a choice" flashing in my brain....

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 09:41 PM

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

Or it shows the lack of support by the community... Not the fault of the black community that they actually get mad when some one gets shot.
Huff Po is a liberal rag and they are reporting it, kinda shots a hole in that theory huh?

I am 'outraged', tired of hearing about these unarmed people getting shot by cops.

Can't miss a chance to make this political tho right? Wouldn't want to feed into the divide.

No it doesn't because the national media hasn't paid any attention. You do k now the difference between a website reporting and concentrated media reporting over the course of days?

Just admit, the media pushes a left wing narrative that white people are oppressors and black people are perpetual victims. Anything that casts doubt on that narrative is IGNORED.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 10:23 PM
What are you in for , walking briskly to the shop . You , looking at something a kilometre away .

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 10:35 PM
a reply to: TheBulk

So its the liberals fault that fox dosent play on more fear, we know its obama, the socialist and the tree huggers fault.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 11:01 PM
a reply to: TheBulk

No what is covered is the reactions of the people.
That is what makes the headline news.

I will admit people think that only these left wing ideas get push, don't agree it is reality.

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:22 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Very good points.

Spontaneous civil unrest starting in the neighborhood in which the shooting occurred. Was this this the result of the media or a festering resentment for the police held by members in the community — a resentment that doesn't seem at all unwarranted given the statistics released months later?

Yes it is likely a case of a festering resentment. If a youth of the community gets gunned down by police, I think it would be likely to end outrage, especially if the members of the community were acquainted. Of course it would only be exasperated if there is longstanding aggression between police and the members of the community. It is only natural that people would, by and large, stand up for their own. However, I think it is too naive to assume it is a beef between white and black, instead of a beef between cop and criminal.

Yours is a valid concern and it should be raised, but both sides should be heard. Compare what the courts have decided to what the media (including social media) had largely reported and I think we'll have our answer. If the indignation from outside the neighbourhood including people thousands of miles away is any indication, the media had quite a bit to do with it, while a court who is mandated to decide by the rule of the law, could not convince them otherwise. So who's wrong? People who spend their working lives examining and arguing the facts? Or people who read an article or two?

Could the lack of response to the death of this Iowa man have something to do with the fact that most white people don't feel that they or their family members are at risk of dying in a run in with the cops?

I have trouble speaking about individuals in such general terms so I won't attempt to do it here. The situation has more to do with it than an epidermis does. I think it is a valid concern of people who are related to family members who engage in criminal behavior that their relative might be killed by a cop, whether white or black. If their family member doesn't engage in criminal behavior, they would have very little to worry about.

There are white and black cops. There are white and black criminals. It seems ridiculous to assume the white cops exclude the cops of other races, and get together and go out looking for beatdowns on black people? I think it is safer to assume they are reacting to the situation. Would you disagree?

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:40 AM
Did AllLivesMatter notice?

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 06:56 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra

A civilian falls into the what would a reasonable person do in the situation. One must also take into account the various state laws on the subject. Some states are a duty to retreat state, which requires a civilian to disengage if possible. If a civilian fails to disengage when the option is present and safe they can be charged with a crime if they continue to engage. In other states where there is no duty to retreat, a civilian is not required to go anywhere and can stand his ground.

So if I, as a civilian in a stand your ground state, am scared of an unarmed person that walks up to my car.... I can shoot them from the relative safety of my car with the windows rolled up, and get away with it?

Imagine how scared I might be of an armed person that makes me pull over when I have done nothing wrong! I am talking about when a cop pulls you over.

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 07:01 AM
a reply to: butcherguy

From what little I've learned about police training this cop had no right shooting this man but we all know this cop will probably get off Scott free as somehow the shooting will be justified.

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 08:05 AM

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: smurfy

As I pointed out a few times now, if you fixate on the single line of "walking with a purpose" and intentionally ignore everything else then you are not going to ever understand what happened. Totality of circumstances, from start to finish and not from where you think it should start and where you think it should finish.

You just ignored everything I mentioned, bar the victim's stance. It seems you are the one with the fixation, as was the killer officer..since it came out of her own gub.
As for the SCOTUS, Amnesty International reports from new york that 13 states don't come near guidlines set by the SCOTUS in a 1985 court case, Tennessee v Garner, where the police shot dead a 15year old in the back of the head when he tried to escape. The court declared,

" police may not use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping 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”.

What those states do to get away with is just filling in mumbo jumbo to suit.

As for The Guardian, it is on the ground in the US as much as it is in the UK, so not not foreigners from afar trying to skew things,

The Washington Post is on the case too,

and here..this guy, a long term justice associate to the SCOTUS wants to change the second amendment for clarity's sake,

Washington Post.
edit on 30-10-2015 by smurfy because: Text.

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 09:31 AM
It's not that the community doesn't care, it's just that they do in a more peaceful, quietly way. Many of the community will tell ya straight forward that the victim was in the wrong. While he did not certainly deserve to die his actions sealed his fate.

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 09:54 AM

originally posted by: Metallicus
Sorry, it is outside the current parameters of a useful narrative for our media and controllers. It only matters if he is black. #whitelivesdonotmatter

So why don't y'all care enough to protest when police kill one of your family members? I don't see the "All Lives Matter" people doing anything either. Oh, that's right. Because they don't care about other Americans either. They only say "All Lives Matter" as a way to diminish "Black Lives Matter".

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in