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.

 

Shock Video: Cop Executes Man as He is Lying Face Down and Complying

page: 13
65
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
There is only one thing regarding this legal system here that scares me more than trigger happy, narcissistic and psychopathic police persons. That thing is a jury of idiots making decisions regarding my life.



So you would prefer judicial decree in matters that go to trial opposed to being able to make your case to ordinary people?




posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: intrptr

Women should not be in positions that get intense. They are well know for their over dramatizations and using their emotions in situations where one should be cool headed. I know I may get some heat by women for saying this, but we all know it's true...and I am sure they will just make my point for me anyway.


What's the "excuse" for male cops that are doing to same or similar then?



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: alienjuggalo

(sorry for the untimely response...life happened over the weekend)

That's the unknown that creates the danger, for him and the officer. And that's why LEOs (and other professions) are trained to tell people to keep their hands where they are visible--it removes that unknown and dramatically reduces the potentially dangerous variables of these types of situation.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

You'd be amazed at the stupid things that I volunteer (and even pay for) to have done to me. And yes, I've done something twice that included running and low-crawling through a forest of 10,000-volt live wires, so I know how the body locks up when introduced to the friendly electrical shock.

The first experience was right to my forehead--it felt like someone hit me with a bat. All the ones that hit my back caused my muscles to twitch for about 10 minutes. The ones that I hit while I was running dropped me immediately to the ground, but I was able to get right back up and continue running through them.

Maybe it's not exactly the same thing as five seconds (x2) of similar shocks all at once, but my points still stand. Plus, the couple friends I have in law enforcement tell me that it sucks, but it's really not that bad.

It's like when I went through basic training and had to do the CS gas chamber. We were in there easily for at least five minutes, in an enclosed room, with and without a gas mask on, having to recite things like our social security number and answer questions intelligently. Then when I hear people whine about how terrible it is when cops us the same gas to disperse unruly crowds, I just roll my eyes and chuckle. The gas is uncomfortable, but it won't kill or even really hurt anyone (and this is coming from someone with asthma). It's generally the same with a taser, except for some very rare conditions that can lead to injury and death.

What would people on this thread have preferred, that she just shoot instead of trying to tase first? It's not her fault that the dude refused to follow directions meant to keep both of them safe and keep the situation as calm as possible.

Also, being a dick is okay in my book, as long as it's constructive. Recommending someone get tased is constructive in this instance, I think.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ShadowLink
Might want to watch that video again before calling everyone a moron.
The tazer is ticking away like a mofo just before the first shot and continues to tick away till just after the second shot.


Oh, you are correct, as I missed that as I was focused on listening for the shots.

But to be fair, I was referring to myself as a moron, not to everyone else...that's what vonclod was doing.

But I do stand corrected, and now I'm pissed at myself for making that mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

It still doesn't excuse all of the times that he was reaching toward the inside of his jacket, though.
edit on 9-11-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Cop is not required to allow a suspect to do whatever dangerous, threatening things they feel like doing, and a jury is not required to hate the cops as their first inclination, as so many at ATS do.

Thus, cop shot man, jury found not guilty. As thinking people are wont to do.

Keeping it simple, without the most primitive personal selfish bias possible.....works wonders sometimes.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
There is only one thing regarding this legal system here that scares me more than trigger happy, narcissistic and psychopathic police persons. That thing is a jury of idiots making decisions regarding my life.



So you would prefer judicial decree in matters that go to trial opposed to being able to make your case to ordinary people?

lol, apparently some people just can't figure out that a jury of your peers, free of govt pressure, with ample appeal and oversight.......is just a wee bit better than the "trials" you see in Iran, of American tourists. Or europe, where they're busily moving toward govt-defined speech and thought crimes.

But you know, when the person is infinitely smarter than all police and whole juries.....you never know. Makes you wonder why they don't use their brilliance to just stop getting arrested though, lol. I guess that's just out of the question.
edit on 9-11-2015 by stevieray because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

What would people on this thread have preferred, that she just shoot instead of trying to tase first? It's not her fault that the dude refused to follow directions meant to keep both of them safe and keep the situation as calm as possible.

I think most people are saying, that since it clearly shows her life was not in any eminent danger, that she should have waited for a few more seconds for the backup, that you can hear had arrived, to come to her assistance.

There is nothing in that video that shows it was "necessary" for her to shoot that man, let alone kill him.

I understand there are at least two camps here. One that thinks that since the police have the weapons that you are supposed to eat gravel, lick boots or kiss whatever the man with the gun tells you do or your life is justifiably forfeit. I understand the man with the gun is god, and god is always right, so you bow to god mentality, I just don't agree with it.

There are others that think cops are civilians, and are paid by the citizens of the community to protect and serve. They don't expect cops to be gestapo like enforcers that are justified in beating, terrorizing, and killing the citizens into submission to control them. They think the cops should be held to a higher standard than the citizens they work for, and they should lead by example, by upholding and adhering to the same laws as any other citizen. I don't think that what we are asking is unreasonable.

Of course this will not make any sense to those that think that they don't have a right to respect or a right to life because a cop "says" he/she is afraid or doesn't like your attitude.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nice to hear from someone else who has earned the orange headband. I've done 3 myself (did you know this year they're including a tear gas obstacle??)

Anyways, I agree with you - compliance can avoid most of these situations, but I also think if a civilian was filmed doing the exact same thing they'd go to jail for murder...



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: [post=20011133]SlapMonkey[/post
There is nothing in that video that shows it was "necessary" for her to shoot that man, let alone kill him.


For the record, I have stated this as my opinion at some point in this thread--but I've also said that I can empathize with the LEO as to why she would feel her life was in danger by his actions coupled with the screaming person off-camera with whom she was most likely having to divide her attention.


I understand there are at least two camps here. One that thinks that since the police have the weapons that you are supposed to eat gravel, lick boots or kiss whatever the man with the gun tells you do or your life is justifiably forfeit. I understand the man with the gun is god, and god is always right, so you bow to god mentality, I just don't agree with it.

There are others that think cops are civilians, and are paid by the citizens of the community to protect and serve. They don't expect cops to be gestapo like enforcers that are justified in beating, terrorizing, and killing the citizens into submission to control them. They think the cops should be held to a higher standard than the citizens they work for, and they should lead by example, by upholding and adhering to the same laws as any other citizen. I don't think that what we are asking is unreasonable.


You're missing another camp, one that realizes that things are (a) full of grey areas and aren't always black and white, (b) not always the officer's fault when people get shot/killed by an LEO, (c) often determined by the training the officer receives--an area of law enforcement that I think needs scrutinized these days, (d) also often determined by the suspect's actions, whether or not it is legal for them to act that way (the old cliché of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" comes to mind), and many other things that should be taken into consideration when one views videos of police-involved shooting.

This is the camp that actually deploys constructive criticism in lieu of ideology, and while I'm not 100% perfect at it, this is the camp in which I strive to reside. I've been accused by both sides that you mentioned as being a shill for the other, so that at least supports my thoughts that I fit in this third camp quite well.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nice to hear from someone else who has earned the orange headband. I've done 3 myself (did you know this year they're including a tear gas obstacle??)

Anyways, I agree with you - compliance can avoid most of these situations, but I also think if a civilian was filmed doing the exact same thing they'd go to jail for murder...


Yeah, I saw that, but I'm done with the TMs and I'm moving on to different things. I think my next goal is a Spartan Super--I just don't feel like running half marathons in hilly, uber-muddy terrain while doing obstacles anymore. I've already proven that I can do that.


I agree with you about your claim about if the rolls were reversed, but a civilian doesn't have the city-, county-, state-, or federally given authority to hold people at gun point while conducting traffic stops, or to chase down people if they flee (twice) from your attempt at citing them for vehicle registration issues. So we can't compare apples to aardvarks, even if both can provide the body with nutrition--they're not remotely the same thing.
edit on 9-11-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: alienjuggalo

(sorry for the untimely response...life happened over the weekend)

That's the unknown that creates the danger, for him and the officer. And that's why LEOs (and other professions) are trained to tell people to keep their hands where they are visible--it removes that unknown and dramatically reduces the potentially dangerous variables of these types of situation.



My point is he wasnt reaching for anything, he was convulsing involuntarily because the bitch kept tasing him.

The fact he had nothing proves he wasnt reaching for anything.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: SlapMonkey

What would people on this thread have preferred, that she just shoot instead of trying to tase first? It's not her fault that the dude refused to follow directions meant to keep both of them safe and keep the situation as calm as possible.

I think most people are saying, that since it clearly shows her life was not in any eminent danger, that she should have waited for a few more seconds for the backup, that you can hear had arrived, to come to her assistance.

There is nothing in that video that shows it was "necessary" for her to shoot that man, let alone kill him.

I understand there are at least two camps here. One that thinks that since the police have the weapons that you are supposed to eat gravel, lick boots or kiss whatever the man with the gun tells you do or your life is justifiably forfeit. I understand the man with the gun is god, and god is always right, so you bow to god mentality, I just don't agree with it.

There are others that think cops are civilians, and are paid by the citizens of the community to protect and serve. They don't expect cops to be gestapo like enforcers that are justified in beating, terrorizing, and killing the citizens into submission to control them. They think the cops should be held to a higher standard than the citizens they work for, and they should lead by example, by upholding and adhering to the same laws as any other citizen. I don't think that what we are asking is unreasonable.

Of course this will not make any sense to those that think that they don't have a right to respect or a right to life because a cop "says" he/she is afraid or doesn't like your attitude.








Cop and jury both believed it was necessary for her to shoot. "Kill" isn't even in the discussion (even if you want it to be), because there will never be an intelligent way to claim that killing was her intent.

After the cop, jury, and judge weigh in, I'm not sure why we should worry about random internet people's opinions of the video. Hey, maybe we should try these cases based on internet votes from ATS'ers who view the video and jump around like monkeys hating the cops ! That would be kewwwll.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: alienjuggalo

(sorry for the untimely response...life happened over the weekend)

That's the unknown that creates the danger, for him and the officer. And that's why LEOs (and other professions) are trained to tell people to keep their hands where they are visible--it removes that unknown and dramatically reduces the potentially dangerous variables of these types of situation.



My point is he wasnt reaching for anything, he was convulsing involuntarily because the bitch kept tasing him.

The fact he had nothing proves he wasnt reaching for anything.

uh, no he wasn't. and yes he was. But then he stopped.

See how easy that is !

I win !! I think.......

He was reaching for the gun he had in his waistband last night, that he forgot he had left home today. I know because I watched the video. And I also read everybody's minds. Especially that murderous fascist colonialist bitch.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thanks for sharing your experience, my concern is there have been more than a few deaths via cardiac arrest from the tazer here, particularly multiple hits so when an old man is tazered multiple times and grabbing at his chest I think heart attack..pretty sure the tazer was running for more than a burst..sounded constant
Regardless, what I saw on that vid was disgraceful imo..at no point whatsoever did I feel her life was endangered..even remotely.
He should not of run I agree.
edit on 9-11-2015 by vonclod because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2015 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

I think the point is the cops can't do their jobs based the 1001 different opinions of the video.

This is where "I believe that what I saw makes it seems like such & such is true" really helps.

And not "whore bitch pig killer murderer executioner hope she dies". We seem to see a lot of that around here.

Probably from some folks on parole and probation, lol.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nice to hear from someone else who has earned the orange headband. I've done 3 myself (did you know this year they're including a tear gas obstacle??)

Anyways, I agree with you - compliance can avoid most of these situations, but I also think if a civilian was filmed doing the exact same thing they'd go to jail for murder...


Yeah, I saw that, but I'm done with the TMs and I'm moving on to different things. I think my next goal is a Spartan Super--I just don't feel like running half marathons in hilly, uber-muddy terrain while doing obstacles anymore. I've already proven that I can do that.


I agree with you about your claim about if the rolls were reversed, but a civilian doesn't have the city-, county-, state-, or federally given authority to hold people at gun point while conducting traffic stops, or to chase down people if they flee (twice) from your attempt at citing them for vehicle registration issues. So we can't compare apples to aardvarks, even if both can provide the body with nutrition--they're not remotely the same thing.


I have yet to understand why people trot out the "if I as a civilian did this" argument.

Yes, if you tried to pull somebody over and then followed them home and then chased them through their yard and then shocked them and then shot them, you would be charged and probably convicted.

Because you have zero authority to do any of that.

Why is that even an argument? Boggles the mind.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: alienjuggalo

(sorry for the untimely response...life happened over the weekend)

That's the unknown that creates the danger, for him and the officer. And that's why LEOs (and other professions) are trained to tell people to keep their hands where they are visible--it removes that unknown and dramatically reduces the potentially dangerous variables of these types of situation.



So here's the question I was asking earlier in the thread and others were asking too. Sure, once the police officer got to the scene she probably had to use a taser and even her gun. The jury after seeing all of the evidence for and against sure seemed to think so. So why didn't the cop avoid that situation in the first place? The guy took off running on foot, why was there any need to chase him down? He was identified, his vehicle was captured. Where was he going to go? The police could get him at any time once the adrenaline from a chase had gone down and a situation was less likely to escalate.

Good police work rarely involves emulating action heroes.
edit on 9-11-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Why indeed, was a reason to give chase? For a license tag?
That's why I suggested earlier that one possible solution to this endless brutality would be to change the law on police chases. No chasing for non-violent offenses---seat belt violation, equipment malfunction, plates expired, etc. There should never be another person killed for lack of a paper document. It's barbaric.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Nobody killed anybody for lack of a document. There are at least 2 levels of stupidity removed from the shooting, both belonging to the criminal guy, both causing his demise.

Why do you people insist on saying things that are blatantly false and untrue ? So casually and consistently, like it's part of your DNA.

That's just ridiculous, no way to go through life, as Dean Wormer says.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join