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: 14
65
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

BTW, you chase people who break the law and run. As soon as the cops just ignore a blatant crime and flight, and the guy hurts someone down the road, the same cop-haters will be screaming that it was all the cops fault for letting them go.

It's a game every minute, every possible way.




posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
a reply to: stevieray

BTW, you chase people who break the law and run. As soon as the cops just ignore a blatant crime and flight, and the guy hurts someone down the road, the same cop-haters will be screaming that it was all the cops fault for letting them go.

It's a game every minute, every possible way.


Presently, what you say is true---it is legal to give chase even for misdemeanors---as in this case. That is why I'm suggesting that the policy be changed. It can be done at the local level by departments that actually care about the citizens they're being paid to serve and protect.
Every time a cop gives chase in a vehicle, people are endangered. Just take a look at the number of cops killed in car chases over the past few years.
You can screech all you wish saying that this man wasn't killed for lack of document but you're only fooling yourself. He was murdered by an out-of-control, paranoid person who had no business even being given a tazer and a gun.

No normal person would even consider shooting a guy because he was driving a vehicle with an expired tag.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
a reply to: stevieray

BTW, you chase people who break the law and run. As soon as the cops just ignore a blatant crime and flight, and the guy hurts someone down the road, the same cop-haters will be screaming that it was all the cops fault for letting them go.

It's a game every minute, every possible way.


You can't hunt people down on what they might do in the future. This is the same logic that says the cop needs to pull over random people on the road with no probable cause just to make sure everything is on the up and up.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
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.


*sigh*

And here I was thinking that you had calmed down and started being rational.

When a robber had his hand--and only his hand--in his jacket pocket while holding up a convenient store, does that mean that we should dismiss his actions because 20/20 hindsight after the fact lets us know that he had no weapon?

Just because you know that he had no weapon now doesn't mean that officer was clairvoyant at the time.

It's quite apparent that you lack the empathy gene--the ability to put yourself in one's shoes and understand what they're going through in a given situation.

I have it, and I can use it on both people in this scenario, but my logic and legal training reminds me that it was the victim who initiated this chain of events because he thought it would be intelligent to run--twice--from a law enforcement officer just doing her job.

Anyhoo, best regards, because as much as I like a merry-go-round, I'm getting off of this ride with you.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I have yet to understand why people trot out the "if I as a civilian did this" argument.

***SNIP***

Why is that even an argument? Boggles the mind.


Because there are too many people ignorant to the way the real world works who comment on these threads, yet think that they're making great points and pulling out 'gotcha scenarios.'



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
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.


While I'm not a police officer and haven't ever been trained in the "why" behind pursuing a criminal on foot, I'm pretty sure that my answer when thinking logically would be that a police officer is there to enforce the law, and fleeing during a lawful stop is also against the law. This fellow was compounding his crimes as he kept taking off, and generally speaking, people who are willing to put their lives and others at risk by fleeing in a vehicle, and then continue the pursuit by abandoning the vehicle and continuing on foot are not exactly the types of people that LEOs should just walk away from and say, "Oh well, he's running...I guess I should just leave him paranoid and possibly armed and dangerous on the loose in this neighborhood."

And you ask about his intended destination--again, there have been many instances of people running from cops who run into adjacent homes and structures in the surrounding area to hide, take hostages, steal vehicles, etc. People who flee LEOs cannot be looked at just as this one person doing this one thing--the whole of experiences of people fleeing (and the reasons why they flee) has to be taken into account at all times.

A paranoid, desperate person willing to run from the law is not the type of person that I want a cop just giving up on finding because someone on some website thinks that seeing the pursuit through to the end is "emulating action heroes." No, it's just LEOs doing their job, and I for one am glad that they don't just let people run away without tracking them down before they have the potential to do something even more dangerous than running.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I have yet to understand why people trot out the "if I as a civilian did this" argument.

***SNIP***

Why is that even an argument? Boggles the mind.


Because there are too many people ignorant to the way the real world works who comment on these threads, yet think that they're making great points and pulling out 'gotcha scenarios.'


Lol ok the 'if I did it" excuse does get trotted out alot. But the police apologists always trott out the what if he gets away and hurts someone excuse just as often.. Or what if he had a gun.. When he didnt.

So it really goes both ways..


btw I am always calm..

edit on 10-11-2015 by alienjuggalo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
When a robber had his hand--and only his hand--in his jacket pocket while holding up a convenient store, does that mean that we should dismiss his actions because 20/20 hindsight after the fact lets us know that he had no weapon?


Someone being robbed has no control over the robber. This woman had the man on a constant taser and had him lying on the ground. Why couldn't she handcuff him? That solves the issue of him pulling a gun.


originally posted by: SlapMonkey
While I'm not a police officer and haven't ever been trained in the "why" behind pursuing a criminal on foot, I'm pretty sure that my answer when thinking logically would be that a police officer is there to enforce the law, and fleeing during a lawful stop is also against the law. This fellow was compounding his crimes as he kept taking off, and generally speaking, people who are willing to put their lives and others at risk by fleeing in a vehicle, and then continue the pursuit by abandoning the vehicle and continuing on foot are not exactly the types of people that LEOs should just walk away from and say, "Oh well, he's running...I guess I should just leave him paranoid and possibly armed and dangerous on the loose in this neighborhood."


It never should have got to a foot chase, once he took off in his vehicle don't pursue. Go pick him up at work 12 hours later, thanks to his car he's already identified. That's what they do in countries where police are typically unarmed, and surprisingly it keeps them from needing to use weapons in the first place.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Someone being robbed has no control over the robber. This woman had the man on a constant taser and had him lying on the ground. Why couldn't she handcuff him? That solves the issue of him pulling a gun.


Actually, that's an assertion that I made in some of my original comments on this case. I think that she could have, but again, that's with the calm demeanor, lack of adrenaline, and overall knowledge that hindsight gives us. This is why cases are reviewed during training of LEOs, to show alternate courses of action that could have and maybe should have been taken.


It never should have got to a foot chase, once he took off in his vehicle don't pursue. Go pick him up at work 12 hours later, thanks to his car he's already identified. That's what they do in countries where police are typically unarmed, and surprisingly it keeps them from needing to use weapons in the first place.


Or, don't run from police who are initiating a simple traffic stop.

The catalyst to this even lies with the victim, not the officer. I think that's the main point where you and I differ.

This isn't another country, this is America, and while you can compare and contrast all that you want, I'm living in reality and using that as my guide.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
So runniing from the police is a crime that is now legally punishable by death?

It doesn't matter if he was guilty of traffic violations, or was a drug addict, or if he ran from the police.

None of those are crimes that warrant the death penalty.

I don't know why you think a cop doesn't have to be accountable for their actions, and that is okay for them to be above the law that they so viciously and carelessly walk all over.

edit on 10-11-2015 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: Word edit.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey



...
A paranoid, desperate person willing to run from the law is not the type of person that I want a cop just giving up on finding because someone on some website thinks that seeing the pursuit through to the end is "emulating action heroes." No, it's just LEOs doing their job, and I for one am glad that they don't just let people run away without tracking them down before they have the potential to do something even more dangerous than running.


An hysterical, screeching, desperate person with an active tazer shoots a man lying face down on the ground in the throes of a tazer attack---is just a LEO doing their job. Got that. You are happy to see that happen because of what "might" have happened "if" that man on the ground had a weapon. You are willing to see people die needlessly because of the "potential" for danger. Got that.

And to think that I never knew being paranoid and fearing police was a death penalty offense. I thank you for educating us all with your view of how we should killed off legally by law enforcement.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: SlapMonkey



...
A paranoid, desperate person willing to run from the law is not the type of person that I want a cop just giving up on finding because someone on some website thinks that seeing the pursuit through to the end is "emulating action heroes." No, it's just LEOs doing their job, and I for one am glad that they don't just let people run away without tracking them down before they have the potential to do something even more dangerous than running.


An hysterical, screeching, desperate person with an active tazer shoots a man lying face down on the ground in the throes of a tazer attack---is just a LEO doing their job. Got that. You are happy to see that happen because of what "might" have happened "if" that man on the ground had a weapon. You are willing to see people die needlessly because of the "potential" for danger. Got that.

And to think that I never knew being paranoid and fearing police was a death penalty offense. I thank you for educating us all with your view of how we should killed off legally by law enforcement.

haha, completely dismiss every dumbass thing the perp did and let go on his merry way....but apply every possible insult you can remember for the cop. Yeah, that works.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

Would you please show me the law that says being a dumbass is grounds for execution. In the past I've been very thankful that my stupid behavior or that of my loved ones and friends wasn't grounds for incarceration.

I realize that you are indeed a "true believer" in the myth that a cop never pulls a gun and shoots someone for no reason other than his/her own paranoia and terror. But I believe that so many of these cops are 'roided up that it happens quite often. Where you stick you head in the dirt and say "Never happens, cops are good." I see a big problem that needs to be addressed.

My suggested beginning point for dealing with the issue is to drug these cops each time they pull their weapons and threaten or shoot people. Let's at least try to find out what is messing with their brains and making them so terrified of unarmed citizens that they automatically start firing. These agencies can spend the money it takes to do the tests or continue to pay out millions of dollars to settle lawsuits caused by the 'roiders. As a taxpayer it seems to me that drug testing is the most cost effective means to begin to get a handle on the problem.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
a reply to: stevieray

BTW, you chase people who break the law and run. As soon as the cops just ignore a blatant crime and flight, and the guy hurts someone down the road, the same cop-haters will be screaming that it was all the cops fault for letting them go.

It's a game every minute, every possible way.


That's a logical fallacy.

en.wikipedia.org...

wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: SlapMonkey



...
A paranoid, desperate person willing to run from the law is not the type of person that I want a cop just giving up on finding because someone on some website thinks that seeing the pursuit through to the end is "emulating action heroes." No, it's just LEOs doing their job, and I for one am glad that they don't just let people run away without tracking them down before they have the potential to do something even more dangerous than running.


An hysterical, screeching, desperate person with an active tazer shoots a man lying face down on the ground in the throes of a tazer attack---is just a LEO doing their job. Got that. You are happy to see that happen because of what "might" have happened "if" that man on the ground had a weapon. You are willing to see people die needlessly because of the "potential" for danger. Got that.

And to think that I never knew being paranoid and fearing police was a death penalty offense. I thank you for educating us all with your view of how we should killed off legally by law enforcement.


Thank you.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Sorry to jump in, but this reminds me of the riddle, "would you kill baby Hitler" if you were back in time.

Without much thought, no...little Adolph hasn't done anything wrong.

Let's keep our heads people.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Hi everybody:

Its the Fallacy of Half truth

Let's say the next thing: "a cop shots in the back a guy." Is the cop guilty?, well, yes!:
But, if the whole story is : "a man kills somebody and start running, then a cop shots and hits the guy in the back". Its the same story but more complete, in this case the cop acted correctly.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnbonachon
Hi everybody:

Its the Fallacy of Half truth

Let's say the next thing: "a cop shots in the back a guy." Is the cop guilty?, well, yes!:
But, if the whole story is : "a man kills somebody and start running, then a cop shots and hits the guy in the back". Its the same story but more complete, in this case the cop acted correctly.


What? who did he kill?



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Sorry to jump in, but this reminds me of the riddle, "would you kill baby Hitler" if you were back in time.

Without much thought, no...little Adolph hasn't done anything wrong.

Let's keep our heads people.

Sorry but you are preaching to the choir.

It is the bad cops that are killing people for what they might have done or "may" do.

Maybe they are taking their directions from the pre-crimes unit.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: johnbonachon

Perhaps you should read the story before commenting.
The only killing that took place was the cop shooting the man on the ground in the back after he ran from a traffic citation for an expired inspection sticker.
Who knows why he ran---perhaps he'd been beaten up by cops before this time and didn't want to endure that again---perhaps the lights and sirens and a cop screaming at him caused some sort of PTSD episode---we'll never know because she decided that an expired inspection sticker was more important than a human life.
It is important that we mere citizens realize that not having our papers in order can be a death sentence.




top topics



 
65
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join