It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I didn't agree with your excuse for the officer shooting.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Yep - that's state sanctioned murder alright.
I bet anyone would do the same thing when being shot at - and he was shot at first by government agents THEN reached for "something"...be it a gun or gunshot wound.
He started with his hands up then put them to his body while quickly turning around. If a person is shot they would put their hands to the wound then maybe out again with hands up since then the person is trying not to get shot again. At some point the person will try and defend themselves once it is at the point they know they will die.
It would be interesting in knowing how many times he was shot...
I think he could have been reaching for a weapon, but to me it really looks like his reactions were due to taking a bullet first.
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
That to me suggest gunfire was already used and he may have been hit already cause he seems to be clearly checking a wound. He looks like he wanted to surrender but instinctively also wanted to see the wound. If it was the officer coming out of the woods that shot him first then I would say that he dropped too soon. I think he was already shot.
I am not saying LEO did not think he was going for a weapon but it looks to me like if he was under duress due to already being shot.
This video needs volume.
originally posted by: GD21D
originally posted by: Mr Headshot
I was listening to Clyde Lewis the other night and a caller mentioned something pretty potent.
The caller was a vet of Iraq 2.0 and talked about how in Iraq the rules of engagement are such that you can not fire until fired upon. But here, in America, the rules are more lax for police.
Check this out..... I'm an OIF vet as well.
There are two different terms used when deadly force is allowable. Hostile acts, and hostile intent. This is what gives our service members the latitude to use deadly force so long as there is an interpreted danger. Now, we were briefed to use the minimum force required, but once again, the latitude given allowed us to protect ourselves without fear of unjust recourse.
Essentially, in order for a service member to be in violation of ROE he/she would have to either a. Have submitted demonstrable proof of committing an egregious violation of ROE by the service member, or b. Have their fellow service members testify against them. This was basically my understanding as I was briefed. At no time was I ever briefed to only fire when fired upon.
How about this?
a. You may open fire only if you, friendly forces or persons or property under your
protection are threatened with deadly force. This means:
(1) You may open fire against an individual who fires or aims his weapon at, or
otherwise demonstrates an intent to imminently attack, you, friendly forces, or
Persons with Designated Special Status (PDSS) or property with designated
special status under your protection.
(2) You may open fire against an individual who plants, throws, or prepares to throw,
an explosive or incendiary device at, or otherwise demonstrates an intent to
imminently attack you, friendly forces, PDSS or property with designated special
status under your protection.
(3) You may open fire against an individual deliberately driving a vehicle at you,
friendly forces, or PDSS or property with designated special status.