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.

 

San Francisco police shot man 20 times, including 6 in the back

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


Oh I have little doubt that the world was done a favor.


Two shots would have sufficed. I've done it with two shots more than once.


20 shots is just the rest of the "boys" wanting to get in on the game.




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vector99

The video I present showed how they used fired hoses and a ladder to subdue someone armed, 'standing their ground'.


Were those options available at the moment? NO. Did they try to use non-lethal force? YES. Suspect was high on an extreme mixture of drugs and non-lethal forces were ineffective.

Again I ask, should we just let the guy go around stabbing people? He deserved to be shot.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Vector99


Oh I have little doubt that the world was done a favor.


Two shots would have sufficed. I've done it with two shots more than once.


20 shots is just the rest of the "boys" wanting to get in on the game.


Well, we have an agreement and a disagreement. I don't mind if someone that should be shot gets shot 1 time or 100 times. If they deserve to be shot shoot them, and make sure they don't get up.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


It's a fundamental disagreement actually.


It is a change in the United States that every citizen has a right, and more importantly, a duty to speak out against.


The role of the Police Department (in any form) is to protect the citizens placed under their care.

The role of the military is to kill people and break things.


The differences between these two elements in society are being blended to the point where there is very little difference.



The line between police and military occupation must be drawn. Rather than just shooting down citizens (armed or unarmed) or placing themselves in such a position that deadly force is warranted (jumped in front of cars is a big one) or claiming that it is only a small percentage of bad cops while the good cops do nothing, something must be done. Police forces across the country must be brought to heel (demilitarized). If not citizens (guilty or not will continue to get gunned down in the streets and nothing will be done about it.


Occupational forces are always above the law. Simply because they write their own laws as they go along.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

I don't disagree with the sentiment at all, I just think this guy deserved to be shot.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

We also have a duty to not tolerate complete disregard to public safety this criminal projected onto the community. He stabbed a random person, they could of put 100 in him.Good riddance.
edit on 13-2-2016 by DrakeINFERNO because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Believe me, I'm not one to defend the police, but going by this story it sounds like they did things properly. The guy was not going to be talked down, he was armed, loaded with drugs. Then the officers first started with less lethal weapons which had no effect. Finally they shot him, and as training dictates they shot center mass until they couldn't shoot anymore (and those drugs probably kept him on his feet a while longer). You don't shoot an arm or a leg because the chance of missing is too high. You shoot the torso because you can actually hit it.

Short of beating the guy in hand to hand combat, which is something they're not trained for (but it sure would be nice if they were) there was no other way to resolve that situation.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
The cops claimed there were bystanders in the direction he was heading.


If this is true and the guy was shot in the back then the cops fired in the direction of those bystanders. Still doesn't look good in their favor on that one.


I guess he should have just let him get close to them huh?



Nope. It's far better to shoot towards them.........




new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join