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.

 

Looks like the Left will be destroying St. Louis tonight

page: 23
31
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Let me just clarify one thing I said earlier. Smith apparently assaulted both officers with the deadly weapon of his vehicle, fled the scene of a legal stop, endangered the general public with an attempt to evade arrest at high-speeds, etc.

That would have been sufficient, upon non-compliance from the suspect, to use lethal force if I am not mistaken.

So, why the very odd and difficult-to-explain series of events that actually ensued after the kill-shot?

That is what complicates this matter and turns the self-defense in the face of imminent danger scenario on its head.




posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Smith fled the scene after hitting the cop.

DROVE 80+ miles an hour in to oncoming traffic.

The AK is Irrelevant. Since it wasn't even fired.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter


This is an interesting argument and actually does question my stance on the overall topic.


Before Tennessee vs Garner, this was the legal standard. I'm glad you found it worth pondering.

Along with who "initiated" or "provoked" the situation. In the case of LEOs, we have to remember that we hire and pay them to initiate such interactions with the public, and we have to give them some power and leeway to do so for everyone's safety... but this is where training comes into the picture, enabling and empowering LEOs to do so in the safest manner for all.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: riiver


Now, to be clear: I'm not saying I think the cop was innocent, neither am I saying I think he was guilty. Just that it doesn't appear to have been proved--again, beyond a reasonable doubt--that there was no way it could have been anything but premeditated murder.


You make an excellent point. I don't think this officer got up that morning and said, "I'm going to hunt down Mr. Smith and kill him in cold blood." I don't think anyone believes that. So why on earth did the prosecution go for a 1st degree charge??? The only thing I can figure is BECAUSE they knew the charge would not stick. They could have charged him with anything from reckless or negligent homicide on up. But they chose the charge they knew would never stick. I don't think even a jury would have convicted on 1st degree charges -- and rightfully so.

But I'm sure the prosecution -- and the judge -- knew exactly the game they were playing.


And like it or not, that's the way the legal system is set up, on the premise that its better to let 100 guilty people go free than to wrongly convict 1 innocent person.


You're right again, and no, I don't like the way the system is set up... but not for that reason. Because the ones with the power and authority and responsibility have gamed the system for the benefit of themselves -- and the detriment of everyone else. As in better to let 100 die than to convict one LEO.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

In your research, have you noticed any trends in these cases of killer cops toward waiving the right to a jury trial so that the matter gets adjudicated by a friendly judge?



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can't call it a trend per se... yet... but I have come across a few such cases, which makes me wonder.

Something else that made me go "hmmmm" was seeing that the judge had closed the proceedings to the public, which I remembered seeing in another case with a judge but no jury.

I really haven't looked at that specifically though... at least not yet


ETA: If you haven't seen this yet, I found it pretty interesting and straight forward: Advancement Project
edit on 17-9-2017 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can't call it a trend per se... yet... but I have come across a few such cases, which makes me wonder.

Something else that made me go "hmmmm" was seeing that the judge had closed the proceedings to the public, which I remembered seeing in another case with a judge but no jury.

I really haven't looked at that specifically though... at least not yet


Well, in this case, I was absolutely floored by the Judge committing to a statement like "all urban drug dealers carry weapons, so obviously, in this case, the suspect was carrying a weapon.'

WHAT?!?



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I was absolutely floored by the Judge committing to a statement like "all urban drug dealers carry weapons, so obviously, in this case, the suspect was carrying a weapon.'


Absolutely chilling. The judge basically declared a dead guy guilty -- and gets away with it only because dead men tell no tales. No opportunity to face his accusers, to bring his own witnesses, to provide evidence in his defense. Nope. No need for due process. No innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He's "guilty" because the judge said so... and therefore deserved to die.

And all while ignoring, minimizing and/or rationalizing away the very incriminating evidence against the LEO.

Absolutely chilling.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: riiver


to find someone guilty, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.


I'm not forgetting that at all... the cop shot and killed a man. He is guilty. That's the ultimate violation of a person's absolute natural and Constitutional right to life -- at the hands of government, with no due process or equal application of the law. There is no doubt at all that the cop killed him. The cop is guilty of taking a life. Period.

In accordance with the law, and due process, the cop should have been given any and every opportunity -- in a court of law -- to provide an affirmative defense, in which he can provide evidence to show lives were in danger, including his own. If he could successfully prove he was acting against a direct and imminent threat to his own life, his action would be deemed "justifiable." He would not be "not guilty," because a life was still taken. But it would be "justified."

The problem is that since the Garner vs. Tennessee decision by the Supreme Court, an officer only has to claim that he feared his life might be in danger... thus the so-called burden of proof is now placed on the authorities to prove that he did not fear that he might be in danger.

And that's an impossible task. Hence, the perception (if not the reality) that cops have a license to kill with impunity.

Good points.

There was also the shooting of John Crawford III, which clearly showed cops had a license to murder black people - they didn't even hold a trial. A grand jury of course was used and didn't recommend any of the charges, including not just murder but reckless homicide and negligent homicide.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

How freaking pathetic is it that there have been soooooooo many such police shootings that I had to look up "John Crawford III" to remember this very very tragic incident???

But I'm glad you brought him up, because his death shines a big fat spotlight on another disturbing premise: If someone has a firearm, then they are automatically deemed a threat to officers and subject to lethal force. This is disturbing for many reasons, but a couple that stand out is that 1 -- We have a right to bear arms to defend and protect ourselves; but rather than respecting that right, it is now being declared just cause to kill us in cold blood. Not because the weapons were used inappropriately, but simply because they might be used inappropriately. And 2 -- LEOs are also armed... but are presumed to be the "good guys" and are given a free pass even when they do use their weapons inappropriately. That's a very dangerous double standard.

In the big picture, research has shown that just a handful of officers are responsible for the vast majority of excessive force complaints (which would include shootings); and that the rot starts at the top where the head honchos allow this behavior. But it sure seems that LEOs are increasingly trained to view each and every one of us as a threat... perhaps even as the enemy. But we are told to view each and every officer as above suspicion.... perhaps even above the law. It would seem LE no longer serves the public, but expects the public to serve them. Another very dangerous double standard.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Excellent read on the common LEO's discrimination against our Second Amendment rights, Bo.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

and yet no one and no recording devices present show the officer pull a gun from his bag. Nothing shows the officer hiding the gun to get it to the car. Nothing shows the officer concealing something / anything the size of the revolver in question. Nothing shows the officer planting the gun in the car.

Dashcam, surveillance footage and a persons cell phone recording are now unreliable?

The guy was on parole for illegal weapons possession / drug possession. The judge makes a logical argument based on his experience that a drug deal doesnt do their jobs unarmed.

The officer did not plant the gun.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Did the officer follow SOP after the shooting?



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you! That's one of those times when I had a hard time putting my thoughts into words... so I appreciate it



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

and yet no one and no recording devices present show the officer pull a gun from his bag. Nothing shows the officer hiding the gun to get it to the car. Nothing shows the officer concealing something / anything the size of the revolver in question. Nothing shows the officer planting the gun in the car.

Dashcam, surveillance footage and a persons cell phone recording are now unreliable?


Absence of evidence does not automatically equal absence of a crime -- and you know that.


The guy was on parole for illegal weapons possession / drug possession. The judge makes a logical argument based on his experience that a drug deal doesnt do their jobs unarmed.


And there it is... opinion now trumps evidence... to hell with Rule 404... he's guilty until proven innocent... so now everyone suspected of drug dealing MUST have a gun and MUST be a threat to LEOs and therefore have a big fat target on their back.

Who's next to be presumed guilty and executed on the spot by thugs with a gun and a badge? Hmmmm???

Further, unless and until there is evidence that Mr. Smith fired that weapon at officers, thus creating a direct and immediate threat to the officers, it's a moot point.


The officer did not plant the gun.


You sure don't know that. But it's quite instructive that you would presume the guilt of the dead guy that cannot defend himself, while presuming the innocence of the cop that killed him. Good to know.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I didn't say thats what did happen. I did not say I personally think the officer is innocent--or that I think he's guilty. I just said I think this is an entirely possible explanation. And 1 entirely possible alterrnate explanation is all it takes to introduce reasonable doubt. Thus he was found not guilty of the 1st degree murder charge.

Now the civil case didn't have to overcome reasonable doubt, only show preponderance of evidence. Thus, he lost the civil case. Which is why we have both types of suits.

I'm not defending or condemning the cop. Im defending the legal system.
edit on 17-9-2017 by riiver because: Typo gremlins again



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Did the officer follow SOP after the shooting?


You have a link to St. Louis Metros policy / procedure / guideline for us to review to answer your question?

secondly what does that have to do with what I posted?



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gryphon66


I was absolutely floored by the Judge committing to a statement like "all urban drug dealers carry weapons, so obviously, in this case, the suspect was carrying a weapon.'


Absolutely chilling. The judge basically declared a dead guy guilty -- and gets away with it only because dead men tell no tales. No opportunity to face his accusers, to bring his own witnesses, to provide evidence in his defense. Nope. No need for due process. No innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He's "guilty" because the judge said so... and therefore deserved to die.

And all while ignoring, minimizing and/or rationalizing away the very incriminating evidence against the LEO.

Absolutely chilling.


due process applies to the defendant. In this case an officer.

When you attempt to kill police while trying to flee you open the door for the use of deadly force. All the guy had to do was stop and comly with the lawful traffic stop.

He did not and the results of that decision rest with the suspect and not the officer.

As for your second amendment comment -
A convicted felon cannot posses a firearm. Scotus has upheld these laws and they dont violate the 2nd amendment. The suspect in this case was out on parole from... wait for it.. illegal drug possession and illegal weapons possession.

Missouri law leans heavily in favor of individual gun rights. You dont have to have a ccw to open carry (contrary to what KC and STL says). You dont have to have a ccw to conceal a weapon on your person anymore either. Missouri does not register handguns.

so im not sure what you are bitching about with regards to the 2nd amendment.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Did the officer follow SOP after the shooting?


You have a link to St. Louis Metros policy / procedure / guideline for us to review to answer your question?

secondly what does that have to do with what I posted?


I am calling on your stated expertise. Answer or not.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

As for your second amendment comment -
A convicted felon cannot posses a firearm. Scotus has upheld these laws and they dont violate the 2nd amendment. The suspect in this case was out on parole from... wait for it.. illegal drug possession and illegal weapons possession.


May we quote you on that in the future when the shoe is on the other foot?

Are you sure you don't want to focus on the words "shall not be infringed" here, as usual?




top topics



 
31
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join