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: 24
31
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver

Edit to add: I agree with the poster who questioned that charge earlier--1st degree was always gonna be nearly impossible to make stick. Its entirely possible that it was just a show for the populace. Or maybe we have an overzealous prosecutor with an agenda who really thought he could make it stick. Could be either, neither, or something in between. I dont know anything about the prosecutor so can't form a valid opinion. But I do agree that a 1st degree charge, if he/she really wanted a conviction, was insane.




posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver

Or perhaps, an overestimation of the value of the Officer's recorded "going to kill this [expletive], don't you know it" during the car chase.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
due process applies to the defendant. In this case an officer.


Well, yeah... can't press charges against a dead guy, eh? A dead guy who is dead because the officer denied him his due process rights by playing judge, jury and executioner on the spot.


When you attempt to kill police while trying to flee...


There you go again... presuming the guilt of the dead guy. You don't know what he was attempting to do beyond fleeing the police. And while the possibility was there -- especially given the officers' movements which were beyond the driver's knowledge and control -- it does not necessarily equal intent.


...you open the door for the use of deadly force.


But it didn't kill the officers and the guy fled and was no longer a direct and immediate threat to them. It does not give officers carte blanche to chase him down and kill him. The objective should ALWAYS be to bring him in alive and let him have his day in court.


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.


He's dead. He no longer poses any threat to anyone -- if he ever did. And the dead guy's bad behavior does not in any way excuse the bad behavior of the LEO. Who is now the one we have to worry about. Because he's not dead.


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.


As far as my second amendment comment, I was referring specifically to the John Crawford III public execution -- NOT Mr. Smith's public execution. However, as it does apply in Mr. Smith's case, unless and until I see proof that Mr. Smith used that weapon to fire upon the officers, thus endangering their lives and justifying lethal self-defense, it's a moot point.


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.


I flat out don't believe you. I think you know damn well what I'm bitching about. Again and again you have presumed Mr. Smith guilty because he allegedly had a weapon, with no evidence that he ever used that weapon against the officers.... I don't give a rats patootie how "heavily in favor" of gun rights Missouri leans if that right is going to be used to put a big fat target on their backs.

At some point it might be a very effective way for the state to eliminate anyone with the means and the will to refuse to comply and defy the tyranny of government....



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I honestly don't know many of the details of this case, and of course your statement here is true.

But wouldn't this cop have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

So if it accurate none of these videos show these things, doesn't that seem to be a reasonable doubt?

Or maybe there was tampering with the videos or something
edit on 17-9-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Let's take a bit of a different tactic here.

Can anyone understand the anger of the Black citizens of St. Louis in this case and in the other similar cases?

Remembering this ... while it's easy to look at these cases of Black men being shot by LEOs as occasional happenings, perhaps even justified per the letter of the law, the position of the Black community is that they are ALWAYS treated differently by law enforcement and the criminal justice system at large, and there are valid reasons for them to feel that way in general.

I'm interested to see if anyone can walk a few feet at least in their shoes ....
edit on 17-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.


Doesn't even have to be a firearm. Could be a BB gun, a remote control, or anything else somehow mistaken for a gun.

The shooting of Castille who had a CCW was another one that people reached so very far trying to justify the murder of someone allegedly stopped for a tail light issue and doing nothing wrong, but also (while not telling the victim) allegedly for superficial similarities to a robbery suspect.

Some people have to play under different rules than others.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ssure I understand anger. That does not justify rioting though.

I also think that although the perception is of unarmed blacks being shot by the police more often, the facts actually show unarmed whites are more likely to be shot.

Given that, can you understand people getting angry at people rioting or making it a racial issue?



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You didn't even dip your toe in. You're arguing not empathizing.

Thanks for your answer.
edit on 17-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You didn't even dip your toe in. You're arguing not empathizing.

Thanks for your answer.


You also are not empathizing with those tired of these riots. Nor did you dispute that the facts show unarmed whites are more likely to be shot.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Can someone find the broadcastify for the location in this article where it states the riots are welcomed and expected to happen?

20th and Olive at the Police Department, they were to gather in protest 2 hours ago?

www.usatoday.com...

EDIT, ok check this out with me if you want, I am going back to watch the video on the link of the protests at the PD 2 hours agao
www.stltoday.com... 5c-a6c2-84d50c6bbdfc.html
edit on pm930pmSun, 17 Sep 2017 17:54:48 -0500 by antar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You forgot to tell him how we are INTELLIGENTLY apathetic ,not to UPHOLD unarmed white thugs getting shot, when they have a GIANT arrest record.
ALL recitative, violent ,felons should be KILLED on sight as far as I care ,regardless of RACE, creed OR origin..
edit on 17-9-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)


THIS was GREAT, I don't care who the thugs were ...
usnewsinsider.com...


edit on 17-9-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
OK what I dont get are all these bored preppy kids going in holding black lives matter signs. Oh and they are usually and in this case mostly white (I am from the 70s so I sometimes forget we have to state what color people are when referring to humans) yet the rowdy ones that come out at night would most likely jump these white privileged preppies.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Timeline of events


www.stltoday.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yep.

Time for a new RIOT ACT.

No protests after sundown and wearing a mask to a protest should be a first degree felony.


Totally agree with you on this because anyone wearing a mask to a "peaceful, lawful" protest is up to no good. Obviously. It should be illegal.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler


I honestly don't know many of the details of this case, and of course your statement here is true.

But wouldn't this cop have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

So if it accurate none of these videos show these things, doesn't that seem to be a reasonable doubt?

Or maybe there was tampering with the videos or something


That's the point I've been trying to make.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
www.pscp.tv...

live coverage at the moment



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You responded to a post I made requesting an attempt at an empathic response to what Black Americans tell us that they're going through. Instead, you want to tell me that riots aren't acceptable. Not only do I know that, it's not the point of my request. I didn't respond to your random insertion of another statistic because it's irrelevant to what I tried to get across.

However, as a matter of fact, regarding my thoughts about the matter, your assumption is completely mistaken. I'm fully aware of why the protests turned riots are a significant problem for all of us. I'm appalled that any Americans have been pushed to the point of desperation wherein they feel like that kind of ... barbarism ... is the only way they have left to get their point across. I'm utterly saddened that, of course, rioting has the opposite effect and pushes more people away from whatever slight empathy they might feel with their situation.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yet you ignore that the FACTS show unarmed whites are more likely to be shot by the police.

So the barbarism as you call it it not only unjust, but being done based on a lie.

I do sympathize with black people, who thanks to politicians, media members and cultural figures believe the lie that unarmed black men are targeted to be killed by the police.

However, many black people don't believe this lie, and many of the worst rioters or loudmouth are privleged whites.
edit on 17-9-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yet you ignore that the FACTS show unarmed whites are more likely to be shot by the police.

So the barbarism as you call it it not only unjust, but being done based on a lie.

I do sympathize with black people, who thanks to politicians, media members and cultural figures believe the lie that unarmed black men are targeted to be killed by the police.

However, many black people don't believe this lie, and many of the worst rioters or loudmouth are privleged whites.


I ignored that little factoid (pointedly NOT a fact, btw) because it had nothing to do with the statement of mine you choose to respond to (and then patently IGNORE.)

Yet, you are so inexplicably PROUD that you can quote a statistic in the face of your fellow Americans that you seem to think elevates you and your position above theirs. They are led around by the media and the politicians, while you can see "the truth" so clearly?

BS.

First of all your statistic is nothing to be happy about, even if it were factually and contextually correct. Why are you excited that our law-enforcement officers year after year continue to serve as judge-jury-and-executioner??? You don't see a problem with that because you think some random stat makes you "more right" than someone else?

How pathetic.

The truth of the matter is that in almost every vector we care to look at, Black Americans are DISPROPORTIONATELY targeted by LEOs and the judicial system. Those statistics you're so proud of that you can't stop squawking it like a neurotic parrot?

23%-25% are Black men despite the fact that they are about 6-7% of the population. For the last three years in a row. Source

So, no I didn't address your stat because a) it's not related to my statement and b) it's not true, neither directly or in context. Yet, making that point with you will go on post after post and page after page because your posts will obsess over some minor semantic twist that you choose to focus on.

Not playing. You're mistaken. Moving on.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I will link the study tomorrow, when I have my computer, but you know it.

The best study that has looked into this showed that unarmed blacks are less likely to be shot than unarmed whites. The study was done a Harvard professor that was shocked to find this.

The reason that a 23 percent are black men is that black men commit almost 50 percent of most violent crime, despite being only 6 percent of the population. I know you desperately want to believe that every time a cop shoots someone they are a murderer, but that's not the case.

The fact is cops are more likely to have violent confrontations with people that are violent criminals. So there are bound to be a lot of high intensity ecounters with a 6 percent group that commits around 50 percent of violent crimes.

And as the study shows, the police suprisingly are less likely to shoot unarmed black men.

I did express my sympathy with black people that are being lied to and manipulated.

Let me ask you though, do you sympathize with people that believe in white genocide? Of they rioted and burnt down cities would you post asking for sympathy for them?

Of course not, because you believe their complaint is based on a lie.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join