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.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.
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.
originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: DBCowboy
Time for a new RIOT ACT.
No protests after sundown and wearing a mask to a protest should be a first degree felony.
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
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.