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.

 

Unarmed man killed by Sacramento police shot 8 times

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari


Pathetic... are you just star trolling today then.


Today?

Lol




posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

"To be Fair I am a murderer apologist bootlicker"

fixed it for you



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX

Oop, came at me with the name calling. Damn, can't top that.

Again, sorry that presenting facts supported by evidence is so triggering for you and others. Have a better day



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: howtonhawky
abc



"He was shot in the back six times. The seventh gunshot wound was slightly to the side of his body but to the back of the side of his body," Omalu said during the news conference. "Each one of these bullets independently possessed a fatal capacity."


so the helicoptor crew claim to have seen him break a window. the ground crew muted their cameras during the event at one point. That is conspiracy.

So in this day and age ceaser deems it acceptable to shoot unarmed unrepentant sinners in the back.

I just can't believe this mess.

I am believing now that in a year or two these officers may get fired just as we seen such swift justice with alton steerling case.

I think ceaser needs to be gaddafied

can anyone say murder?



I also noticed when I brought up that the first bullet of 8 could have spun him around, you edited your OP to not include that 8 bullets struck him.

Pathetic... are you just star trolling today then.


you can cram your stars

there were only seven bulletts

the first was in the neck

at the time you were speaking of i was looking at different articles of which some say 8 and some say 7

so what is your real point here



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 04:07 PM
link   
So did you guys determine who was guilty yet?

Wild guess: some people blame the cops, others blame the unarmed guy because he did something illegal.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Harpua

it is not a matter of determining guilt.

it is a matter of pushing back against a system that has shown to protect cops under the majority of questionable circumstances. over and over



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Harpua

it is not a matter of determining guilt.

it is a matter of pushing back against a system that has shown to protect cops under the majority of questionable circumstances. over and over


I applaud the effort and am honestly shocked that people don't seem to get it. I get that cops get the benefit of the doubt, but its seems like 1 in a 100 of these situations results in someone getting fired, lets alone going to jail.

The odds seem skewed considering this is would be a natural place for abusive people to look for employment.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   
According to the report published by the local newspaper, the “Sacramento Bee”, Dr. Omalu’s autopsy concluded that 8 bullets actually hit Mr. Clark; the first bullet struck him on his left side, toward his back, indicating that, contrary to the initial police claims, he was facing away from the police and not advancing toward them.

The first bullet appears to have spun Clark’s body to the right. Five additional entry wounds to the body can be seen on the right side of the mid-back in the diagram presented at Dr. Omalu’s presentation. A sixth bullet entered the right side of Clark’s neck.

According to the autopsy, any one of these wounds would have been sufficient to kill Mr. Clark.

An eighth, and final bullet struck the victim’s left thigh, apparently either as he was falling or once he had fallen.

8 hits, 6 of them potentially fatal, into the back of an unarmed man, out of 20 shots fired.

That is not the level of professionalism we should expect of the police.

And god help us if we expect our teachers to do better in the defense of our school kids while ACTUALLY being fired upon by a shooter with a semi-automatic!
edit on 31-3-2018 by Bhadhidar because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2018 by Bhadhidar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar




And god help us if we expect our teachers to do better in the defense of our school kids while ACTUALLY being fired upon by a shooter with a semi-automatic!

The unarmed man was shot by two shooters with 'semiautomatics'.
They probably had a dozen more rounds (between them) to fire before they would have needed to reload.
Just saying.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Bhadhidar




And god help us if we expect our teachers to do better in the defense of our school kids while ACTUALLY being fired upon by a shooter with a semi-automatic!

The unarmed man was shot by two shooters with 'semiautomatics'.
They probably had a dozen more rounds (between them) to fire before they would have needed to reload.
Just saying.


Two trained police officers, with semiautomatics, which they are required to practice with regularly, fired a total of 20 rounds a an unarmed man, standing (per the autopsy report), not moving or returning their fire, and less than fifty feet away.

And they only hit him 8 times out of the 20 rounds fired.

That’s an accuracy of less than 50%.

Yet many on these boards somehow believe that teachers should be allowed to carry weapons into the classroom to protect their students.

Can we honestly expect armed teachers, who are actually under fire from a school shooter, to have better shooting skills than trained officers firing on an unarmed man, alone, in his grandma’s backyard?

And how many more students would be killed or injured by their teacher’s “stray shots” (assuming that a teacher is as good an aim as a trained police officer)?



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Works pretty well here in Canada. Very, very rarely are people shot or killed by police. Possibly because police don't have practically a guarantee that the perp is carrying a gun...



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

“Required to practice regularly” is wildly inaccurate. Law enforcement is required to qualify, in many cases, as few as once a year. Many agencies it’s once a quarter.

And practice outside of qualification day, or assignment to a specialized unit, is typically entirely on the officer to do and pay for.

30% accuracy is the norm for a law enforcement shooting when the officers are not actively taking return fire.

Finally, the officers claimed they shot because he advanced on them. They have not claimed they only fired while he was facing them. Video shows the first rounds were fired as he was moving towards them around a table and they continued to fire as he turned and fell.

He was not facing away from them when they opened fire.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Why is the practice requirements so inadequate?

Considering the firearm is literally the most important line of defense for an officer why is there so little in the way of training for using these weapons ?



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: hombero
a reply to: projectvxn

Works pretty well here in Canada. Very, very rarely are people shot or killed by police. Possibly because police don't have practically a guarantee that the perp is carrying a gun...


Maybe you can also explain to us lowly Americans what differences there are between the US and Canada that may contribute to this.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Bhadhidar




And god help us if we expect our teachers to do better in the defense of our school kids while ACTUALLY being fired upon by a shooter with a semi-automatic!

The unarmed man was shot by two shooters with 'semiautomatics'.
They probably had a dozen more rounds (between them) to fire before they would have needed to reload.
Just saying.


Two trained police officers, with semiautomatics, which they are required to practice with regularly, fired a total of 20 rounds a an unarmed man, standing (per the autopsy report), not moving or returning their fire, and less than fifty feet away.

And they only hit him 8 times out of the 20 rounds fired.

That’s an accuracy of less than 50%.

Yet many on these boards somehow believe that teachers should be allowed to carry weapons into the classroom to protect their students.

Can we honestly expect armed teachers, who are actually under fire from a school shooter, to have better shooting skills than trained officers firing on an unarmed man, alone, in his grandma’s backyard?

And how many more students would be killed or injured by their teacher’s “stray shots” (assuming that a teacher is as good an aim as a trained police officer)?


I just have to ask... how many of these teachers have had to pursue the school shooter over multiple back yard fences in their classroom in the dark with a helicopter flying around in the room?

I have to give you a hats off to the worst comparison of events in ... this century?

If you actually want some real information, let's go to the 12 states where the teachers and faculty members are already allowed to concealed carry and ask the teachers how hard the situation was for them.

Oh wait... you can't because a school shooting hasn't occurred in any of those states.

You can call it a coincidence, if it makes you sleep better at night.



posted on Mar, 31 2018 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

The evidence he didn't have a Gun, was standing in his grandmother's backyard, no "Proof" he was committing any "Crimes", not being aggressive, not "running" at the police, shot at 20 times, hit in the back...


that Proof?



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




He was not facing away from them when they opened fire.


do you have some sort of proof or are you just killing time bssing while you digest your doughnuts

if you have proof then you should spread the word to folks that are causing much strife cause a doctor says you are wrong.



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: Shamrock6

The evidence he didn't have a Gun, was standing in his grandmother's backyard, no "Proof" he was committing any "Crimes", not being aggressive, not "running" at the police, shot at 20 times, hit in the back...


that Proof?


to be fair they are claiming that the chopper has him on film breaking winders and supposedly they relayed that info to the ground before the shooting.

still no cause to shoot or kill



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: hombero
a reply to: projectvxn

Works pretty well here in Canada. Very, very rarely are people shot or killed by police. Possibly because police don't have practically a guarantee that the perp is carrying a gun...


Maybe you can also explain to us lowly Americans what differences there are between the US and Canada that may contribute to this.

i can
just go to google and begin to type

how many guns do

at that point you will see auto fill your ass with americans

then begin to spell out

canad

watch as your google box begins to smoke



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


I seem to have stepped in some mud while out working on the garden, can you possibly lick my boots clean?




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join