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: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


you give only biased opinions


Not really. I give facts, then give my opinion on the facts. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them biased. I've never had a problem saying when I think a LEO has done something wrong.


what proof are you claiming


The video you refuse to watch.


why would you claim that some film that is too dark to make determinations to be proof?


How would you know what the video shows when you refuse to watch it?


that is the claim that it was very low light and that is why they could not see the WHITE cell phone


Okay.


i am bout truth not your biased speculation


Then stop reading it.


there is still no 100% proof that stephon was the one jumping fences


Sure there is. In the video you refuse to watch.


GIMME TRUTH by your word i demand it


Who cares what you demand? You want to see what happened, watch the video.




posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


first off sham you are using the wrong quote button in responses to members

you would be wise to use the one labeled for ats members. 4th from the right

seems that someone with such a keen eye would know this since all your investigative skills. you havebeen doing this for some time.




Then don't demand proof when the proof has been posted and you refuse to look at it.




Who cares what you demand?

make up your mind

you have failed to answer the question of relevance of the video when the claim is that it was too dark for the officers to see the white cell phone. so why or how would it help now to claim it proves anything.

you still not answer about the claimed weapon (crowbar) that has yet to be found.

That shows that it is possible someone ran off with it after they broke windows.

The helicopter footage has blank spots in the action that show it is possible there was someone else involved and that it is very possible stephon was at the front of his grandmas house the whole time until spooked by a death squad.

You still have not answered my question of do you think the officers were justified.

Do you think stephon broke the windows?


edit on 2-4-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


first off sham you are using the wrong quote button in responses to members


Cool, man.


make up your mind


The two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Don't demand something you refuse to look at, because then nobody cares what you demand. Pretty simple.


you have failed to answer the question of relevance of the video when the claim is that it was too dark for the officers to see the white cell phone. so why or how would it help now to claim it proves anything.


The video is relevant for self explanatory reasons. Since you refuse to watch it, those reasons escape you.


you still not answer about the claimed weapon (crowbar) that has yet to be found.


You didn't ask me.


That shows that it is possible someone ran off with it after they broke windows.


It doesn't "show" anything other than a crowbar wasn't found.


The helicopter footage has blank spots in the action that show it is possible there was someone else involved and that it is very possible stephon was at the front of his grandmas house the whole time until spooked by a death squad.


So you HAVE watched the video after all?


You still have not answered my question of do you think the officers were justified.


You should use the reply button if you want to direct a comment or question towards a member. It's the first on the right.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

weaker and weaker

why do you even bother?

there are two videos and if you actually read my reply you would know i was referencing the helicopter video
i do not watch your murder porn.

you still skip the questions i asked but you have that right.

you do seem to be claiming that the shooting was justified.

Is that your stance?



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

i do not watch your murder porn.


So you want to argue the evidence without reviewing all the evidence?



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


there are two videos and if you actually read my reply you would know i was referencing the helicopter video i do not watch your murder porn


So you're arguing about what's in video footage that you haven't bothered to watch. Cool.


you still skip the questions i asked but you have that right.


I know.


you do seem to be claiming that the shooting was justified.


Claiming? No. Implying? Possible.


Is that your stance?


Is it?



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




So you're arguing about what's in video footage that you haven't bothered to watch. Cool.


Nope i am stating facts you are the one circle jerking the thread for jollies.

Again and again how does footage of darkness prove anything

Are there any points that the footage shows that need to be highlighted for the readers in order to come to a definitive conclusion?

[SNIP]
edit on 4/2/2018 by eriktheawful because: Edited out rude comment



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: howtonhawky

i do not watch your murder porn.


So you want to argue the evidence without reviewing all the evidence?


The video is not evidence or else a conclusion could be reached from it.

The video only proves that there was not enough light for the officers to make the determination that the white cell phone was not a gun.

If it proved anything or if anyone had a valid point then surely for the sake of Sacramento they would bring it to the thread.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
The video is not evidence or else a conclusion could be reached from it.


And you know this because you watched it?



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


Nope i am stating facts you are the one circle jerking the thread for jollies.


Facts gleaned from somewhere other than the video, apparently.


Again and again how does footage of darkness prove anything


You don't know what's in the footage since you won't watch it.


Are there any points that the footage shows that need to be highlighted for the readers in order to come to a definitive conclusion?


I'm not going to "highlight" footage you refuse to watch.


We already know the answer is no or else your mind would be made up and you have stated it is not so therefore you are just circle jerking the thread


Kindly leave me out of whatever masturbatory fetish you seem to have.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

So you have no facts just and you are here to b.s..

Glad you got that covered.

How bout you quit wrecking the discussion with you nonsense.

I am very open and willing to hear any facts you have concerning this case.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: howtonhawky
The video is not evidence or else a conclusion could be reached from it.


And you know this because you watched it?


I know this cause i read.

Are you claiming that one can come to a definitive conclusion by watching the film that is too dark to make anything out?

[SNIP]
edit on 4/2/2018 by eriktheawful because: Edited out rude comment



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
I know this cause i read.


That's nice.


Are you claiming that one can come to a definitive conclusion by watching the film that is too dark to make anything out?


I'm not claiming anything, that'd be you who refuses to review the evidence you're making claims about.


Or perhaps you are here with your buddy for the circle jerk yall are pulling.


He's not my buddy, I don't like cops.


(post by howtonhawky removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


Not the video I was referring to.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


So you have no facts just and you are here to b.s..


Aside from all the ones I've already presented, you mean?


How bout you quit wrecking the discussion with you nonsense.


You said you weren't here for my "speculation" but you seem to enjoy engaging with me a lot. At this point the discussion is basically just you trying to argue about video you refuse to watch, and you've decided to argue with somebody who's actually watched it. That seems pretty nonsensical.


I am very open and willing to hear any facts you have concerning this case.


Then go read them again.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Do me a favor and do not come and start lying about me.

I am not refusing to review evidence.

The video is not worth the watch cause it is too dark.

It only proves the cops were in the wrong cause the perp had a white cell phone they claimed was a gun.

Not many perps out there sporting white cell phone guns.


I have listened to the audio.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




Aside from all the ones I've already presented, you mean?


By all means please present them now.

Honestly and respectfully you have messed all over the thread and it would be expedient for all if you just could give a "professional recap" as to why you can not say if the cops murdered the man.




edit on 2-4-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Do me a favor and do not come and start lying about me.


It's lying to say you admitted to not watching the video?


I am not refusing to review evidence.


By not watching the video?


The video is not worth the watch cause it is too dark.


So you didn't watch the video but are saying it's a lie to say you didn't watch the video?


It only proves the cops were in the wrong cause the perp had a white cell phone they claimed was a gun.


And you know this because you watched the video?



I have listened to the audio.


You do know that a video consists of moving images, right?



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




It's lying to say you admitted to not watching the video?


no
you presented the claim as if i refused all evidence
i just wanted to clarify that i have reviewed all the evidence i can legitimately make a determination on.




You do know that a video consists of moving images, right?


this video really only consist of blurs and darkness
edit on 2-4-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join