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.

 

Yes, Antwon Rose probably got what he deserved

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: underwerks



No...but his choices earned him the result


true.

i wonder if there will be any protests in the name of the other kid he helped murder... probably not.
edit on 23-6-2018 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Not saying that at all. Even more amazing are anti-gun leftists (like you've said before on here) who now ignore this incident (the part where Rose was involved in a shooting second before fleeing officers)



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Wrong. They left *some* guns in the car. Who knows what other guns he had? What is known is that he was involved in a vicious shooting attack SECONDS before fleeing police. In PA, threat or no threat, this permits officers to defend the community by immediately putting the threat DOWN.

And threat Antwon Rose was PUT DOWN properly in accordance with law.
edit on 6/23/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: underwerks

More than that THE OFFICER WAS NOT IN DANGER..


Assuming the PD’s story is 100% accurate. They left the guns in the car..


They made a conscious decision NOT to have a shootout with the officers..

So it absolutely WAS NOT the officer or suspect..


The only threat to the officer was in his own head.

I agree. And here we are with people trying to justify shooting a running man in the back.

It must be Saturday.



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

You should read PA State law, and then get back to us.

Further, 99% the body cam will refute the rioter's narrative entirely. 99%! So why not wait until that evidence is released before assuming the officer is in the wrong vs. the provable violent criminal who was *armed*

Aren't you leftists outraged he had a gun? Or is that only when white Christians have guns that you've got a problem with it?



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Yep, justifying it 100%. PA state law permits dangerous and fleeing criminals to be put down to protect the public.

Shouldn't have ran. Shouldn't have been involved in a shooting. Should have been an ACTUAL "good kid" like people are trying to paint him as. Not some junkie, criminal, violent piece of pond scum.

Yeah, the world is a safer place without this piece of crap.



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
JoshCox admits he had multiple weapons, but expects police to assume he left them all behind. Why would you ask police to gamble with innocent lives?

I'll take 100 dead criminals over 1 single INJURED innocent citizen any day of the week. Criminal lives don't matter.
edit on 6/23/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: underwerks

You should read PA State law, and then get back to us.

Further, 99% the body cam will refute the rioter's narrative entirely. 99%! So why not wait until that evidence is released before assuming the officer is in the wrong vs. the provable violent criminal who was *armed*

Aren't you leftists outraged he had a gun? Or is that only when white Christians have guns that you've got a problem with it?

If the body cam footage hasn’t been released, how are you sure it will vindicate the cop?

And I’m a proud supporter of the 2nd amendment, and a lifelong firearm collector. Mainly to keep the government from killing us citizens, like what you are supporting here.



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Because the circumstances you all admit to permit use of deadly force in PA.

Was he JUST involved in a felony? Was he *possibly* armed? Was he fleeing from police?

IF any of the above are true, then it was justified under PA law. Fleeing felons/armed criminals are SUCH A THREAT to the community, in PA at least, that shooting them on sight is legal and justified.

And this doesn't take into account any furtive movements by Antwon or threatening movements. Point is, I believe the POLICE OFFICER sworn to the protect the community not the CRIMINAL who was just involved in a shooting attack. Its called CREDIBILITY, get a thesaurus.



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: JBurns
No 17 year old deserves to be shot in the back as he’s running away.

It takes a gigantic POS to think that he does.


A 17 year old who was just trying to kill someone (allegedly), if true then no sympathy here, public service.
edit on 23-6-2018 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

No justification here, if the law was broken then the cop should face the consequences. If this 'victim' was just trying to kill people I am glad he's dead before he gets another chance.



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

That is common sense...



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: underwerks

Because the circumstances you all admit to permit use of deadly force in PA.

Was he JUST involved in a felony? Was he *possibly* armed? Was he fleeing from police?

IF any of the above are true, then it was justified under PA law. Fleeing felons/armed criminals are SUCH A THREAT to the community, in PA at least, that shooting them on sight is legal and justified.

And this doesn't take into account any furtive movements by Antwon or threatening movements. Point is, I believe the POLICE OFFICER sworn to the protect the community not the CRIMINAL who was just involved in a shooting attack. Its called CREDIBILITY, get a thesaurus.

Funny how easy it is to take away someone’s humanity with a label, huh?



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
JoshCox admits he had multiple weapons, but expects police to assume he left them all behind. Why would you ask police to gamble with innocent lives?

I'll take 100 dead criminals over 1 single INJURED innocent citizen any day of the week. Criminal lives don't matter.

The people who founded our country disagree with you.

“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.” -Benjamin Franklin



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Don't want to be labeled an animal don't act like one. Labels are only wrong if they don't fit.



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

And IF this person was just involved in what is claimed he is not innocent.



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

A) just because it is legal doesn’t make it right, necessary or moral..

B) EVERYTHING EXONERATES THE OFFICERS BECAUSE THE LAW IS BASED ON A SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT!!!!


The black cop who shot the Australian woman who was reporting a potential rape..

The officer who murded the sobbing guy in a hotel hallway..

The guy who told the cop he had a gun and a concealed carry permit then the cop shot him down..


There are 2 Supreme Court laws that make prosecuting a cop for an on the job shooting almost impossible..


Garner vs. Tennessee = a cop can shoot a fleeing suspect dead if he thinks he poses a threat to him or others.

Then another one I forget the name = established the cop cannot be judged by information after the fact..


So the prosecutor has to prove the cop didn’t feel threaded at the instant he shot.

Prove I don’t feel threatened by you right now lol..


It’s impossible.



C) i think about 99.9 % of the time the cop wasn’t planning on murdering anyone. Just made a bad call in the heat of the moment...

D) how can you be sure he did make motions like he had a gun???


Lol. define what an objective motion looks like that means you have a gun lol...

So these kids had guns, but chose not to use them. Then pretended to have guns when they didn’t?!?!

That makes sense.. lol
edit on 23-6-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I'm here and staying away from there..
Last night at the ball game blocking people from going home.
Video of car trying to get by met with resistance.


Car Drives Through Crowd Outside PNC Park Protesting Over The Killing Of Antwon Rose By East Pittsburgh Police Officer

pittsburgh.cbslocal.com...

Not all the facts are in yet per Zapppala, but it's not looking good for Antwon Rose.
Zappala made mention recently of video from a port authority bus.

I knew you'd start a thread eventually


Sounds to me he was involved in nefarious activities per this poem.
www.wtae.com...

Honestly believe he was trying to get out of whatever he was involved in..
And where is the father? County police went to question him and he's missing.

To the protesters illegally gathering . they dispersed when told. 4 arrested but they left.
Had to laugh on Thursday night on the parkway east protest, the guy and woman on the motorcycle towards the end were undercover police... notice how the drew the crowd foward and then got them down to the offramp


Edit: the "lady" arrested on the parkway went to county jail... but they could not KEEP HIM because there is no way to facilitate him in jail. Per per my neighbor who is a lieutenant there at the jail. So they released him/her and drove him back home.
[
edit on 23-6-2018 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Please do not think you are the one who knows what is right with america . The person responsible is the one who was shot . bad choices have bad results . It is very easy to look at the situation after it is over . You were not there and you are not the officer who was called .



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

The anti gun leftists , all 5 of them, don’t think anyone but the officer should have been armed lol?!?!


And that is exactly what your saying EVERYTIME you defend an unarmed police shooting..


If the person was unarmed the officer wasn’t being threatened..

That means the threat was just in the officers head and he killed them “just in case” they have a gun..





Call me crazy but the policy should be for the officer to draw and aim , basically whenever he feels like it but he can’t squeeze until he has confirmed they are armed and resisting.

Once they are confirmed to be resisting and armed.. done. Do what you gotta..


But I don’t think it is ok to sacrifice 5 innocent people to save one officer..



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join