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.

 

Another democratic run city in flames:

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The church sign with BLM message surrounded by car fires in your pic has been one of the most progressive christian churches in the country for 150 years (though several different buildings I think).

Not one of my usual haunts, but I really wish these left wing idiots knew what they just did.

That church was one of first non segregated churches in the country that invited blacks to serve in any role BEFORE the civil war, did the same for women around 100 years ago I think, and then doing the same for gays around 50 years ago. Almost first in the nation kind of stuff, and much of it technically illegal at the time.

It was a part of the underground railroad helping escaped southern slaves escape to Canada. Has a sister church in Racine.

There was actually a famous incident at the Racine church around that time. A long free escaped southern slave living in Racine and attending that church was kidnapped by southern bounty hunters.

Most of the townsfolk grabbed their rifles and walked to the Racine county jail where the bounty hunters were expected to keep him.

Someone snitched and the bounty hunters took him to Milwaukee jail instead. One of the townsfolk commandeered a good size boat and the mob went to Milwaukee, arriving just before dawn.

Nobody seems to know for sure what happened next, but at some point the Milwaukee County sheriff walked the prisoner outside and released him to the Racine mob with zero violence committed by anyone.

The man was hidden in the basement of that Kenosha church (and several others nearby) until the townsfolk figured a way to smuggle him into Canada where I understand he had a fairly good and long life.

This is from memory 30+ years ago but I'm not making this up, I'm sure it can be verified online. His name was Joshua Glover, and he was a distant relative of the famous left wing actor.




posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I'm going to amend my earlier statement.
Cops should show up to domestic disputes..

What they shouldn't do is show up to any calls that involve people or people's darker than a caramel.
This way they will avoid oppressing or the image of oppression.
No need to risk a riot over a women being beaten by her man.
No need to risk a riot over theft.

We have enough martyrs of questionable ethics without creating any more.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Talk about negligent ignorance.

Unarmed is unarmed.........End of story.

"Manufactured outrage concerning law enforcement" are your eyes painted on??????

SleeperHasAwakened my backside !!!!!!!


You must not have been paying attention to what's been going on here over the past 3-4 months, although you're from Australia or somewhere else, so not surprising.

Contrary to what you wrongly believe, or what may or may not be legal doctrine in your country, US police have NO REQUIREMENT to wait until a criminal produces a weapon before firing on the suspect. The police generally go through a great deal of training, increasing all the time now, concerning how to judge when/if they should draw down on a suspect.

When a suspect is repeatedly ignoring lawful orders, resisting detainment and is engaging in behavior that could be deemed as threatening to the police or public, then the police are permitted to fire at their discretion.



Legal Limits on Deadly Force

The U.S. Supreme Court has verified that officers may open fire, knowing that shooting is likely to cause death or serious injury, when a suspect is:

Suspected of a "severe" crime,
Posing an immediate threat to officers, and
Actively resisting arrest.


Thankfully US law doesn't impede officers to wait until they see a suspect draw a weapon before they can fire, what kind of a stupid, dangerous policy would that be anyway. "Here, you go ahead an take the first shot bad guy, and if you miss, then I'm legally allowed to drop you"

If you as a suspect, are a known criminal, disobeying commands and reaching in a concealed place or trying to get behind the wheel of car, I would not expect restraint from officers.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Real time domestic dispute PLUS active felony warrant for another domestic dispute AND sexual assault at that SAME address a few months ago by the SAME suspect.

It looks like he may have also had a separate active bail jumping warrant.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Talk about negligent ignorance.

Unarmed is unarmed.........End of story.

"Manufactured outrage concerning law enforcement" are your eyes painted on??????

SleeperHasAwakened my backside !!!!!!!


You must not have been paying attention to what's been going on here over the past 3-4 months, although you're from Australia or somewhere else, so not surprising.

Contrary to what you wrongly believe, or what may or may not be legal doctrine in your country, US police have NO REQUIREMENT to wait until a criminal produces a weapon before firing on the suspect. The police generally go through a great deal of training, increasing all the time now, concerning how to judge when/if they should draw down on a suspect.

When a suspect is repeatedly ignoring lawful orders, resisting detainment and is engaging in behavior that could be deemed as threatening to the police or public, then the police are permitted to fire at their discretion.



Legal Limits on Deadly Force

The U.S. Supreme Court has verified that officers may open fire, knowing that shooting is likely to cause death or serious injury, when a suspect is:

Suspected of a "severe" crime,
Posing an immediate threat to officers, and
Actively resisting arrest.


Thankfully US law doesn't impede officers to wait until they see a suspect draw a weapon before they can fire, what kind of a stupid, dangerous policy would that be anyway. "Here, you go ahead an take the first shot bad guy, and if you miss, then I'm legally allowed to drop you"

If you as a suspect, are a known criminal, disobeying commands and reaching in a concealed place or trying to get behind the wheel of car, I would not expect restraint from officers.


Better get your crystal ball serviced.

As for the rest - therein lies the issues. No value for human life.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Where did you read he had priors and possible warrant? Even if he did have priors that doesn't mean jack.

What i have read from people in that city, he broke up a fight between two females. Some say he had kids in the car. Over three officers on scene but they can't de-escalate things,all they do is pull out sidearms on a UNARMED person. Those officers were looking for any excuse to shoot him.

I bet all the law enforcement boot lickers will be on the news defending the scared police officers actions. "He could of been reaching for a weapon" last i checked "could of" is not a valid excuse to use deadly force.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: aeroscrog

That's my point.
All this trouble from one couple at one address.

Let them sort it out.
The woman obviously enjoys the abuse and the excitement or she would have filed a restraining order long ago.




posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Echo007

Actually reaching or the appearance of reaching for a weapon is a valid reason to use deadly force.
That's been proven in court multiple times.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Echo007

Search google for 'wisconsin circuit court access' and follow the prompts. Enter his name, click search and you get a list of cases. Can drill down from there.

Like I said though, not a lot of priors of any significance until May of this year for domestic & sex assault, but for those he had ACTIVE felony warrant and the crime was committed at the same address as where he was shot yesterday.

Honestly nothing to indicate he was anything other than a decent guy (and that isn't unusual in Kenosha, good people) until May of this year.

That site is really wonky if you aren't familiar with it, I can assist if needed - for example when you drill down to the case activity you'll see a code near the warrant that means it was send to the sheriff l, but the code that would show that the warrant had cleared is missing (you wouldn't necessarily know that unless familiar with their weird system. Mostly intuitive though.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
So is this just gonna be the new normal? Some # bag gets shot being a # bag and everyone else has to suffer for it at the hands of uneducated angry troglodytes?


No of course not.

We're going to make protesting in the streets illegal eventually because of all this.

It's coming soon.

Tons of changes are.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Echo007

Actually reaching or the appearance of reaching for a weapon is a valid reason to use deadly force.
That's been proven in court multiple times.


God judges and knows every heart.

Sometimes the deadly force is justified sometimes it's not.

Only God knows.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Check out the peaceful protesters bricking the threatening (walking away back to his car) policeman.

Bunch of savages.




posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Echo007

Actually reaching or the appearance of reaching for a weapon is a valid reason to use deadly force.
That's been proven in court multiple times.


God judges and knows every heart.

Sometimes the deadly force is justified sometimes it's not.

Only God knows.


In court god is irrelevant.
You can deal with him after you die.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: UFO1414
Check out the peaceful protesters bricking the threatening (walking away back to his car) policeman.

Bunch of savages.




Yet they expect him to show up when they call...
Haha haha...

No way in hell.


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: CthruU
Newsflash -

Until the victim actually holds a firearm and threatens someone by pointing it he is UNARMED.

Do police no longer know how to aprehend alleged offenders.

This is Grevious bodily harm or even attempted murder at a bare minimum.....perhaps even soon to be murder.

Police attitudes especially of late make me sick.

Another copper heading to jail. Eventually.


HOW ABOUT LISTENING TO AND OBEYING THE COP'S ORDERS!



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Echo007

Actually reaching or the appearance of reaching for a weapon is a valid reason to use deadly force.
That's been proven in court multiple times.


God judges and knows every heart.

Sometimes the deadly force is justified sometimes it's not.

Only God knows.


In court god is irrelevant.
You can deal with him after you die.


I know the Truth is irrelevant in court.
It's all about paperwork and $$$ to them.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

This is Darwinism.

We should just let this play out and the gene pool will eventually eliminate humans with the defect that makes them unable to understand the Police while having guns pointed at them.
edit on 24-8-2020 by SKEPTEK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Democrats riding the hog again !! 😆



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:52 AM
link   
It’s just a strange tendency to just shoot people no matter what they do? How does that work?

And why is our homicide rates and police killings are higher than place where police don’t carry guns.

They still have domestic disturbance calls don’t they, heck countries with triple the amount of people, the police don’t need to shoot to solve problems. ?

The almighty gun!

I love it.

So, as far as we know, no one would be dead had the police not been on the scene.



posted on Aug, 24 2020 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

This is Darwinism.

We should just let this play out and the gene pool will eventually eliminate humans with the defect that makes them unable to understand the Police while having guns pointed at them.



Nice edit...




top topics



 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join