It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Vancouver police shoot, kill man - Then DELETE witness video

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:03 PM
Most people here don't need the Myth Busters to tell them how dangerous a bullet in the air is and I never mentioned anything of the sort. If there is not a safe place to dispense a round then firing four shots is outright absurd. Bullets don't magically stop when they hit a body (or miss) so by your logic police simply shouldn't carry guns in populated areas (I'm fine with that). In my area if the police try and pull over a stolen vehicle and it takes off they are not even allowed to pursue it. Some things are just not worth the risk to the public. I can't for the life of me figure out how four rounds in the body are statistically less lethal than one in the leg. In fact if the officers had shot the victim in the leg and he died anyway, then the argument of excessive force wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, the officers would have received undue praise from the public and this thread might not even exist.

Call me assuming but I would think that firing a warning shot into the ground is far less likely to cause a fatality than four rounds into a person.

At any rate police these days are a danger to the public. In Canada they get 6 months of training. That is less than plumbers, electricians and almost any other trade. How does that make sense? There are 140 offices in my town and the average age is 24 years old. This means that they have few life skills and they grew up in a time of deteriorating mentorship and social values. Its no wonder they screw up like this.

posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 11:38 PM
reply to post by dainoyfb

In the US if an officer fires a warning shot he will loose his job. Its called misuse of a firearm and endangering the populace. Any time a weapon is fired, a report must be written and it is investigated and every round must be accounted for. You had better actualy need to fire the weapon and it had better be in the direction of a culprit that is threatening you or another unarmed citizen with bodily harm!

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:15 AM
I know at least one persons already said this, but the file isn't actually deleted, it's still on the memory until something is written over it, there just isn't a reference to the file anymore. So as long as he hasn't save a heap of new files on his phone it should be very easy to recover the file. I'll be watching out on youtube for this one, I really hope his at least made an attempt to recover the data.

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:24 AM
My daughter was a witness to this. She told me that the police did not yell repeatedly for the man to drop the exacto blade. She also said he did not run at them before he was shot 3 times.

She took off with her friends before anyone realized they'd seen what happened...they were followed by several reporters though to their residence right around the corner.

This happened right outside Belkin House which is a shelter. makes me sick to think that police are acting above their training in dealing with low level criminals. exacto vs gun???? What about tazers or are those too tabu now to be used to incapacitate a knife wielding suspect?

maybe instead of T-Shirts saying "Don't taze me Bro!" they should read "Don't shoot me Bro!"

I hate that my daughter at only 20 had to witness this violence not to mention the cover up afterward.

No she does not want to come forward...but I will keep requesting she does. If the police acted improperly witnesses are the only way they can be held accountable. Trouble is most of the witnesses were street people, no doubt fearful of police harassment if they do come forward. that's why my daughter doesn't want any part of it.

smart undelete and Undelete plus are awesome programs to recover files. (torrent) and also open source available for many kinds. Works for PC and for camera cards.

[edit on 3/26/2009 by justgeneric]

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:53 AM
reply to post by a.m.e.

Another case of trigger happy cops.. makes me kinda glad we don't have guns over here, our police can be pretty forceful but at least you'll never have a clip unloaded into you.

Don't understand why the video is particularly necessary though.. surely she shouldn't have shot to kill anyway and won't the bullet holes prove thats exactly what she did..?

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by dainoyfb

The most rounds will stop or slow to a “safe” speed when striking a body, unless you are shooting full metal jackets, which the police to not use. Most often a bullet entering a body will strike a bone. Really it depends on the lead/metal used in the bullet, softer stops quicker than harder.

Shooting at anything but your target is asking for possible injury to others. Bullets have a tendency to ricochet off hard surfaces such as the ground or hardened versions of it (in cities and towns the ground is mostly covered with cement and pavement). At least when firing at a suspect there is less chance of an innocent being injured. I am not saying it cannot and does not happen simply that there is less of a chance.

Officers here also get 6 months of training, which is before they hit the streets. After that they get hands on training daily. Unlike a plumber though one mistake can cost them their lives. Sorry but I like the idea of officers carrying guns in populated areas, sort of helps when the criminals have guns. More crime happens in higher populated areas, meaning that there is more of a need for a gun in populated areas.

I just don’t want cops shooting some place they don’t know where their round will stop. At least shooting their target has a greater chance of stopping the round. Again most police rounds are smaller with a softer lead that will cause it to stop when entering a body. A 9mm round is different than an AK-47 round.

The problem is when people believe rumors before they are proven. Right now we have no proof there is a video. If there is then these officers deserve the proper punishment. If the offender was threatening the officers well I guess we should look at their department’s protocol on the situation. Again I do not see enough information to make a proper judgment. Making rash judgments and filling in the blanks with guesses does nothing but add to the rumors already started by members on here. I was simply giving reasons to your questions in the other post. But again shooting at the ground can be dangerous too. It is better to have a target than to just randomly shoot.


posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:50 PM
After page 2 I stopped reading just to post this so that everyone here knows. All law enforcement officers throughout the entire U.S. are trained to shoot to KILL. Not to wound, not to stop, but to KILL. It's usually on a theory of 2 to the chest 1 to the head. There are a few reasons for this. Main reason is to bring the situation to an end immediately for the sake of officers as well as innocent public bystanders. Another reason is that it's easier to center punch a target than to wing it in the heat of a situation. Leaves room for error while sustaining a maximum of accuracy under diress. Lastly, and I hate this reason the most. If an officer attempting to wound a suspect ends up killing that suspect on accident than it becomes involuntary manslaughter and the officer can be sued in civil court as well as face criminal charges. And how do I know you ask???? Because I went through basic training at the LA Police Academy and that is the way it is. And for the good guy police men and women that is how it should be handled.

Not my .02 cents. Reality folks!

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in