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.

 

Pastor shot by police, caught on video.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A north Georgia pastor was shot to death by police when he struck an officer with his car after he was seen in a vehicle with a drug suspect, authorities told CNN. Jonathan Ayers, pastor at Shoal Creek Baptist Church in Lavonia, Georgia, died after the incident Tuesday afternoon in the nearby town of Toccoa, Georgia, police said. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) is looking into the shooting.


Video
Article

This is just amazing to me, I can't believe they shot him for fleeing. The article says he was "hit with the car", but the video CLEARLY show this was not in self defense.




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
What a sick cop! Cops are pigs!



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Are we arguing the fact that he shouldn't have been shot while fleeing, or the fact that the car didn't hit the officer? Not trying to justify anything, but I'm not sure I didn't see the car hit an officer.

Peace


[edit on 4-9-2009 by Dr Love]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


The fact that the car didn't hit the officer with deadly force, which would warrant using deadly force back. The suspect was quite obviously fleeing and not attacking.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I hate cops that abuse their power. BUT, this is not one of them. The police identified themselves, the guy struck the cop with his vehicle (a deadly weapon) and then attempted to flee with his deadly weapon. Granted, the cop wasn't even knocked to the ground; however, do we let criminals go that shoot at, but miss a cop? NO, they respond with like force.

Just my 2-cents



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Absolutely not. A bullet moving at 100fps cannot kill you, nor can a small car traveling at >5mph. Deadly force was not used by the pastor in any way shape or form. He was guilty of fleeing an officer, but not endangering his life. Secondly, the car was in drive when the suspect was shot, and the officers were behind and beside the car, in way of no threat to bodily harm.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Absolutely not. A bullet moving at 100fps cannot kill you, nor can a small car traveling at >5mph. Deadly force was not used by the pastor in any way shape or form. He was guilty of fleeing an officer, but not endangering his life. Secondly, the car was in drive when the suspect was shot, and the officers were behind and beside the car, in way of no threat to bodily harm.


5mph or not, it's still a 2500+ pound vehicle. Now that's deadly crushing ability. AND death can occur at 5mph...slow doesn't mean safe. What about the harm to the general public? The cops didn't know who this guy was, they only knew that he fled, struck an identified officer and was a potential threat to everyone else.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Your literal definition leaves a lot of room for inference. For example water can kill you. Therefore a watergun is a deadly weapon. However, in the legal sense of the word deadly force was not used by the suspect, nor is it present when you are carrying a watergun.


Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.




[edit on 4-9-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
It's hard to say this without sounding pro-cop, I just try to call it like I see it, but I agree that this particular case isn't one that should've been chosen in the battle against ever-increasing police brutality.

It's assault with a deadly weapon and it's got video to back it up.

Peace


[edit on 4-9-2009 by Dr Love]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Your literal definition leaves a lot of room for inference. For example water can kill you. Therefore a watergun is a deadly weapon. However, in the legal sense of the word deadly force was not used by the suspect, nor is it present when you are carrying a watergun.


Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.




[edit on 4-9-2009 by jprophet420]


so you are saying that a moving vehicle is NOT readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury?

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Many police today are nothing more than state-sponsored thugs. Even those that aren't -- support those that are. It's like a cancer has descended on law enforcement. Most of it started with the drug war.

If I saw an officer I did not know bleeding out in a ditch I would not stop..... or even slow down.....



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


Like I said it fits the literal definition but it defies the legal definition, and the legal definition is the one the police have to answer to.

In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm


However, do we let criminals go that shoot at, but miss a cop?


No, of course not. However the car did hit the cop and did not cause any harm. No deadly force was present. In the example of the gun deadly force is used but misdirected.


so you are saying that a moving vehicle is NOT readily capable of causing deadly force?

Of course not. I am saying that in this case it was not. This fact is PROVEN as the car collides with the officer and no harm is done.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 



Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.


1. Physical force? Check (moving vehicle)
2. Readily capable? Check (of course a moving vehicle is readily capable)
3. Immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm? Check (threat to every pedestrian and driver via the readily capable physical force of the vehicle)
4. Other innocents? Check (every pedestrian and driver)
5. Reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm? Check (reckless driving can be reasonably expected to cause death or grave bodily harm via physical force)

It meets every criteria.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
This is not police brutality.

With all the crap I've seen regarding the police, you can't take everything they do and use it against them. Not all police are bad and not all force is wrong.

It's obvious the guy was trying to get away. It's obvious he struck the cop while pulling backwards AND forwards.. it's obvious the so called "pastor" was in the wrong.

If there's anything to look at, it's the hypocrisy of people who call themselves a pastor.

Makes me lose more faith in the church than the police. (not that I had any anyway)

b



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


If this were the case it would be standard procedure to shoot fleeing suspects making their getaway in a vehicle, yet it is not.

I openly admit he was in the wrong for fleeing. The punishment for fleeing is not being shot, period.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


If this were the case it would be standard procedure to shoot fleeing suspects making their getaway in a vehicle, yet it is not.

I openly admit he was in the wrong for fleeing. The punishment for fleeing is not being shot, period.


Only fleeing vehicles in which the vehicle was used as a deadly weapon. In this case it was. So, no...it would not fall under "standard procedure" to shoot to kill any suspect that is fleeing that has not exhibited the actions that define deadly weapon.

Whether the intent to strike the officer was in the mind of the pastor or not, it still was deadly force. The law does not specify that the deadly force has to be intended, only that it is used.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Are we arguing the fact that he shouldn't have been shot while fleeing, or the fact that the car didn't hit the officer? Not trying to justify anything, but I'm not sure I didn't see the car hit an officer.

Peace


[edit on 4-9-2009 by Dr Love]


I think the car just bumped that one guy. I don't think they were in uniform, so if some random people I didn't know pulled up to me with guns, I might try to get away from them as well.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bspiracy
This is not police brutality.

With all the crap I've seen regarding the police, you can't take everything they do and use it against them. Not all police are bad and not all force is wrong.

It's obvious the guy was trying to get away. It's obvious he struck the cop while pulling backwards AND forwards.. it's obvious the so called "pastor" was in the wrong.

If there's anything to look at, it's the hypocrisy of people who call themselves a pastor.

Makes me lose more faith in the church than the police. (not that I had any anyway)

b



Where does it show that the undercover cops identified themselves? If a bunch of men with guns just ran up to you, would you hang around to find out what they wanted? Or would you get scared and try to get out of there??



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
Where does it show that the undercover cops identified themselves? If a bunch of men with guns just ran up to you, would you hang around to find out what they wanted? Or would you get scared and try to get out of there??



The undercover officers wanted to question Ayers about what they had just seen, he said. "They approached the vehicle. They were in plain clothes. They identified themselves as police officers, which civilian witnesses say happened. They also had badges around their necks."


It's in the OP "Article" link.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Absolutely not. A bullet moving at 100fps cannot kill you, nor can a small car traveling at >5mph.


Your statement is wrong.

100fps is about 68 miles per hour. Most objects travelling at that speed can kill you. A baseball, a bullet, whatever. A car travelling at 5mph can easily knock you down, make you hit your head on the pavement, and kill you. People die from falling over and hitting their head when standing completely still.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join