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.

 

Seattle police kill suspect in officer slayings

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 


I suppose its partly down to ones cultural perception.
Over here its normally quite a big deal if theres a shooting!

Few people carry guns, and fewer would be prepared to actually show them in public.
Self preservation prevails...




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
always shoot first ask questions and find evidence later typical cop revenge story



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder

Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 


If an officer feels threatened he is allowed to use lethal force. If the officer waits to see a weapon it's already going to be too late for him.

This is a criminal who:
1.Went on a rampage targeting police officers
2. Has a history of violence
3. Was considered armed and dangerous
4. Was given orders by the officer to halt and refused thus earning himself the death penalty

There are two separate stories here floating around. One is about the police thinking they had the suspect holed up in a building. They called in SWAT. No one was present.

The second story is what really happened to him. He had stolen a car. An officer was inspecting the vehicle. The suspect approached and was killed.


and its sickening communists like you that beleive the cops are the judge and jury here.


What on earth are you talking about? These are the laws of the United States of America. If an officer just allowed a suspect to get the jump on them every time because they waited to see a weapon we would have a lot more dead officers.........

In this situation there was only the judgment of living or dying. The officer felt his life was in danger so he fired and rightly so. The suspect was then found to have a pistol on him belonging to one of the killed officers.

Tell me, what would have happened if that officer had allowed that suspect to find cover on the other side of the vehicle when he refused to stop and raise his hands? Thankfully the officer acted decisively and it didn't come to that.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
always shoot first ask questions and find evidence later typical cop revenge story


And saying this sound like typical liberal BS.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
always shoot first ask questions and find evidence later typical cop revenge story


No, actually it's the textbook example of an officer preserving his life. An armed and dangerous man who killed 4 other officers refuses commands given to him by the officer. The officer opens fire as the suspect sought cover and thankfully he was killed before a shootout occurred. The man was found to have a weapon on him belonging to one of the murdered officers.

What is so hard about this situation for people to understand? Do people not realize that officers have the right to preserve their life? If you were the officer what would you have done in the face of a man who is considered armed, dangerous, and refuses your orders?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Why would the suspect need to take the gun of one of the slain officers in the coffee shop when he had his own gun with magic bullets and all that took out four supposedly trained police officers?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Why would the suspect need to take the gun of one of the slain officers in the coffee shop when he had his own gun with magic bullets and all that took out four supposedly trained police officers?


Ran out of bullets perhaps?

If the dude was some sort of robotic patsy, how did he escape?

What are you saying, the dude did not do it, or if he did he was some pawn in a larger game- where is the evidence of this?


Do you know if the cops were plain clothed btw?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


I just now read this and I haven't read through the thread, so I'm probably not adding anything new, but I'll throw in my opinion anyway.

It says that the suspect kept coming and only that he was carrying a gun... didn't say he actually had it in his hand or that it was visible. The gun could have been anywhere and they found it after he was killed.

Now, I'm not taking up for the suspect at all, because he did something absolutely horrible, but I always thought cops weren't supposed to shoot unless deadly force was being used against them. From what I read, it really doesn't convince me that this was the case. Sounds like the cop saw the guy and wanted him dead. I don't know... something just doesn't sound right. The article is detailed about everything but the actual shooting of the suspect. That part is very vague.

BUT, if I'd been in the situation, I know I definitely would have felt threatened so who knows what I would have done. He had already killed four police officers and I'm sure taking another one down sure wouldn't have hurt his conscience at all. I'm sure the cop knew this. It's easy for me to sit back and point out everything that's wrong with this story, but if I had been in the situation, I may have pulled the trigger myself.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by gemineye
 


That is a very honest reply. I also would have felt threatened in the same situation, although I may have pulled the trigger, I don't think that I would have shot to kill. It's impossible to know what was going through the officers mind. The only thing that gets me is in the original reports he was running around the car counter clockwise away from the officer, so why shoot him?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Some food for thought:

The only thing I could find about WHY he may have done this in the first place was that he had told someone he was "going to kill some cops and watch the news." I'll see about finding the link.

I'm thinking that maybe the local blue bacon tried (and maybe succeeded) to frame him for something (like that child rape charge maybe?), or they caught him actually doing something wrong and he was facing some serious time.... got out on bail and said "screw the po-po!" And well, we all see where that has ended (so far).

Also, as to the WHY of him being released... well, face facts folks... Prisons are only so big and they can only hold so many people, even the dangerous ones. I know some people that have been released simply because they had no where to house them, and no where they could legally ship them to. I think it's only a matter of time before that particular cup of mayhem fills to overflowing, and I also think this was only a first drop.

Last thoughts on this is that maybe they were trying to arrest him for some b.s. or maybe just hassle him, and he either opened fire in resistance; or he was possibly shot first, (would maybe put him in range to grab an officers pistol) then got one of their guns and shot them. Geh... can't say I feel sorry for the cops too much though. I've known too many police officers and have NEVER gotten along with any of them (okay maybe one, but still).

Later!



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
There are legal standards in this country, which say that if you have a reasonable cause to believe that your life is in danger, you can act accordingly. It's not necessary for the suspect to produce a gun, to reach that point. If you rob a bank (which I don't recommend) and say to the teller that you have a gun which you intend to use on them, you'll be tried for armed robbery even though you didn't pack.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I don't know about felony pursuits in the area in which this occurred but in many places disobeying police orders during such a pursuit is a very dangerous and potentially deadly thing to do. From what I've read several others have been taken into custody for aiding the man in his efforts to evade police, so this whole thing is far from over yet. That being said he demonstrated a willingness to kill so you can't handle him with kid gloves, he was armed and dangerous with no qualms about shooting at police officers.

The bonus to this is that Mike Huckabee just lost all hope of running for president in 2012 thanks to having commuted the sentence of this scumbag.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
www.twincities.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk... -told-friends.html

www.thesun.co.uk...

Found a few links to some articles where they claim he said he was going to shoot some cops and for his buddies to watch the news. But I have yet to figure out where this info is coming from though... it seems like the cops are saying that he said this, but are pretty tight lipped about who said it.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
This man just killed four human beings and he had a gun on him. If I were the officer and I saw I was outnumbered and one of them was armed and had just killed four of my coworkers I would do the same thing.
I hope they give the officer a medal. This wasn't going to end good no matter what. We got the best ending we could expect.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
The families of the 4 murdered officers are spared the torment of a trial, conviction, and appeal process.

The state is saved the expense of 6 years incarceration and an expensive execution.

The public is spared the possibility of this violent criminal murdering more innocents.

But here, in the mighty all-seeing court of ATS, the police are the murdering criminals.

You people are messed up.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


They are also spared the scumbag being pardoned or having his sentence commuted yet again, as he was only able to commit these murders with the aid of one Mike Huckabee.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


Good points. As far as ATS members being messed up.... Sometimes they are but I've noticed that a lot of them are young or at least come off that way and are the products of a liberal two sided society.
You're right though and I still hope they give the cop a medal. and I don't even like cops.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Glad they found the scum-bag cop killer before he had a chance to kill anyone else.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Listen, I am not sure of what exactly happened, but I will say this. An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. Round and round it goes and where it stops, noBODY knows. I think we should really give up any lust we have for vainglorious vengeance, as when we shoot an arrow, it circles the earth and pierces us in the back.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 


If an officer feels threatened he is allowed to use lethal force. If the officer waits to see a weapon it's already going to be too late for him.

This is a criminal who:
1.Went on a rampage targeting police officers
2. Has a history of violence
3. Was considered armed and dangerous
4. Was given orders by the officer to halt and refused thus earning himself the death penalty





I have no idea where you are a law enforcement officer, but please tell me the town and state so I can avoid it at any cost.
You have no idea what youre talking about, and/or if you truly believe what youve written, you need to change jobs NOW, or talk to someone because youre too too anxious to draw down.



When is it justifiable to use deadly force?

You are universally justified in the use of deadly force when there is a reasonable fear of immediate or otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury to the innocent. All these factors must be present in order to justifiably use deadly force. Lacking any one or more of the key factors will result in a questionable use of deadly force and you will face the criminal and civil consequences.

An officer entrusted with a legal warrant, criminal or civil, and lawffully commanded by a competent tribunal to execute it, will be justified in committing homicide, if in the course of advancing to discharge his duty, he be brought into such perils that without doing so, he cannot either save his life, or discharge the duty which he is commanded by the warrant to perform. And when the warrant commands him to put a criminal to death, he is justified in obeying it.

There are three requirements for the officer to take into consideration:

-Weapon
-Intent
-Delivery System

Breaking down these three items:

-Weapon: The weapon must be something likely to cause death.
-Intent: The person's actions show they are planning on using the weapon.
-Delivery system: The person must be capable of using the weapon against you. For example, the knife would not be a threat at 100 yards, but a rifle would.

As soon as all three are present, they can use deadly force. They do not have to wait for the other person to make the first move, they just need to articulate the criteria above.

Even though there is a weapon, and possibly a delivery system, simply ignoring an officer's commands alone does not prove intent.


[edit on 1-12-2009 by HappilyEverAfter]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join