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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Good, now they need to fly in the judge that recommended his change in sentence and former gov. Huckabee, have them made available in a public venue where the families of the slain officers can each have an opportunity to bitch slap both for what they did.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Walkswithfish]




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
Good, now they need to fly in the judge that recommended his change in sentence and former gov. Huckabee, have them made available in a public venue where the families of the slain officers can each have an opportunity to bitch slap both for what they did.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Walkswithfish]



Exactly! There needs to be accountablity. Justified shootings do happen, its the trigger happy draw downs on whomever that cause the LEO hatred.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helig
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.


i guess mike huckbee who pardoned him is a member of the liberal democrats...oh gosh! my mistake, he's a conservative republican!

but, don't worry...Obama and the democrats will be blamed somehow.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Doesn't much matter which political party he belongs to, he definitely will have a big helping of crow to eat this holiday season. As stated earlier the judge and Mr Huckabee have a few questions to answer in regards to why they felt the need to turn loose someone who obviously was not safe to be a part of society again. Nice try on the baiting however



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
It amazes me that the very same folks who bash others for their insensitivity to the deaths of four humans are applauding so loudly and zealously the death of another without taking a moment to actually think about what they are saying.

There was zero evidence presented that the SUSPECT was the PERP. Only the word of people we've learned the hard way lie for a living and think nothing of dispensing street justice themselves. No witnesses have been brought forth, no one saw the perp take any guns from the dead cops, indeed if he had, they undoubtedly would have mentioned it in the first place, that sort of detail is one they never leave out in my experience, so not braying it from the first is suspicious. No report indicated he took anything, but rather fled swiftly. The easiest way to tie the suspect in is to throw down a gun from the scene, after all they had easy access to them, and throw-downs aren't exactly unknown.

Personally, I have a problem with holding the two opposing concepts in my . at the same time of cops as brave defenders alongside the idea that they were so scared they had to shoot the guy. A brave man doesn't piss his pants and shoot at suspects the drop of a hat. A brave man (or woman) is cool and collected, doesn't panic, and talks a situation down.

What the cops have done is understandable but wrong. It looks very much like they decided to be judge, jury, and executioner. I never expected this guy to be brought in alive; be honest, how many of you really expected it? But I have a severe problem with people who are paid to take risks, but refuse to do so. Don't tell me how brave you are, then tell me you had to shoot because you were afraid. Master your fear and do what you're paid to do and what you signed up for: bring criminals TO justice, not BE justice. And before you tell me I don't know how tough it is, I've disarmed irate tough guys with only my words, my spirit, and my personal authority, so I know it can be done. true, I was unarmed, so I had no choice, but still, even if I were armed, I wouldn't have killed because I try hard not to.

Something's not right here.

Show me the PROOF that the suspect was actually the perp. That's what our justice system is suposedly about: proof, then conviction, then punishment; not punishment then proof. I've seen and heard too many bogus stories from cops justifying criminal behavior to take anything they say at face value. They are not exactly compulsive truth-tellers. The sad thing is that they probably feel completely justified and don't comprehend how much they are perverting the system. But with every suspect killed without trial, I lose a little more faith and trust in the system.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by apacheman]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I see three scenarios with this incident:
    1. The officer fired in self-defense.
    2. Revenge shooting.
    3. There was a hit ordered on the four cops that were killed, and the suspect was killed to cover up evidence of the contract hit.


I listed these three scenarios in order of probability. The third (most unlikely) scenario is the most interesting because organized crime has infiltrated law enforcement in the past.

Now that the shooter is dead, we will never know. .

[edit on 12/1/2009 by clay2 baraka]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya
I know it is easier for everyone on here to rally and just hate all police.

But he has already well proven himself to be a cop killer. Their mindset is 'here we have an extremely dangerous man and we do not want to risk more casualties'.

What does it take for some people to understand? Buzzword? Why dont we call him a terrorist and youll change your mind.

Terrorist kills some people, well the people probably did something to deserve it. Now lets go find and arrest that terrorist!


I dont want to be accused of 'hating on police" (although, truth be told, I have very little respect for law enforcement anymore), but I have to say, in this instance, it is blatantly obvious that there is more to the story than meets the eye. Unfortunately, we will never get that full story.

The problem with your 'dont want to risk more casualties' theory is, if they shot him, that means they risked more casualties. Common sense lends itself to the logic that, if you dont want any casualties, you dont fire a gun. Pretty straight forward there.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
i guess mike huckbee who pardoned him is a member of the liberal democrats...oh gosh! my mistake, he's a conservative republican!

but, don't worry...Obama and the democrats will be blamed somehow.


It is only a matter of time before Fox News places a little (D) to the right of Huckabee's caption. They seem to make that mistake a lot with Republicans who are inconvenient to the party image. .



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
. . .
I carry a concealed weapon, and if i had seen a suspected murders picture up, and the guy comes up on me somewhere and i tell him to stop advancing on me and he doesnt stop, im gunning him down, plain and simple. I expect the cops to do the same thing.

From the sounds of the reports on the front page, the officer had little chance to make a certain identification, - was this night or day when it happened? - and the suspect was running away, trying to put the police car between him and the officer when he was shot.


If your in a situation where your life could be taken or those of your family or other innocent people, you dont wait for the man to start firing at you, you put him down before he has a chance to raise his gun.

Every moment when you are walking down the street a person behind you might pull a gun out and shoot you down. Are you sure you shouldn't just clear the streets with grenades before you go out to keep nice and safe?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
It amazes me that the very same folks who bash others for their insensitivity to the deaths of four humans are applauding so loudly and zealously the death of another without taking a moment to actually think about what they are saying.

Just as you and others do the same towards police officers with the same zeal. Having the luxury to second guess is something the 4 dead cops will never get the chance to do.

There was zero evidence presented that the SUSPECT was the PERP. Only the word of people we've learned the hard way lie for a living and think nothing of dispensing street justice themselves. No witnesses have been brought forth, no one saw the perp take any guns from the dead cops, indeed if he had, they undoubtedly would have mentioned it in the first place, that sort of detail is one they never leave out in my experience, so not braying it from the first is suspicious. No report indicated he took anything, but rather fled swiftly. The easiest way to tie the suspect in is to throw down a gun from the scene, after all they had easy access to them, and throw-downs aren't exactly unknown.

It is not uncommon to leave out a fact like the killer took one of the cops weapons. For the reason that if a caller or witness says he just met a man who said he had a cops gun, then how would they know to verify that 'the man" was the one who shot the 4 cops? Because they didn't make it public knowledge, thats why. Maybe you think that a "throw down" is acceptable but many of us do not.

Personally, I have a problem with holding the two opposing concepts in my . at the same time of cops as brave defenders alongside the idea that they were so scared they had to shoot the guy. A brave man doesn't piss his pants and shoot at suspects the drop of a hat. A brave man (or woman) is cool and collected, doesn't panic, and talks a situation down.

To say brave people are cool and collected is pure hollywood bullsh**. In real life when you are in a situation involving life or death you react on instincts, you do not have the luxury of being "cool & collected" as those traits are demonstrated by people who most always have a preplanned motive to act upon or within.

What the cops have done is understandable but wrong. It looks very much like they decided to be judge, jury, and executioner. I never expected this guy to be brought in alive; be honest, how many of you really expected it? But I have a severe problem with people who are paid to take risks, but refuse to do so. Don't tell me how brave you are, then tell me you had to shoot because you were afraid. Master your fear and do what you're paid to do and what you signed up for: bring criminals TO justice, not BE justice. And before you tell me I don't know how tough it is, I've disarmed irate tough guys with only my words, my spirit, and my personal authority, so I know it can be done. true, I was unarmed, so I had no choice, but still, even if I were armed, I wouldn't have killed because I try hard not to.

To say you already "knew" the guy would be not be brought alive is evidence of your own pre-concept of how the situation would end. More than likely because by the context of your post, you have an issue with cops or authority. Disarming anyone who is armed (regardless of the weapon type) via talk is 90% luck and 10% skill as individuals who are intent on causing harm to others are going to do what they want to regardless of how good your talk is. In the end actions speak louder and more clearly than words. Those who want help and are only acting out of emotions are generally easy to talk down while those who have an emotional disorder are not and typcially act upon their intents. You cannot say with any degree of certainity that you wouldn't have killed or used your weapon and by that statement I feel very comfortable in guessing that you have never been involved in a situation where you have no other choice to draw/use a weapon. Working unarmed has a different mindset and develops an unarmed mentality...I don't need to elaborate there.

Something's not right here.

Yes, YOU are correct in that staement.

Show me the PROOF that the suspect was actually the perp. That's what our justice system is suposedly about: proof, then conviction, then punishment; not punishment then proof. I've seen and heard too many bogus stories from cops justifying criminal behavior to take anything they say at face value. They are not exactly compulsive truth-tellers. The sad thing is that they probably feel completely justified and don't comprehend how much they are perverting the system. But with every suspect killed without trial, I lose a little more faith and trust in the system.

The proof is not to you, the citizen. It is towards those who were done wrong including a court of law and or a jury if it goes that far. If you want any proof there is a thing called public records and you can search them anytime you wish. The "system" may not have worked the way that you wanted it to in that you were obviously wanting this killer to brought into a courtroom for the legal process. But he (the killer) decided to make his own fate and that decision was his and his alone. The end result is the direct result of a culmination of his actions and deeds up to that final point. he could have simply chosen to turn himself in and face justice in a courtroom. Instead he chose to die in the street and I for one am glad he is dead in that he cannot take naother life of those who some of you may feel contempt for, yet scream for when your ass is in trouble.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by apacheman]


spelling errors

[edit on 1-12-2009 by mikelee]

[edit on 1-12-2009 by mikelee]

[edit on 1-12-2009 by mikelee]


six

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


A truely legitimate question to you. If the news organizations came out with witnesses that stated they saw Clemmons shoot the officers, backed up by video tape , would you actually believe them? Or would it be that they just doctored up the evidence? Is there anything that you would believe? From some of your comments in here and other threads, I dont think that there is anything out there just short of you being there and seeing it with your own eyes that you would believe. ANd even then, I still think you would tilt in Clemmons favor. If I am wrong, then truely please accept my sincerest appologies. But I dont think that I am.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

To say brave people are cool and collected is pure hollywood bullsh**. In real life when you are in a situation involving life or death you react on instincts, you do not have the luxury of being "cool & collected" as those traits are demonstrated by people who most always have a preplanned motive to act upon or within.


Excuse me, but that is exactly what training and practice allow you to do: be cool and collected in the face of danger.

I have been in several life and death situations, in different contexts. I've lived a full life and experienced more than most people have, and speak from direct experience, not theory. I've willingly put my life on the line many times, coming close to losing it more often than I care to think about. I don't care whether you believe me or not: I don't need validation nor do I have any desire to impress. I just call them as I see them.

The cop that shot the suspect doesn't appear to have been in imminent danger. So his need to fire is suspect. I'd like to know if he shot him in the front or the back and whether the guy actually had a drawn weapon: that will make a big difference.

I still waiting for some proof one way or the other. The longer it takes for them to provide it, the less I'll believe it. I'm betting that no real proof will ever be offered, no investigation into the backgrounds of the slain officers, no nothing but "he killed four cops and got what he deserved", end of story.

But it would have been nice to know what the suspect might have had to say. I, for one, think it is a failure of law enforcement to do its job if the suspect winds up dead instead of on trial. There have been too many crimes covered up by the "suspect's" death in the past to accept such killings at face value. If their interpretation is true, then show us the proof that led them to believe it so fast.

There's been too little evidence and too much emotion in this case, and something's not right about it.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by apacheman]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


But it would have been nice to know what the suspect might have had to say. I, for one, think it is a failure of law enforcement to do its job if the suspect winds up dead instead of on trial.

Based on your statement above, no additional rebuttal is required.


six

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Again, in the interest of discussion, Please define eminent danger. You, yourself have stated you have been in similar situations. You dont define eminent danger as a man, who even if he was'nt involved the the officers murder, has shown a history of being armed and dangerous? This same man makes threatening moves and disobeys commands..This isnt eminent danger? I agree with you that Clemmons should have been taken alive, if possible. But he didnt make it so. Those were his actions and he answered for them.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


I'm a pretty pragmatic guy: I tend to weigh all the evidence and come down on the side of the highest probabilities. I learned early not to naively believe everything I was told by authorities who were tilting the "facts" to suit their world view. I had the (mis)fortune to attend 13 different schools growing up (military family) in the North, South, Texas, and one year in Mexico. I was taught about the Civil War, the Alamo, and The Conquest from several different points of view, each presented as the total and complete truth, and each in violent contradiction to each other. So I'm not into buying anyone's story if the facts don't hold up. But if they show some proof, I might criticize the manner in which they handled it, but not the facts that can be proven.

I have known a lot of cops and have had cops do me a good turn or two, and know a good one from a bad one. There are more bad ones. I knew a cop in Texas during the Vietnam War who preyed on Air Force wives whose husbands were overseas, threatening them with arrest for prostitution unless they put out to him and his friends. He was discovered, ambushed and pistol-whipped by a group of angry husbands, and given 12 hours to be out of town or be dead. He left. Him, they should have shot. Not all cops are good people, and they can be very, extremely, dangerous if they aren't.

So if I err on the side of distrusting them in general, I have very good reasons to do so. I will accept real proof with chain-of-custody, independent verification, etc. But I never accept a cop's story simply because he's a cop. They have every motive, means, and opportunity to lie and some are very proficient at it.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Your comments are most odd.....

Law enforcement has the duty of protecting law, and the officers who uphold the law have a right to defend themselves with deadly force. Why is that so hard to understand?

Four officers were murdered while drinking coffee. The suspect fled with one of the officer's guns. Another officer meets him eye to eye while inspecting a stolen vehicle. The suspect doesn't listen to the commands the officer gives and he ends up dead.

So, I presume you believe the officer was supposed to ignore the fact that the suspect ignored his commands. You believe the officer should have waited to see what on earth the suspect could have been doing.....even if it meant the suspect was finding cover behind the car so he could have a good old fashion shootout?

Sadly this suspect was about as dumb as these 10 paragraph posts defending him and he ended up dead.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Imminent danger includes the following factors:

Is the person facing you?

Is there a visible weapon within the weapon's effective range, including lunge range?

How many are you facing?

What is the status of the opponents spirit?

What is in the eyes?

The last two are the most important. If the spirit is intensely concentrated it can be from fear or bad intent. That's why a cross-check of the eyes is necessary: they will usually tell you what's about to happen.

All this can be done in a second or less, IF you have the proper training, practice, and experience. Of course, you need to have confidence to know you can handle whatever comes up, including your own death or injury. It isn't always necessary to use the nuke option. The right words in the right tone can do wonders to calm and stabilize volatile situations if you're willing to make the attempt. And the right tone isn't always demanding and authoritative, most often calm reasonableness works best.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_

So they find the suspect and gun him down? Looks like the line "dead men tell no lies" still holds true. Not sure what to think about all of this. The only information being released is the official information coming straight from the PD. I hope that we see witnesses starting to come forward and giving their account of what really went down.



My first thought exactly, when I read the story. A lone officer 'finds' the suspect under mysterious circumstances, and guns him down when he 'refused to stop.' Conveniently lacking any witnesses (so far) to confirm or deny the officers story. Sounds like a win for Lawl Enforcement.

Chrono



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_
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?



Sorry, their is no shoot to kill.

Their is, not discharge weapon and 3 shots-center mass. No aim for a leg, shoulder, only center mass.

Guns are tools, and tools are used. It is bad that the guy could not be found guilty and put to death in a couple of months.

But we all know our judicial system here. The lawyers need to make their millions. The private prisons need to make their millions. The professional witnesses and psychiatrists need to make their money. NUFF SAID.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Do you even believe anything you read anymore? Due to the circumstances, nwo and all the things that have happened, I no longer believe this is the killer. There is a chance that they have a true "suspect" and there is a chance they have a guy they have set up to be to cover what really went done. And who knows what did?


Of course he's the real killer.
The officer who shot him not only had eyes in the back of his ., but they were special ones, able to see in the dark.


The police gun being used as evidence was not found on Clemmons. It was found, we are told, in the stolen car, and Clemmons was never seen in that car.


Seattle police say a patrol officer checking out an unoccupied stolen vehicle was approached from behind by Maurice Clemmons about 2:45 a.m. today.

blog.thenewstribune.com...


There is no way the fact that Clemmon's guilt can be used politically against Mike Huckabee could have anything to do with this, is there?


"In a primary between a law-and-order Republican and him, I think it could definitely be a vulnerability," said Art English, a political scientist at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. "It is very damaging when you have someone like that whose sentence was commuted. That's pretty high profile and very devastating and very tragic."

www.king5.com...


Perhaps there could be political motivation for having this crime pinned on Clemmons.
Maybe someone finds this a convenient way of foiling Huckabee's runs for the White House.


During his 2008 presidential campaign, he faced similar questions over the release from prison of a convicted rapist named Wayne DuMond, who was later convicted of another rape and murder.
. . . .
"This story is political quicksand, and if the Republican conservative establishment doesn't throw him a lifeline immediately, it could be very damaging to a presidential run," said Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...



This guy may well be guilty. However he was executed at night, unarmed, apparently moving away from the police officer, in conditions which did not allow for clear identification.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join