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.

 

7-Year-Old Girl Shot and Killed During Police Search of Detroit Home

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by belial259

They went to this place searching for a suspect. I'd really like to know if he was actually even there or if this suspect even committed the crime at all.




If your not going to read the articles and get the LITTLE KNOWN but FACTUAL accounts so far, don't bring your biased comments to threads like this. Try reading the article and you would answer your own wasteful question.




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by starviego
This is the sad result of the hyper-militarization of our police forces. When you bomb people, kick down their doors and enter with loaded weapons you can expect tragedy to happen.


Which is a sad result of criminals holding up in buildings with armor piercing bullets ready to kill you. What are they supposed to do, stand outside and ask the child rapist to come out. If it worked like that Im sure the police would love it but it doesnt. They need to protect themselves and get in and get out as fast and safe as possible.

Do you have suggestions on how they should proceed about this sort of thing?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rcwj1975
 

"A man's home is his castle" an ancient legal principle states. Anybody who violates that precept in a violent way deserves whatever is thrown at him.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by starviego
 


I agree to an extent...but once your killing others over the colors they wear, raping, molesting, and whatever else many like to do these days and then use your castle as a place to hide...you voided the castle clause and are getting a visit.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by starviego
reply to post by rcwj1975
 

"A man's home is his castle" an ancient legal principle states. Anybody who violates that precept in a violent way deserves whatever is thrown at him.


They usually do get everything thrown at them thus the need for all their armor and tactical way of going in and retrieving. If you go and murder someone they can torch your house to smoke you out for all I care. Dont kill people if you care about your precious freedom to be left alone.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj1975

Originally posted by belial259

They went to this place searching for a suspect. I'd really like to know if he was actually even there or if this suspect even committed the crime at all.




If your not going to read the articles and get the LITTLE KNOWN but FACTUAL accounts so far, don't bring your biased comments to threads like this. Try reading the article and you would answer your own wasteful question.


What? I did read it. Said they went there searching for a suspect. Didn't mention if they actually found him. Let alone if he was guilty.

There is a little thing called due process you know? And people have rights. If you think for a second that someone dying in the execution of a search warrant is an acceptable outcome or merits this use of force you're dead wrong. Murphies law? What about the real actual law? Innocent until proven guilty?

What if the person was there and the police had shot him? Do you think it's ok to deploy lethal force against people in their own homes without the need for a trial?

Don't call me biased. You're the one that is biased. I know a paramilitary police force when I see one and quite frankly I'm disgusted and appalled. I really thought better of America but I see that the "land of freedom" is really no better than a police state.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by belial259]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by legalizeit
 


Speechless here too, except that the mother will be officially charged with the murder.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The Major is always saddened to read of the untimely death of an innocent. The Major also has no idea of what really happened during the serving of this search warrant, neither does any of the recruits here. The Major does know that there were no "cocked weapons" as well as knowing that there were no "safeties off." As with the press and the civilian population there is an overwhelming ignorance of firearms, this is no exception.

The Detroit police have adopted the Smith & Wesson M&P 40 as their service sidearm. This weapon is a double action only pistol, hence it cannot be "cocked" and it has an integral trigger safety similar to the Glock pistols and therefore the safety is never "off."

More detail:

Review

Wiki

Now that the recruits have been properly informed you may resume the inane speculation and baseless assumptions.

Dismissed.



[edit on 16-5-2010 by Major Discrepancy]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
C'mon guys, this is an easy one. It is obviously the woman's fault. Instead of running to protect the child and stand in front of her to shield her, she attacks the police officers. And I've seen enough cops reality shows to know that the first thing cops do before busting in or at the moment of busting in is identify themselves.
They busted in, the woman had an attitude probably doing the chicken head movement they do when they're throwing attitude around, she grabbed the cops gun and BANG! a baby dies.

Had she been standing in front of the girl shielding her this would never have occured. A little humility by the woman would have saved the baby's life.

"Oh no, you aint gonna point that gun at me uh uh!, I know you din' point that gun at me! gimme that gun cracka!"

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Just Wondering]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
The policy of using a paramilitary force instead of community "peace keepers" has led to the escalation of this sort of violence on both sides. The need for instant gratification and control by LE policies is behind the use of "SWAT" type units for routine police work like tracking down and bringing in a murder SUSPECT ( note I did not assume guilt immediately?). Like the incident in Columbus it is the paramilitary aspect which caused this event and nothing else.
These raids really do not go any different here than they do in Iraq or Afghanistan. So is that how it should be? Active military type response to domestic crime?
Slippery slope we are on.
N.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
Do you have suggestions on how they should proceed about this sort of thing?

I would have set up a perimeter and given the suspect the option of coming out peacefully. 'Course, there is possibitlity that the gunman kills everybody in the house or takes hostages, but then the onus is on the gunman.

I am speaking from my own viewpoint, which fears the growing powers of the police state more than some murder suspect winding up in my house.


“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown.”
--William Pitt the Elder, the 18th-century prime minister



[edit on 16-5-2010 by starviego]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by belial259
What? I did read it. Said they went there searching for a suspect. Didn't mention if they actually found him. Let alone if he was guilty.


Read it again...the whole thing...ESPECIALLY near the end.


There is a little thing called due process you know? And people have rights. If you think for a second that someone dying in the execution of a search warrant is an acceptable outcome or merits this use of force you're dead wrong. Murphies law? What about the real actual law? Innocent until proven guilty?


Ummmmm they DID get a warrant...meaning they are following the law, meaning they have evidence in some fasion to get said warrant. And you DO realize due process and rights kick in AFTER your charged. He is innocent so far...just being charged...so not sure what your arguing here.


What if the person was there and the police had shot him? Do you think it's ok to deploy lethal force against people in their own homes without the need for a trial?


In defense of themselves...of course. If your implying that SWAT should just go in, find him and execute him because they know he is guitly without a trial then of course NOT.


Don't call me biased. You're the one that is biased. I know a paramilitary police force when I see one and quite frankly I'm disgusted and appalled. I really thought better of America but I see that the "land of freedom" is really no better than a police state.


Again when you comment and say things WITHOUT reading the article or re-reading it to FULLY understand the very LITTLE bit provided...thats called biased.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by N.of norml
 


I agree the whole thing seems very heavy handed. One might wonder if this situation couldn't have been handled by a few homicide detectives and a car full of officers.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by belial259]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Major Discrepancy
 


Good input and correct...but your assuming the child was shot with the M&P pistol...ever consider the shot came from an MP5, M4, or other long gun? Officer flips the safety off to make entry and gets into scuffle without flipping it back to safe...from there...a whole lot can go wrong. Who is to say EITHER of them pulled the trigger...if the safety was off the weapon, during the struggle, could of caught a piece of his tac vest and went off.....SOOOO many things people..so many....and EXPERIENCE has shown me many of them!

[edit on 5/16/2010 by rcwj1975]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj1975
reply to post by Major Discrepancy
 


Good input and correct...but your assuming the child was shot with the M&P pistol...ever consider the shot came from an MP5, M4, or other long gun? Officer flips the safety off to make entry and gets into scuffle without flipping it back to safe...from there...a whole lot can go wrong. Who is to say EITHER of them pulled the trigger...if the safety was off the weapon, during the struggle, could of caught a piece of his tac vest and went off.....SOOOO many things people..so many....and EXPERIENCE has shown me many of them!

[edit on 5/16/2010 by rcwj1975]


rcw you know I appreciate your candor and accountability shown through your posts. I have however to ask, just what justification is there for taking a long gun into a confined space like a home for a domestic policing? The rounds from a MP5 an M4 or such have the capacity to not only penetrate the walls of the suspect home but the next door neighbors also.
I own a handgun( .480 Ruger) which is more than adequate to stop ANY suspect and can easily CONTROL it. So if I as a citizen have adequate firepower to control any confined situation with plenty of stopping power, why are these men entering a confined area with clumsier weapons with extreme overkill of firepower?
You know a similar raid occurred in my area and the police went into an older mobile home with "long guns" and while shooting the pet they accidentally destroyed an innocent house guests intestines through the wall. Oh and never found the man they went in for....Overkill, literally
The list of Accidents is getting too long to keep calling them accidents rather than failed enforcement policies and over zealous execution of same.
N.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Happyfeet
 


So this comes back to the idea that cops are just as bad with their guns as criminals. They get shaky, and can't always handle their # and now some little kid is dead.

Cops are fallable, yet we formally entrust them as our guardians and protectors of private property. Not people, But property. and we give them legal force and rights to exercise lethal force to do so.

Common people I know you can smell the # when you step in it, but at this point we might as well be bathing in it, and are righteously oblivious.

I Respect and venerate the LEO of my state and town. We demand much of them, and they are glad to accept the provisions and rights we supply them with. We are the master and they are the guards. They are good men and women, but they are lawfully obliged to behave in accordance to the training and role we provide them.

Think outside the box.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Neoatomica
 


We trust them like we trust doctors to take care of us while performing delicate surgery. Everyone makes mistakes, they're only a few professions where your mistakes can lead to someone's death. It does happen and it's unacceptable but there's no way around it. People are gonna get hurt on accident, even die because of the choices police officers make. The most you can do is train them and have oversight to minimize mistakes. It sucks but thats how it works in our world.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


Hey!!I completetly understand if he was a threat and it wasn't his "wife and child" you know what i mean" then you bet if there was an immediate threat ..but, if it "was"someone he knows which it obviousely was as the women was fighting with the police then my answer is no.. wait till he leaves it's never worth hurting a child..ever..



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Goes to show, alot of people assume the worst instantly. We're so used to headlines of police brutality and outright criminal behaviour on the news. We read the headline and first thought is "yeah they shot her because there wasn't any dogs around to shoot and then made up the whole struggle part to cover it up."
For the record I hold my judgement untill there is more data.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Happyfeet
 


Once again we see the results of the ever increasing police state. Another failed legal home invasion, another dead bystander with only the police telling us what happened. It would be nice if we could say that we believe what the police are reporting, but I for one do not.

The police have been caught lying far too many times for their word to be taken on face value, especially when it comes to an accidental discharge resulting in a death. Without video evidence that the police could not tamper with, we will only ever hear that side of the story.

For those concerned about bias, this whole thread is biased. Some for the police, some against. It is the nature of a debate for both sides to be biased.

Now I personally have to wonder how a 40ish year old woman who was just Flash Banged Who is unable to "hear", unable to "see" and is completely disoriented would somehow find the ability to attack a fully geared, tactical assault police officer.

To put this into perspective, the woman may or may not have been aware that the person she let stay at that house was wanted for murder. So that means she could really have been any woman, in any town and not necessarily a hardened criminal.

There seems to be a lot in this story that is just too tidy for the police. Any person who claims that they have seen plenty of TV and knows what is going on with these kinds of things should stop using their parents computers. Once flash banged the woman and other occupants would not be able to hear anything, so the police identifying themselves simply doesn't matter.

See below for just a few instances of cops lying. And I really could go on for days with this. These examples aren't nearly as serious as a 7 year olds death, and are excerpts from Canada, the US and Europe, so I'm not picking on any one police force they are all equally bent and in need of serious oversight.

Police Caught Lying 1

Police Lying at Murder Trial

Police Caught Lying 2

Police Caught Lying 3

More Police Lying

And More

And More

..Ex


Originally posted by rcwj1975
...And you DO realize due process and rights kick in AFTER your charged.


Actually this is not true. Your rights don't "kick in" after you are charged. This is what police would like you to believe so that you will freely speak to them and they can incriminate you. Your "rights" ALWAYS kick in, and you should NEVER talk to a police officer unless you have a lawyer present, or are a lawyer yourself or are openly taping the conversation.
..ex


[edit on 5/16/2010 by v3_exceed]




top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join