Full Dash cam video of West Memphis Shootings, page 2

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:13 AM

link

I don't understand any of you who are saying that the father and son could have been justified but is covered up since no audio.

There is absolutely no action that warranted 2 officers being executed.

If the cops were in the wrong in either what they said or did then the course of action the father and son should have taken is gone to court and fight any charges that were issued against them.

Not taking an AK-47 and executing 2 police officers in cold blooded murder on the side of the road.

mnemeth1

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:28 AM

link

reply to post by zarlaan

I wonder what provoked the shooting as well.

Something caused those two to open fire on the officers.

They did something.

I want to know what that something was.

We can tell the officers did something that provoked it because the two didn't just jump out and start shooting right away.

If they wanted to simply shoot the officers, they wouldn't have stood around and cooperated with them in the first place. They would have simply jumped out and shot them.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

defcon5

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:55 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
He clearly has some form of identification, registration, and possibly insurance.

The police officer snatches them from his hand, and later he is shown throwing the papers back in the van.

Those are not license or registration papers, look at the size of them. What he is doing is carrying a printout of his legal argument as to why he is not required to have a drivers license, registration, or insurance. He is trying to play internet patriot movement lawyer with the officer who first pulled him over. The first officer calls in the second officer (most likely the shift supervisor) as he obviously has no idea of these Patriot Law guys and the BS they try and pull. The second officer wants nothing to do with it, snatches the papers away and tells the first officer to put him under arrest.

I have pointed out MANY times here on ATS that patriot movement law DOESN’T FLY in REALITY, you only hear supposed stories of those who have successfully used it on the net. There is TONS of case law to show that their theories do not hold water, and none to show that they are valid legal arguments.

Now if this thread continues on the normal path of these topics, someone will show up within minutes to share with us how Patriot movement law is true, and they have used it successfully. Yet that person will not be able show any case law of it working, where I can show case law of it not working:

Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments
What follows this introduction is a truly extraordinary collection of cases and decisions dealing with the "paper terrorism" tactics of the so-called "patriot" movement. While some members of this movement prefer the use of guns or bombs, the weapons of choice for many others are harassing lawsuits, harassing filings, bogus documents ranging from counterfeit money to counterfeit identification cards, tax protest arguments, and many related activities. Often these tactics are accompanied by bizarre legal or, more accurately, pseudolegal language. Many people who encounter such tactics for the first time are surprised and sometimes confused by the strange and unexpected arguments that show up in the courtroom.

Bernard Sussman has compiled the most extensive collection ever of legal citations and rulings related to these "patriot" arguments. This exhaustive concordance will be a valuable resource to attorneys and judges who will be thankful to discover that previous courts have often dealt with these issues before. However, this guide is also useful to laymen and others outside the judicial system willing to wade through all the citations. It is particularly valuable in helping people to understand the energy and ingenuity with which these extremist individuals seek to undermine or pervert the legal system through radical reinterpretations of our society’s laws. Taken together, these arguments, frivolous though they may be, represent an assault on the judicial system by people who would like to consider themselves immune to the laws that govern modern society. In putting together this collection of precedents, Bernard Sussman has provided a great service to all who wish to see the laws preserved.

It does not work, this story is a tragedy of what can happen when you believe too much of what you read on the internet without getting any real advise from people with practical experience in the topic.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit url

[edit on 7/2/2010 by defcon5]

IgnoranceIsntBlisss

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:10 AM

link

Wow that was awesome when the gung ho Fish & Game truck slammed into the driver door!

I can't help but wonder what the motives were, and how many times those involved were shot. Those lowlives weren't even smart. There was no way they were getting out of there.

hawkiye

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:19 AM

link

reply to post by defcon5

Here's a video that proves otherwise:

Of course the attorney tries to deny the case law would have any bearing on any future stop but hey he's an attorney what do you expect...

[edit on 2-7-2010 by hawkiye]

BiGGz

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:22 AM

link

I rather enjoyed the part when the police officer rammed them with the black pickup. I hope those 2 lovers got their necks snapped after that stunt.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by BiGGz]

chise61

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:50 AM

link

reply to post by ThaLoccster

Because its impossible to tell what provoked the shooting, its also impossible to tell if the police drew their guns on the elder Kane before the younger came out of the van and fired on them.

I can't see anything that the police did to "provoke" the shooting, they provoked themselves. There was no reason for them to murder those officers. And then they just hopped back in their car and drove away like it was nothing, as if they had just run over a skunk or something. Not an ounce of remorse, disgusting people.

Seems everything was fine until the second officer showed up. When he first pulls up you can hear the dispacther (think that's who's talking) say something about felony possesion, trafficing (or traffic injury, can't tell for sure) I'm assuming that's info on the father. Seems as though the problem arose when the first officer was told to frisk the father. Guess the provocation was in the fact that they didn't want the police to find something on the father.

If you watch this video, linked by tsurfer2000h,.....

policelink.monster.com...

Looks to me like the boy is planning on shooting the oficers before you even see somethings wrong. Look closely at about the 7:01 mark the second officer is still in front of the dashcam and it's still calm, but watch the van and you'll see at about the 7:01 or 7:02 mark the boy pops the door open and holds it open just a crack. After that is when you see something's happening with the father and the first officer and then the second officer goes towards them. Then the boy jumps out with the gun. But he had the door popped open and was waiting to pull that gun out. So he had intent to shoot before anything kicked off.

I do have a question for any LEO's that may come to this thread though. Aren't officers supposed to stay in front of the dashcam so that everything is recorded ? It seemed like the first officer intentionally stayed out from in front of the dashcam.

They could have omitted the audio portion to hide some wrong doing by the officers, although I can't think of any wrong doings that would justify them being murdered like that. But has anyone even considered that they may have omitted the audio portion so that any family members that may come across this video wouldn't be subjected to hearing their loved ones get shot and killed.

defcon5

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:01 AM

link

reply to post by hawkiye

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by defcon5 someone will show up within minutes to share with us how Patriot movement law is true, and they have used it successfully. Yet that person will not be able show any case law of it working.

See that, I am the only true psychic on ATS…

Anyhow…
I must wonder if you watched your own video, or you just didn't understand it…

Mr Anderson:
The court made a determination, for whatever reason, that the state had not proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” that which they had to prove someone guilty. What happened in this case, which is particular only to this case, what occurred on the roadway when the trooper cited him. This… What happened in this courtroom has no bearing whatsoever on what could happen on any future incidents on the road.

News Caster:
While Mr. Sullivan raises some interesting questions about individual liberties Attorney Griff Anderson say this was a very unusual case, and when it comes to driving, the law is clear.

Mr Anderson:
This has been challenged in the courts, and routinely NC courts, US Courts, other states have upheld the right of the state to regulate the way that people travel. They cannot prohibit people from traveling the public roads, but they can regulate it by requiring licenses, license plates, and people to have insurance.

What he is saying here is not that Mr. Sullivan got away with this because his case was in any way correct, he got away with it this one time because there was something done incorrect in the state troopers execution of the arrest which made it impossible for the prosecution to show “beyond any reasonable doubt” that they could arrest him for the specific charge that he was arrested for at the scene. As the Attorney states, this was a very rare instance, and it will most likely not work twice for Mr. Sullivan.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

tsurfer2000h

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:06 AM

link

reply to post by chise61

Let me add a little more to your post. I think this is a good reason these events turned horribly wrong.

Investigators determined that Joe Kane wielded the AK-47 while his father had a Taurus 45/LC 410 revolver.

The evidence log in the preliminary report shows that police recovered ammunition from the Kanes’ van along with a marijuana brick, rolling papers, a scale and screens with burnt marijuana cigarettes behind the passenger seat. They also found hotel receipts, CDs titled “Banks Do Not Loan Money” and $301, among other items.

So the officer may have found the weapon on the father and he tried to cut and run. If you go to the link provided it also gives a pretty good idea of the events that happened. This is still being investigated so more will come out when the investigation gets farther along. Also one of the officers was the son of the police chief.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by tsurfer2000h]

seeashrink

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:06 AM

link

The ignorance of some these post just blow the mind. My observation as a COP; the second officer to pull onto the scene was a more experienced cop. Watch the tape, he did not snatch the papers from the guys hand, the guy handed the papers to the second officer and he took them. I'm sorry he didn't bow and kiss the guys hand as he did. He then told the original officer to to pat him down or do whats called a "Terry Search" so named after the case law that allows an officer to pat someone down for there own protection. One of two things happened at this time: The officer doing the search was about to put his hand on a concealed weapon or the driver felt that his rights were being violated in which case he would have been wrong. Whatever the reason, he turned and moved quickly away from the officer doing the search. He did this for one or two reasons: To put distance between him and the officer so that he could pull his weapon and shoot the officer or so his son would know it was time for him to shoot the officers.
As a result, two officers were killed by two idiots. A mother lost a mis-guided 16 year old boy.
The officer making the stop never should have let the driver go back to the vehicle and reach his hand inside. This is probably when he told his son to be ready to shoot.
Now having said all of that, I know that they are some bad cops out there. I know that some of you have had some bad experiences with them, I have myself. However, until you do this job, I wish you would think through your comments before you make them. Take a breath, and try to put yourself in the situation, before you write just anything.
Seeashrink

harrytuttle

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:13 AM

link

One thing is for sure, that kid doesn't look like those were the first people he ever shot. The way he just, almost professionally, pops out of the vehicle, raises his weapon, aims steadily, and releases a few rounds carefully (so as not to shoot his father) was unsettling.

Keep in mind how much adrenaline would be coursing through that 16 year old kid's system: He's got a locked and loaded AK-47 on his lap, sitting in the car, and he's waiting, anticipating, trying to make the decision of whether or not he should, and when he does, has to decide when the right moment to free his father is. He's planning on shooting two ARMED and possibly ARMORED (kevlar) and TRAINED Police Officers.

That's one of the most intense scenarios a civilian could put themselves into.

So considering all that, it's amazing how swiftly the kid just hops out and finishes what he set out to accomplish. Notice too how the father and son don't immediately jump in the van, they seem to take their sweet time before leaving (39 seconds after first shots fired for kid). Something about that tells me these 2 have killed before and no one has ever discovered this yet.

It reminds me of those sniper shootings back east about 5 or so years ago, the father/son(?) duo that would shoot people with a rifle from inside the trunk of a big old american car.

My guess is that it will come out after the police investigate these guys that they have killed before using forensics from the AK47 barrel or something.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by harrytuttle]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by harrytuttle]

tsurfer2000h

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:23 AM

link

reply to post by seeashrink

I am glad that someone with law enforcement has come on here and posted. The early report states the father did have a gun, and they also found marijuana and paraphenalia in the car. The first officer may have smelled the weed when he first made contact and called the sargent for backup and tell me if I am wrong here but aren't you supposed to call backup There was no reason that these two officers had to die like that,but lately I have noticed more and more officers being killed on traffic stops and this just happened with two Tampa,Fla police officers that were killed during a traffic stop. I don't know it just seems that there are more and more senseless killing of police officers in this country. It is just getting rediculous that things happen this way.

chise61

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:34 AM

link

reply to post by seeashrink

......... or so his son would know it was time for him to shoot the officers.

That falls in line with what I said about the son cracking the door open before the commotion and just waiting for the right moment. They planned to kill these police officers, it wasn't just something that happened.

Alethea

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:37 AM

link

Originally posted by alaskan
I don't see why they'd remove the audio unless they're trying to hide something.

We've all seen enough videos of cops stepping way out of line in ways that make your blood just boil with anger.

Are there cops who over-react sometimes? Well, I guess so. Especially when THEY see videos like this.

Are there crooked cops? I imagine once in a while, just the same as there are crooked store clerks, crooked telemarketers, and crooked insurance agents.

Most people who join law enforcement have a deep sense of morality and a strong desire to make the world a better place. I truly believe that is the motivation for most all of them.

Many have seen innocent people harmed before ever choosing that field for a career. I think most police have a sense of aiding the underdog and the innocent. Most have a strong sense of right and wrong.

Times today are more turbulent than ever. People disrespect authority, even when it has been put in place to prevent chaos and victimization of others. If people would be cooperative and realize that LEO is putting their lives on the line for the innocent everyday, then perhaps it could be a better world.

I am really sick of these "slam cops" remarks. It does nothing but incite hatred and division instead of appreciation and co-operation.

And you wonder why the US needs a private security force with head to toe armour and big guns??? Pretty soon, you won't find any more police departments with local guys from your own neighborhood anymore.

What I saw in this video was jaw dropping. It was heartless, cold, and so very unnecessary. I am so sorry for the families and friends of these officers. This really hurts to my soul to see this.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Alethea]

harrytuttle

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:39 AM

link

I bet the audio is removed from the main confrontation because the investigators don't want to reveal details of the conversation as it might impede the investigation. Everyone who knows those 2 people will probably be getting raided tonight or very soon.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by harrytuttle]

hawkiye

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:58 AM

link

reply to post by defcon5

What he is saying here is not that Mr. Sullivan got away with this because his case was in any way correct, he got away with it this one time because there was something done incorrect in the state troopers execution of the arrest which made it impossible for the prosecution to show “beyond any reasonable doubt” that they could arrest him for the specific charge that he was arrested for at the scene. As the Attorney states, this was a very rare instance, and it will most likely not work twice for Mr. Sullivan.

Thanks for the laugh! But that is baloney The judge knew the man successfully rescinded his state contract and had no choice so he tried to save face and avoid sanction. How do you screw up a driving without a license case so that one cannot prove you are driving without a license when the man admits it and even officially notified all agencies by sending it back with a letter of rescission?

There was nothing to prove the court had no jurisdiction so it could do nothing!

I hate to break it to you but there are people all across this country doing exactly the same thing. The man won his case pure and simple. Attorneys "at" law are frauds and I have seen them practically cry when confronted by men and women who know who they are bring the real law to bear! The courts are nothing but corporate fictions. A fiction is something that doesn't exist. One can practice law or one can apply it. Its all provable for people willing to study law instead of believing what they are spoon fed by attorneys and judges who have a financial interest in all cases they bring before these fake courts, and it works for those willing to use it.

Those de facto courts have no jurisdiction without your voluntary consent it is that simple! Just because you don't believe it and are ignorant of it doesn't change the fact that people win all the time and the courts hide seal and lose the records because they don't want the masses finding out.

I take it your an attorney or have some family that is?

seeashrink

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:04 AM

link

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

I can't remember but I think this happened on I40 which is considered a drug corridor going east to west. Any officer patrolling I40 should have a partner or request backup on a stop.
Most of the small towns along I40 can only afford one man units as is the case in my town. They try to back each other up automatically without being requested.
The problem: Young cops watch too much TV and listen to too much macho crap from other gung ho officers who watch too much TV. You take a young man/woman barely getting over puberty and give them 3 to 6 months of training. You slap a badge and gun on them and put them with a more experienced officer for 4 to 6 weeks. He/she tells them all these high speed war stories and SWAT crap and baiscally screws their head up a little more. Then you cut them loose on their own with a badge, gun, and a lot of power, very little maturity and even less guidence. Add to that the fear that goes along with the job. Not just fear of being hurt or shot. But, fear of getting fired in their probation period by screwing up. Fear of being sued for trying to do their job. Fear of not fitting in with the other officers who's heads are full of macho bull crap.
In addition, they have the pressure to produce while on patrol. Sometimes it becomes a competition to younger officers to keep up with each other's ticket writing and drug bust, etc. So what you end up with instead of your original purpose of "protect and serve", prevent crime, and respond to citizens in need, is a mis-guided officer that feels the need to show his butt to people and to be too forceful at times.
Trust me, the system is broke, just like the rest of the government.
Seeashrink

[edit on 2-7-2010 by seeashrink]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by seeashrink]

chise61

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:42 AM

link

reply to post by seeashrink

Thank You for giving an honest accounting of a problem within our police force

defcon5

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:42 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Thanks for the laugh! But that is baloney

I hate to break it to you but there are people all across this country doing exactly the same thing.

Good, you should have no problem finding us the case law to show that this is now an accepted legal precedence then?

Case law or it didn’t happen…

Originally posted by hawkiye
Attorneys "at" law are frauds and I have seen them practically cry when confronted by men and women who know who they are bring the real law to bear!

Nope! Actually they don’t, I had this discussion with my office manager who is retired from the state attorneys office and has prosecuted patriot tax evaders, sovereign movement folks, and divers license deniers. I was basically told that in 20 years of prosecuting these cases she had only ever heard of one person in this area who had ever gotten away with it, and that (like the guy above) had extenuating circumstances. I was also told that sometimes it takes the state years to catch up with these folks, but when they do, they end up in prison learning the hard way that they are not really sovereign, and that the UCC which was written in the 1950’s has nothing to do with their Constitutional rights.

Originally posted by hawkiye
The courts are nothing but corporate fictions. A fiction is something that doesn't exist. One can practice law or one can apply it.

This none-sense about the US being a corporation is all based on the Uniform Commercial Code, which did not even exist until 1950’ish. Laws have been enforced on citizens, punishments handed out, drivers licenses handed out, and taxes paid long before the implementation of the UCC. So if the US is a bankrupt corporation, and you can declare your independence from it, then what about the people who lived here well before the UCC existed. That kind of punches a hole in that theory below the waterline, eh?

I bet you also don’t know that each state has an individual UCC, did you?

Originally posted by hawkiye
Those de facto courts have no jurisdiction without your voluntary consent it is that simple!

Then how did courts in the US have jurisdiction for 100’s of years before the UCC was written in 1950?

Originally posted by hawkiye
I take it your an attorney or have some family that is?

Don’t place any money on that you don’t want to lose.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

UmbraSumus

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 06:35 AM

link

I think the dog played a role in this unfortunate incident also.

When i first watched the video , i couldn`t figure out what was going on in the back sit of the van. Then i realised that that was a tail moving about (i had considered the possibility that there was an unruly child throwing a tantrum in the back seat.) .

The point i`m trying to make is that the son was able to reach back or under wherever the weapon was concealed , without drawing the attention of the officers . This was made possible by the presence of the dog moving about in the back of the van.

This is just my humble observation.....

Perhaps one of Ats` - LEO`s could comment on this point .

edit to add :
Is it not usually the case, that any suspicious movement of passenger(s) in a car , draws the attention of an officer at a traffic stop?

[edit on 2-7-2010 by UmbraSumus]