It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nutter
But it's ok to enter a man's property and then shoot him?
outside, on property, not such a good idea to be shooting a tresspasser.
INSIDE walking in my home presenting a danger or threat, yes, yes , yes,
it's fine if it's justifiable and you can handle doing the job.
Have a source for that? Or are you just assuming?
This statement illustrates perfectly why there is a huge conflict of interest in allowing an employer to substitute as the trial process. An employer that may receive backlash by releasing information may be conflicted in withholding such information indefinitely.
First of all, it is common practice that any officer-involved shooting is investigated by outside agencies who were not directly a party to the event.
Spokane police were investigating the incident under a protocol that calls for city police to investigate officer-involved incidents taking place in the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office, which staffs Spokane Valley Police.
But you have to consider that the law enforcement profession is one of the few professions where someone can kill another human being and do so legally under certain circumstances.
Originally posted by harvib
What people are conveying is frustration that a man who killed another man on his own property is most likely going to be given preferential treatment.
He will most likely not have to face a trial like anyone else would. I believe people, correctly, interrupt that as elevating certain employers and their employees to a status that is above the law.
That is why I keep asking you if you would be outraged if a homeless man under the same circumstances was not forced to face trial simply because of an organization he was affiliated with.
Insisting that the cop was trespassing and/or doing a stakeout when we have nothing to support either claim is quite different from saying he's going to get preferential treatment, wouldn't you say?
Maybe he will, maybe he won't. We don't have enough information at this point to know whether he should face trial, let alone if he will. Logic will tell you that if you don't have all the information, you shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Just as I'll be outraged if this particular cop doesn't get charged if the evidence points to charges needing to be filed.
The cop could very well be charged with a crime.
How do you know that this officer won't stand trial?
It's interesting, so, are you assuming that because he is a cop that he won't stand trial?
I was also offended that the victim in the exercise of his own rights was being demonized when it appears he has committed no wrong doing.
Well it's obvious that the victim had some sort of hand in this. Otherwise, he would still be alive wouldn't he?. ...Course again, this all could have been avoided with one phone call, the dispatcher could have told the man that the mysterious car outside was a cop and to not worry.
See, in this theory, the cop isn't a bloodthirsty murderer of flower peddler, but a startled cop and human being reacting to an unknown person with a gun.
Creach’s wife said she heard three shots, but a neighbor across the street said he heard only one shot, Alan Creach said in his statement to the media.
The only new information offered today was that a neighbor of Creach’s called for an extra patrol in the neighborhood Wednesday night.