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.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by smurfy
Exactly. It is 100 percent precisely what we should be doing. They arrest people to discourage their recording of events. We should flood them with all citizens recording to discourage them from beating and killing us. I really suggest it for people in G.B. because of having to deal with all the CCTV's.
Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by Alien Abduct
First off, that's a lot bigger than 10 ft. The ones in the straight line look closer to 18 to 20 feet. In the picture, you see a person standing there and unless he is a little person, he has to be between 5 to 6 ft tall. If he went up and just fired, they wouldn't be in a straight line either. There would be a 5 to 6 foot cluster. The other 2 look like they may have bounced off the top of the car. If his arm was stuck, the angle he may of had his weapon would put the spent casing towards the vehicle. That would also explain the V shape because after the first shot, I'm guessing she laid the pedal to the floor. If the shell hit the car at a higher rate of speed, it could traveled a little bit farther. I would like to see the placement of the shots. Depending on where they landed, this can either confirm my theory or not. This is why I said in my very first post, I will wait for more evidence. Witnesses are good but what if he has the same mind set as most of the people on here? Police are gulty until proven innocent?
Originally posted by MagesticEsoteric
According to an article in the Star Exponet posted today, someone from the school/church where the victim was parked actually called the police to respond to a suspicous vehicle.
So, this begs the question....wouldn't it seem logical for someone from the school/church to be watching when the police actually arrived? Just out of pure curiousity???
I mean, if someone from the church called, wouldn't they want to see what happens when the cops arrive to make sure everything was safe for the school children inside?
So, if it was in fact someone from the school/church that made the call....why are there no witnesses?
Sorry to not provide a link but, if you go to the newspapers website...it's the top story.
Also, in the comments section, it seems like the community is getting aggravated that the paper even ran the story because it really doesn't provide anything of substance and actually makes it appear more suspicious in regards to the victim.
Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Originally posted by MagesticEsoteric
According to an article in the Star Exponet posted today, someone from the school/church where the victim was parked actually called the police to respond to a suspicous vehicle.
So, this begs the question....wouldn't it seem logical for someone from the school/church to be watching when the police actually arrived? Just out of pure curiousity???
I mean, if someone from the church called, wouldn't they want to see what happens when the cops arrive to make sure everything was safe for the school children inside?
So, if it was in fact someone from the school/church that made the call....why are there no witnesses?
Sorry to not provide a link but, if you go to the newspapers website...it's the top story.
Also, in the comments section, it seems like the community is getting aggravated that the paper even ran the story because it really doesn't provide anything of substance and actually makes it appear more suspicious in regards to the victim.
This is a good point I too asked my self a similar question. Was there really a call? Where is the proof of the call? Perhaps the person who made that call could speak up?
It is too soon right now for most of the evidence to be made public so we will just have to wait until more information is provided, I'm going to follow this one as close as I can.
-Alien
Originally posted by Nucleardiver
Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
Originally posted by Nucleardiver
The actions of this cop would have landed me in front of a UN criminal court if I had acted in this manner and shot an unarmed Afghan civilian while deployed
I'm pretty sure they do all the time, and get away with it, from what I've read here.
en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)
Please tell me if I'm wrong.
Okaaay.......Well first of all your link doesn't work, it says wikipedia has no articles matching that text and secondly its wikipedia. Next time you want to make an argument please back it up with "verifiable" proof. Also don't try to provide MSM news articles that are full of anti-war bias.
I am also curious as to your actual first hand knowledge of the amount of civilian deaths in Afghan or Iraq. I did 3 deployments in Afghan and 2 in Iraq and I personally only witnessed unarmed civilian casualties 3 times and even then they had weapons caches in their vicinity and there were units taking fire from their location.
It was my experience during my deployments that the civilians in both countries were welcoming and we were friendly to them. I was also in Afghan when a Marine unit was responsible for killing several civilians in a house where weapons and explosives were suspected and found and guess what? 2 of those Marines are now in prison. So I don't know who or where you are getting your info but I would definitely consider finding some new sources if you expect people to think of you as anything but a troll.
Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by Alien Abduct
First off, that's a lot bigger than 10 ft. The ones in the straight line look closer to 18 to 20 feet. In the picture, you see a person standing there and unless he is a little person, he has to be between 5 to 6 ft tall. If he went up and just fired, they wouldn't be in a straight line either. There would be a 5 to 6 foot cluster. The other 2 look like they may have bounced off the top of the car. If his arm was stuck, the angle he may of had his weapon would put the spent casing towards the vehicle. That would also explain the V shape because after the first shot, I'm guessing she laid the pedal to the floor. If the shell hit the car at a higher rate of speed, it could traveled a little bit farther. I would like to see the placement of the shots. Depending on where they landed, this can either confirm my theory or not. This is why I said in my very first post, I will wait for more evidence. Witnesses are good but what if he has the same mind set as most of the people on here? Police are gulty until proven innocent?
The shell casings are in a line, consistent with the officer's story that the vehicle was in motion. as was the officer.
Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by Alien Abduct
You can yawn at the facts if you want to but I prefer to judge people on evidence not because he is a cop.
How far do you think that person on the sidewalk ,next to the same road that it happened on, is?
The shell casings are in a line, consistent with the officer's story that the vehicle was in motion. as was the officer..
........ if the officer is found to be guilty then he needs to go to jail.......
And as for the "witness", it looks like he has some history with the court system. Charged with B&E, possession of a controlled substance, FTA-Capias issued, and sentenced to 3 years in prison for a heroin conviction.
Now if this is true, like with the officer I'll wait for something offical, then this witness may have the same kind of attitude you have towards law enforcement.
Originally posted by Honor93
any approach to a call is based on perception ... unless it is a crime in progress.
there are no facts to allege a "suspicious" person ... hence, it is perception, nothing else.
when a cop announces "gun, gun" and there isn't one present (other than his own) it is again, perception and nothing else. Reasonable means just that, reasonable evidence, not assumption.
the woman provided NO REASONABLE evidence of anything other than minding her own business.
for the officer to inquire is reasonable, for him to act is not.
for her to refuse his inquiry is LEGAL, reasonable, well within her right and still not demanding any actions on behalf of the officer.
i never claimed this officer was "bored" ... that statement is from a personal experience.
however, by reaching inside her vehicle (if he actually did so) and not acquiescing when she chose to not engage his request, is most certainly harassment, at the least, assault if any non-LEO did it to another.
investigating a suspicious report could have been achieved by mere observation, no personal engagement necessary ... especially since she was not actively participating in any crime.
you and unknown officer seem to think that it's "mandatory" to respond to any official request, maybe so in Canada but not in the US ... at least not yet anyway.
an investigation of a complaint does not REQUIRE personal interactions with anyone ... why do you assume it does?
what would have been so wrong for him to drive to the parking lot, park in a corner of the lot, remain as an observer for a period of time, assess the "potential suspicion" reported and move along?
why was it necessary to engage a non-threat?
The Culpeper town spokesperson says the officer's cruiser did have a video camera, but that it was not working. He also said the officer did not turn on his blue lights. If he had, it would've been a sign that he was detaining the person, says attorney and former Fairfax County Police officer Ted Sibert . If the person is not being detained, she should be free to go, Sibert says. "What is he investigating? if its just for we call a suspicious person, then he doesn't have jusification to use force to maintain the contact. So if the person wants to roll the window up, they can. He can't be sticking his hand in the window or pulling someone out of the the car or open the door. Those all need justification," Sibert says.