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.

 

NYPD murders unarmed teen in Grandmothers home

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   


Ramarley Graham died last Thursday after Richard Haste, 30, a New York police officer, entered his grandmother's apartment and shot Graham in the chest while he attempted to flush a bag of marijuana down the toilet. Graham was unarmed and police did not have a warrant to enter the home.

Source

He lost his life over a dimebag, there's nothing else to it.



Haste's partner told investigators that Haste identified himself as a police officer, told Graham to "show his hands" and then yelled "gun, gun" before firing, Kelly said. But Graham's grandmother maintains that officers did not announce their presence entering her home and that Haste did not say anything to Graham before shooting him, Emdin said. "I asked her if they said 'police' when they entered," Emdin said. "She says 100 percent no."


No search warrant but I guess this misdemeanor possession, which in this instance most likely would not have been a jailable offence, was serious enough that they felt it necessary to kick down the door and callously take the life of another human being.



Last year, the sixth year in a row that marijuana possession arrests increased, 50,383 people were arrested, according to a report recently released by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and obtained by the policy alliance, which advocates for reform of drug laws.


New Yorks Cannabis reform are proving to be ineffective and arrests have actually INCREASED. How many people are going to continue to lose their lives over a plant?

Source

I don't trust cops, as death is concomitant whenever they're called.
edit on 12-2-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Their is a big part of the story missing. Why was the cop their in the first place? I wonder if the person who got shot got into something. The police should start a hit men organization. They way could get away with it.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Too many innocent people lose their life over nothing (Not only refering to marijuana posession) when they encounter a cop. I really hope for you guys that marijuana get's legalized over there soon.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I seriously think nobody should call the police unless a perp. really needs to die.
Everybody should be issued pistols and solve their own problems.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
why do we even have police?

who thinks this thread will be deleted because of the "m" word?
edit on 12-2-2012 by biggmoneyme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


Hoiw about you use the actual title of the article like you are supposed to instead of giving us your opinion and trying to pass it off as fact?

Or is it to much to ask for all information to be presented?

For starters it is permissible for law enforcement to enter a home without a search warrant in order to prevent evidence from being destroyed. This has been ruled on by the US Supreme Court and upheld time and again.

Secondly the Police Chief is questioning the actions, and has turned the ivestigatuion over to the Bronx DA, who is conveneing a grand jury for potential charges.

So before you left wing leberals decry the police, how about you read the entire article and get all of the information first.

Whats even better, and yet is not surprising, is the fact private surveillance video inside the apartment complex.

The grandmothers version of events differ from that of the officers, who apparently yelled gun gun before he fired his weapon at the guy.

God forbid you guys wait for the ivnestigation to be completed, but then again we know how much you hate the 100 meter rush to judgment, aside from when you are doing it.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
why do we even have police?

who thinks this thread will be deleted because of the "m" word?
edit on 12-2-2012 by biggmoneyme because: (no reason given)


I find it more than a little strange that a thread here would be deleted because of that.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


Hoiw about you use the actual title of the article like you are supposed to instead of giving us your opinion and trying to pass it off as fact?



Ok so the the OP's title is "NYPD murders unarmed teen in Grandmothers home" and the article title is "Ramarley Graham, Unarmed Teen, Illegally Killed By New York Police, Lawyer Says"

What part are you getting upset about opinions?

That it wasnt the grandmothers home, or that illegally killed is not the same thing as murder, or that NYPD doesnt really stand for New York Police Department?



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Police brutality in some ways could be how their prepping officers, medics, military personal for a possible SHF scenerio. Most of these officers are pretty much let off scott free with as little as six months job probation. This could be a very easy, slow process of allowing police to become accustomed to violence, trauma and of course, becoming guilt free. Once the person becomes guilt free, they are free to do as they will. Killing is easy when you feel nothing because of it.

However, this is wild speculation but something I believe worth discussing about.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


What's a "leberal"? LOL! I don't consider myself "left wing"; in some things I am conservative, and others LIBERAL, but I do have a problem with the incredible waste of manpower, resources and tax dollars that go into persecuting people over a fricking plant.

I also have a problem with police busting in, guns drawn, over something like drugs. Too many unarmed people are getting murdered by cops, but since it is state-sanctioned, I suppose they call it "justifiable homicide".

I know there are some good cops out there, but there's a lot of bad ones, and too much blood is being spilled over victimless crimes.

May I suggest that you stop issuing blanket statements and not group everybody into a "left wing" or "right wing" box, as it is counter-productive to the discussion at hand.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Sometimes I'm with you on these cop threads, and sometimes against you.


This time, its against. There is no reason for them to pursue a suspect on a misdemeanor drug charge into a home without a warrant, and no reason to have guns drawn in the first place, let alone use the guns! Even if he did think he saw a gun, the guy was not accused of any violent crime, and apparently not wanted as a suspect in any violent crime, so in fact, the cops were the aggressors.

We are supposed to be safe from aggression in our own homes.

The cop was 100% in the wrong here, and even if the DA convicts the cop, it won't bring the man back.

You know, cliches and stereotypes don't come out of nowhere. There are plenty of good reasons for people to fear and hate the police, and this story is one of them. The other story right now where an off-duty cop pulled his weapon after an argument in a Walmart checkout is another good reason. The police are armed, and volatile, and they stick together, so even when a civilian is absolutely within their rights and justified, they are likely still going to lose the battle, either with their life, or in court.

I've got an awful lot of friends that are great cops, and great detectives and agents, but I'm still apprehensive each and every time I have an encounter with an officer.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


Hoiw about you use the actual title of the article like you are supposed to instead of giving us your opinion and trying to pass it off as fact?

Or is it to much to ask for all information to be presented?

For starters it is permissible for law enforcement to enter a home without a search warrant in order to prevent evidence from being destroyed. This has been ruled on by the US Supreme Court and upheld time and again.

Secondly the Police Chief is questioning the actions, and has turned the ivestigatuion over to the Bronx DA, who is conveneing a grand jury for potential charges.

So before you left wing leberals decry the police, how about you read the entire article and get all of the information first.

Whats even better, and yet is not surprising, is the fact private surveillance video inside the apartment complex.

The grandmothers version of events differ from that of the officers, who apparently yelled gun gun before he fired his weapon at the guy.

God forbid you guys wait for the ivnestigation to be completed, but then again we know how much you hate the 100 meter rush to judgment, aside from when you are doing it.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


I don't care, it's MY thread.

I layed the evidence out objectively, and selected sections of the articles I thought were most poignant and ostensible.

And I'm aware of the Supreme Court ruling, but that's when an individual must use their common sense.

You're completely right, both versions differ but the evidence does not lie (unless it's been tampered with) which if you had not carelessly mulled over the article you'd know that no gun or narcotics were found.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


And if you knew and understood how the law worked you would know that when deadly forced is used, its viewed in the context of what did the officer perceive the exact moment force was used. It prohibits the use of 20/20 hindsight in order to judge an officers actions. That would be a Supreme Court ruling that you apparently aren't familiar with and is designed to prohibit exactly what you are doing.

A person does not have to be in possession of a weapon in order for use of deadly force to be justified. It takes into account ALL actions / motions at the time force was used.

Why bother with facts though when its obvious from your title that you are just making it up as you go. Like the insinuation evidence might have been destroyed. Its evident your only goal in this sham of a thread is to cast dispersions while ignoring any actions by law enforcement that show they are investigating the officers actions and the Bronx DA is doing the same.

All of which supports the view of what your actual intentions are in this thread, which is to present anything but the facts. For a person who is keen on the laws and rules you apparently over looked the one for this site that says you will use the title of the thread and not your personal opinion.

In for a penny in for a pound eh...
edit on 12-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Let's not use the law to be douche bags



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


Hoiw about you use the actual title of the article like you are supposed to instead of giving us your opinion and trying to pass it off as fact?

Or is it to much to ask for all information to be presented?

For starters it is permissible for law enforcement to enter a home without a search warrant in order to prevent evidence from being destroyed. This has been ruled on by the US Supreme Court and upheld time and again.

Secondly the Police Chief is questioning the actions, and has turned the ivestigatuion over to the Bronx DA, who is conveneing a grand jury for potential charges.

So before you left wing leberals decry the police, how about you read the entire article and get all of the information first.

Whats even better, and yet is not surprising, is the fact private surveillance video inside the apartment complex.

The grandmothers version of events differ from that of the officers, who apparently yelled gun gun before he fired his weapon at the guy.

God forbid you guys wait for the ivnestigation to be completed, but then again we know how much you hate the 100 meter rush to judgment, aside from when you are doing it.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I see you constantly bitching about technicalities, and always sticking up for cops no matter what, but rarely, if ever, showing any empathy towards loss of life.

This is the second thread TODAY, regarding a cop killing a civilian in an over-reactive manner, no matter how the detail are spun. I find you arguing technicalities instead of showing respect for loss of life all the time. I'm embarrassed for you.

With you it's always people rushing to judgement. Maybe, but that doesn't erase the fact another life was loss over something far too petty for a life to be lost over. Someone lost their life, and here you are bitching about the thread title and bashing liberals. Good human beings respect life, not political parties.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


OK, so it was Premeditated murder then, if it was all planned.

And not just a simple "Hey dat dere guy is flushing weed, Why he's dead!!!" situation.

Good to know, drugs kill... by proxy.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


A life was lost yes, however im not the one rushing to judgment. Just because you dont agree with the way the law works doesn't mean the law should be ignored. Yes I complain about the overlooked technicalities because its those technicalities that places the situation into proper context.

For example the technicality of the use of deadly force being what the officer perceived at the moment force was used as opposed to people who ignore those laws they dont agree with in order to rush to judgment on the officers actions, as was done in this case, which by the way gives the illusion you guys have no concern for law, just revenge based on incomplete / inaccurate information.

Since there are so many people who embrace ignorance when it comes to law enforcement you are damn right I will be in those threads giving the side of the story you guys refuse to look at and accept.

The 100 meter rush to judgment you guys do is just insane as well as hypocritical. When you decide to put on a uniform, put a gun on your hip and stand in harms way, then you get to second guess an officers actions.

Until that time, your opinion means nothing.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


For example the technicality of the use of deadly force being what the officer perceived at the moment force was used as opposed to people who ignore those laws they dont agree with in order to rush to judgment on the officers actions, as was done in this case, which by the way gives the illusion you guys have no concern for law, just revenge based on incomplete / inaccurate information.



Besides the other officers allegations that the shooter shouted 'gun gun.!', what other instances of force by the suspect can you cite from the article.?



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


You aren't understanding how this works... A use of force does not have to occur or even exist for a use of deadly force to occur. Because police situations are extremely fluid, able to go from stable to cluster within the blink of an eye, its what the officer perceived at the exact moment the force was used.

Law Enforcement does not have the luxury of hindsight 20/20 on calls, where as the media and the public do. They apply that hindsight to the situation, demanding to know why an officer did this or that, while ignoring the reasons given.

There was an incident some time back where a standoff was in progress. The officers on the outside of the house were trying to negotiate with an armed individual who was not going to be taken alive. During the process tear gas was used on one of the windows.

The canister snagged in the curtains, causing a fire in that part. One of the officers saw this, and yelled fire, at which point several officers returned fire into the house. They perceived the officer who yelled fire as he was being fired at, as in shots fired.

These situations are not all they are cracked up to be. There are noted cases where suspects have intentionally acted / yelled a command in order to get the desired response, which in most cases results in death. If the suspect yelled gun, why do you think he did that?

If a person has an understanding of terminology of how the police work and the commands used when in a deadly situation, knowing full well the training behind some of those command words, why on earth would a suspect yell a phrase knowing it would most likely result in his death?

Why on earth would he do that?

You guys also ignore the goal of a defense attorney. Of course they are going to go on the record stating the police acted illegally by doing this or that. They are SUPPOSED to represent their clients in that manner. Just because they make that claim in the media doesn't mean a judge / court is going to agree with them.

Defense attorneys, when dealing whit the police, play to the public knowing full well law enforcement and the prosecutor cant counter every claim made without the possibility of jeopardizing their prosecution.

Stuff you guys either don't know about, or jut don't care about.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I understand what you're saying, lack of info, awareness etc. I call it, "the better judgment" situation. It's when the officers must decide to follow protocol or TBJ. The latter increasing the risk of potential harm to the officer. You must have misread the article, because from what I see it says that the officer demanded the suspect show his hands then yelled "gun gun". You seem to be very knowledgable on police protocol, so wouldn't it be more likely that the officer yelled "gun gun" as to warn his partner? From what I know, an officer would say something exactly like this to clear confusion and avoid litigation. If we were to apply the aforementioned options or paths the officer had to this instance, had he chosen TBJ and chose not to fire the shot there would be know backlash. The circumstances are never perfect, but aren't officers trained to respond aptly and deftly to these exact types of situations?
edit on 12-2-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join