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.

 

Glendale Police shoot and Kill grandfather with granchild in arms

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Toffeeapple
I expect you noticed my post was addressed to Nixi, not you?


You must have mistakenly addressed it to me then:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Toffeeapple
And what's the rate of officers being shot over here got to do with anything anyway? Yes there are a lot more shootings where you are, but that's not a good reason to be blase about it, surely!

Because shootings are usually fatal, were other types of violence are not.
That puts one heck of a bit of stress on US officers on a daily basis when compared to their foreign counterparts.

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




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


For crying out loud why does it take six pages to get this point across?



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Toffeeapple
I expect you noticed my post was addressed to Nixi, not you?


You must have mistakenly addressed it to me then:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Toffeeapple
And what's the rate of officers being shot over here got to do with anything anyway? Yes there are a lot more shootings where you are, but that's not a good reason to be blase about it, surely!

Because shootings are usually fatal, were other types of violence are not.
That puts one heck of a bit of stress on US officers on a daily basis when compared to their foreign counterparts.

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


No, the one asking for the other points I'd raised to be addressed was to Nixi, not yourself.

Yes, I'm sure they are under a lot of stress. I don't see that that's any form of justification for being gung-ho with lethal weapons though.

You and some others seem to be arguing that there being a lot of shootings in the States is a reason why there are a lot of shootings in the States. Do you see what I mean? Like it's OK for cops to shoot people who may be innocent, because it's a violent place. Can't you see the flaw in that argument.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Toffeeapple because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
You and some others seem to be arguing that there being a lot of shootings in the States is a reason why there are a lot of shootings in the States. Do you see what I mean? Like it's OK for cops to shoot people who may be innocent, because it's a violent place. Can't you see the flaw in that argument.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Due to a high rate of police killed on duty, the police here do not take a, as you put it, blasé attitude toward these situations. In other words, when a cop gives you the “lawful order” to come out of your house with your hands in plain sight, you better damn well come out of your house with your hands in plain sight. If you screw around, for any reason, you give them “probable cause” to kill you under many circumstances.

A lot of folks here don't take police as seriously as they should, and many try and negotiate terms with them, or resist. Its not a police officers job to act as a judge or jury, its their job to enforce the law and let others handle the legal ramifications in the correct venues. Many people either just don't get that, or have other ideas as to how their police encounters are to end. The problem is that its the police who get the final word until the case goes to court, not the accused, and they will get that final word via any amount of force that is required to get it.

Point is that when an officer lawfully tells you to do something, you do it. You don't screw around with them, especially when they consider you a potentially armed person of interest.

Let me ask you this...
Whats to say that this man didn't decide that he was going to be hauled off to jail, would lose custody of his grandchild, and so he figures on killing himself and the kid. Then we would be reading an article about how the police failed to act to stop him, wouldn't we?

The problem is that in the days of the internet, we often hear more from the aggrieved side, from their perspective, then we do from the police side, or actual facts. Often that story is askew from reality, or is lacking in facts, to sway public opinion against the police to cause outcry before it goes to court. In other words, often no matter what the police do, they cannot win in the public view, and this is a fact that is often taken advantage of by defendants families and attorneys.

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



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



Let me ask you this...
Whats to say that this man didn't decide that he was going to be hauled off to jail, would lose custody of his grandchild, and so he figures on killing himself and the kid. Then we would be reading an article about how the police failed to act to stop him, wouldn't we?


A million pages of assumptions further and you feel the need to throw in a couple of extra straw men for emotional impact. Who says he would have come outside in the first place? Who says he wouldn't have a 50ft inflatable - insert weapon of choice here - ? While we're making stuff up, could he also have had developed a self-sufficient mode of transportation? Maybe he was in contact with aliens? Maybe it was a clone of the man and not the man himself?

Do you see how retarded it gets? Personally, I see the same type of idiocy reading the assumptions I made above and other assumptions made by people like you in the thread..."reading between the line"...

"He shot him with a scoped rifle, that means it's all okay - go back to sleep America!"

Answer this, if they had enough time to shoot an unarmed man with a scoped rifle IN THE HEAD, could they not have...I don't know...shot him in the leg? They can't honestly say they "feared" for the safety of the baby if they shot the grandfather through the friggin' head, can they? More like, "SHOOT IM IN THE HEAD BOB LESS PAPERWORK".

Word of advice; every single person defending cops to this end when there is no doubt they go beyond their rights to falsely arrest, beat and kill citizens...you should be ready to deal with Karma when a bunch of "criminals" deal with you and cops are nowhere to be found. ;-)
edit on 18-2-2012 by InfoKartel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Your argument that "police officers are fearing for their lives" is wholly misguided and lacking of merit.


NLEOMF
------------------------2011--------2010
Total Fatalities-----177---------153-------+16%
Firearms-related----71-----------59-------+20%
Traffic-related--------64-------------71___-10%
Other Causes-------42-------------23------+83%

www.nleomf.org...


Almost as many cop's die of TRAFFIC accidents then being killed in the line of duty!

You would think ditching the sporty type cruisers would be a higher priority then killing someone holding a baby, if what your saying is true.

Now let's compare that with say real hero's like firefighters:


firefighterclosecalls

2011: 81 (all on Duty Deaths)

www.firefighterclosecalls.com...


81 tragic deaths in the line of duty. You don't see Firefighters accidentally hosing down Gramps at all.

Now let's take a peak at 2010 for the "plebeian" workforce: -(Sadly 2011 isn't out yet)



Bureau of Labor Statistics
A preliminary total of 4,547 fatal work injuries were recorded in the United States in 2010,

-
Fatal work injuries in the private mining industry rose from 99 in 2009 to 172 in 2010, an
increase of 74 percent.

www.bls.gov...




And the small number(11) increase in police deaths via firearms also directly coincides with a blatant police increase in brutality.

Also, how many people are murdered, err killed by police officers each year? Ohh right, they don't want to release that data(and the NYPD is fighting tooth and nail to keep that data confidential).



Police kill over 300 people annually in "Justifiable" murders.
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...

Heck, just going by that little nugget alone, a person has a better chance of being killed by a police officer then winning the lottery. And roughly close to the same odds as being struck by lightening.

The problem is though that is not even half the equation. And without the total numbers of "Accidental murders", any such statements would belittle the victims of police excess.


edit on 18-2-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2012 by korathin because: unwanted smiley due to closeness of symbols.

edit on 18-2-2012 by korathin because: added link

edit on 18-2-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2012 by korathin because: done----- Had to fix an error, said week instead of 2010.

edit on 18-2-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by InfoKartel
Who says he would have come outside in the first place? Who says he wouldn't have a 50ft inflatable - insert weapon of choice here - ? While we're making stuff up, could he also have had developed a self-sufficient mode of transportation? Maybe he was in contact with aliens? Maybe it was a clone of the man and not the man himself?

these things tend to follow patterns, and you can make a logical extrapolation based on that. The police already stated that they believed that they man was trying to commit suicide via cop.


Originally posted by InfoKartel
Personally, I see the same type of idiocy reading the assumptions I made above and other assumptions made by people like you in the thread..."reading between the line"...

And yet the assumptions that I made above ended up being true according to further news reports.


Originally posted by InfoKartel
"He shot him with a scoped rifle, that means it's all okay - go back to sleep America!"

No it means:
1) It was a calculated move to protect the child.
2) It was not a spur of the moment reaction.
3) There was some type of stand off that took an amount of time to get the proper personnel and equipment into place.



Originally posted by InfoKartel
Answer this, if they had enough time to shoot an unarmed man with a scoped rifle IN THE HEAD, could they not have...I don't know...shot him in the leg?

American police don’t shoot to wound, they shoot to kill. Only in the movies do they shoot to wound. The reason is that increases the chances of a dirty shot hitting an innocent bystander. In a hostage situation, they are going to take a shot that is an instant kill, and that has the highest probability of passing directly through the body without the bullet losing sufficient velocity to spin, tumble, or ricochet.


Originally posted by InfoKartel
They can't honestly say they "feared" for the safety of the baby if they shot the grandfather through the friggin' head, can they? More like, "SHOOT IM IN THE HEAD BOB LESS PAPERWORK".

They took that shot because it would cause instant death with minimal chance of the bullet exiting via a path that could hit the child. That also speaks to the fact that the man was not acting in a rational fashion, and obviously showing signs that he was a danger to himself and the child.


Originally posted by InfoKartel
Word of advice; every single person defending cops to this end when there is no doubt they go beyond their rights to falsely arrest, beat and kill citizens...you should be ready to deal with Karma when a bunch of "criminals" deal with you and cops are nowhere to be found.

That can work both ways, you do realize that the cops are not always the bad guys or in the wrong. Someone could just as easily say that karma would have them not act when you needed action.

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



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Lets see some of these police officers go to trial and have their day in court. An independent team of investigators should be brought in to gather evidence and no evidence should be hidden. If a policepersons mates lie in court they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the the law. Their is a huge importance on making sure a fair honest and just trial occurs (fair for the policeperson, the dead person and their family.) In most of these cases if a policeman is trigger happy he should be charged with manslaughter and if he/she fires at a person that is clearly unarmed or not going for their weapon they should be charged with murder. Police also have other weapons such as tasers and battons which do not kill people as well as handcuffs and various other restraints to use. The police can also refrain from just rushing into situations and call for back up.
Police departments should also train their staff in how to handle situations better



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by defcon5
 


Your argument that "police officers are fearing for their lives" is wholly misguided and lacking of merit.


NLEOMF
------------------------2011--------2010
Total Fatalities-----177---------153-------+16%
Firearms-related----71-----------59-------+20%
Traffic-related--------64-------------71___-10%
Other Causes-------42-------------23------+83%

www.nleomf.org...


Almost as many cop's die of TRAFFIC accidents then being killed in the line of duty!

You would think ditching the sporty type cruisers would be a higher priority then killing someone holding a baby, if what your saying is true.

Now let's compare that with say real hero's like firefighters:


firefighterclosecalls

2011: 81 (all on Duty Deaths)

www.firefighterclosecalls.com...


81 tragic deaths in the line of duty. You don't see Firefighters accidentally hosing down Gramps at all.

Now let's take a peak at 2010 for the "plebeian" workforce: -(Sadly 2011 isn't out yet)



Bureau of Labor Statistics
A preliminary total of 4,547 fatal work injuries were recorded in the United States in 2010,

-
Fatal work injuries in the private mining industry rose from 99 in 2009 to 172 in 2010, an
increase of 74 percent.

www.bls.gov...




And the small number(11) increase in police deaths via firearms also directly coincides with a blatant police increase in brutality.

Also, how many people are murdered, err killed by police officers each year? Ohh right, they don't want to release that data(and the NYPD is fighting tooth and nail to keep that data confidential).



Police kill over 300 people annually in "Justifiable" murders.
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...

Heck, just going by that little nugget alone, a person has a better chance of being killed by a police officer then winning the lottery. And roughly close to the same odds as being struck by lightening.

The problem is though that is not even half the equation. And without the total numbers of "Accidental murders", any such statements would belittle the victims of police excess.



also assaults, knife attacks and being hit by vehicles (accidental or not) are also deaths that are on officers minds. these all have a second party involved. traffic accidents can also be from chases but also simple accidents, we all know the roads are dangerous we just take it for granted mostly.

firefighters dont need to face adversaries who might be trying to kill them, sometimes they do with the mentally unstable.

these are justified killings which means if the officer didnt fire first than they would be the ones who have died or injured. incidentally do you have any officers injured in line of duty figures?

so lets say the criminal fired on the officers first those 300 or so times and say they were all fatal, thats a fair bit more officer deaths that they need to contend with. i think maybe if you can find the unjustified officer kills will be more suited for the arguement.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Due to a high rate of police killed on duty, the police here do not take a, as you put it, blasé attitude toward these situations.


Civilians are viewed as the enemy, virtually without fail. Cops see themselves as being there to serve and protect themselves, not anyone else. The few genuinely decent cops left in existence, will argue that this is due to their potential for being killed; the secondary psychopaths who are becoming the majority, however, simply won't give a damn.


A lot of folks here don't take police as seriously as they should


I am (common) law abiding, and have no criminal record. At the same time, however, I view a police officer as the personification of the governmental monopoly on physical violence. They are the State's last line of defense; and the vast majority of laws which they enforce, do not, in point of fact, have legal legitimacy. This is because 99% of said laws are statutes, (contracts) which assume the consent of the arrested party. Most of the population are not aware of that fact, and Western governments rely on that ignorance in order to survive.

I do not believe in the thin blue line; I consider it a myth. None of the violence that I have experienced has in any way been either prevented or reduced as a result of the actions of the police. Although I try not to feel hostility towards them, (and at times am even moved to compassion for them, given some of the situations they can end up in) I therefore largely do not view the institution, in broad terms, as being morally or legally legitimate. Individual officers can possess varying levels of integrity; but in terms of their institutional purpose, they are the government's soldati, and very little more. They are also their own caste, and they well know it. In practical terms, they are not governed by the same laws that we are, at all.

When I look at a police officer on the street, what I see is an individual with the physical means (and increasingly, the legal immunity) to end my life. As a result, while I attempt to be exceedingly polite to them, my main priority is to remove myself from their physical proximity as rapidly as possible, as I consider them a potentially lethal threat, both in legal and immediately physical terms.


Point is that when an officer lawfully tells you to do something, you do it. You don't screw around with them, especially when they consider you a potentially armed person of interest.


The law has nothing whatsoever to do with it. In an immediate situation, you don't obey a cop because of the law. You obey him or her because it could well mean your death if you do not. A cop expects your obedience because if you antagonise him in any way, he can do anything he wants to you, up to and including killing you, and then lie to his superiors about it in order to get away with it; and if the case becomes public, he can count on his superiors' unquestioning support, irrespective of the level of evidence that may exist of his guilt. They view themselves as a closed brotherhood, and the civilian population as the enemy, as mentioned.

I am not speaking, here, about theoretical platitudes concerning how police are supposed to behave. I am also not talking about some distant past, or some hypothetical individual officers with more integrity than the norm. I am talking about the cold, ugly reality of what is happening on the streets right now; every day, every minute, particularly since 9/11.

I am sensing that you are an individual with positive intentions, and I therefore sincerely apologise if you have found this post excessively confrontational or disturbing. Nevertheless, it is my perspective, and it is not held without cause.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
shows that american police are full of mass murdering thugs.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
This is because 99% of said laws are statutes, (contracts) which assume the consent of the arrested party. Most of the population are not aware of that fact, and Western governments rely on that ignorance in order to survive.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Sorry, but that is a bunch of fake internet law tripe.

States absolutely have the right to enact laws, which are called “state statutes” as long as they do not interfere with your Constitutional rights. They are not contracts, and criminal law falls under their authority:


A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county.[1] Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy.[1] The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations issued by government agencies.[1] Statutes are sometimes referred to as legislation or "black letter law". As a source of law, statutes are considered primary authority (as opposed to secondary authority).


For example you’ll find the laws for crimes such as murder, theft, rape, etc. under your states statues. These are not optional laws that you can avoid by spewing some legal hocus-pocus that you quite incorrectly learned on the internet, and there is lots of case law to back them up:
Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments
You can try and fight the system by playing that you are a “freeman” that is not bound by “contractual state statues”, but you’ll end up losing and submitting to the legal system in the end, because these theories are in fact false internet rumors.

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



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by petrus4
This is because 99% of said laws are statutes, (contracts) which assume the consent of the arrested party. Most of the population are not aware of that fact, and Western governments rely on that ignorance in order to survive.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Sorry, but that is a bunch of fake internet law tripe.

States absolutely have the right to enact laws, which are called “state statutes” as long as they do not interfere with your Constitutional rights. They are not contracts, and criminal law falls under their authority:


They can't be anything other than contracts though, by definition. If the state says I have to have a driver's license in order to drive a car, and I get one, then I am choosing to abide by the terms. If I make a choice to drive without a license, then the state's only remedy is the use of force (ultimately imprisonment) in order to attempt to coerce my consent. I could, however, very well die without making the choice to willingly get a license; and there is nothing the state can naturally do about that at all. We may well, of course, end up in a scenario where we have neurological implants and such which can mechanically alter a person's will; but such do not make said coercion any more natural, or any more legitimate.

As far as murder is concerned, I could agree with you; although I think you'll find that murder is a common law element anyway. Murder is a crime which, if permitted, would ultimately lead to the destruction of society; and I was not aware that legitimate law at least, had any purpose other than the protection of life.

With marijuana prohibition however, as another example; I don't understand how in court, any state could avoid having to make the admission that the state's only basis for said law is its' physical capacity to enforce it. I live in a town which engages in vocal protest of that and other laws; it can very safely be said in their case, that said law does not have the consent of the governed.

You can cite, in response to that, the idea that in a democracy, majority rule applies. I'd have no problem at all with putting the issue to a national referendum, and letting the majority of the population decide. The government, however, refuse to do that. The law exists purely by their fiat. extra DIV



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
A full investigation by another department should be performed and could be in process.

In states I am familiar with (and I've requested info from a friend who is a judge and teaches law to police officers) another department, i.e. possibly the Sheriff or State Police would immediately do a complete investigation.

I ask again.... where were the tasers?

Until a complete report is released to the public, we are making many assumptions, and you know how the old saying goes, "assume" makes an ass out of you and me....

I would hope that the department would recognize 'how this looks' to the general public, of whom they are sworn to "protect and serve". I am asking my judge friend to find me statistics, but this officer must hold some sort of record, 12 years on a force and 6 or 7 shootings.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
They can't be anything other than contracts though, by definition. If the state says I have to have a driver's license in order to drive a car, and I get one, then I am choosing to abide by the terms. If I make a choice to drive without a license, then the state's only remedy is the use of force (ultimately imprisonment) in order to attempt to coerce my consent.

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

Your thinking on this is backwards. Statutes are Laws, some of those laws cover things that also happen to be contracts (such as your drivers license):

Statute law
The rules by which many contracts are governed are provided in specialized statutes that deal with particular subjects

That does not make all statues contracts, it simply means there are laws that are used in conjunction with some contracts for things such as being in breach of that contract. No one can force you to agree to a contract, or penalize you for not agreeing to it, but they can force you to follow the law, and penalize you when you do not. There is a statute that states you must have a valid DL to drive, which is a law, but there is no law saying you have to drive. You choose to drive a car, you're not forced too.

The only contractual part of having a drivers license is that you agree to submit to any DUI testing at the will of the state, but you are not obligated to agree to that contract. If you wish to not agree, then you simply don't get a drivers license and you walk, skip, hobble, crawl, ride a bike, or take a bus. Your choice as to whether or not to accept that contract and choose to drive is not really the states problem or concern. That is why driving is considered to be a privilege rather then a right.

Now there are statutes that state the penalties for being in breach of contract, if you so choose to accept that contract. If they start forcing you to agree with contracts under penalty of law, then you're stand would hold some weight, but as of now they do not.

For example right now some states require you to have valid ID. That does not mean the state fores you to agree to a drivers license contract however, there are other forms of valid ID that can be used that do not require you agree to anything contractually. You, as do most, simply choose to make it your DL for convenience reasons.

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



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


Another silly point. Firefighters will not give up their lives to rescue someone.they risk, yes. But if it comes down to a no win situation, a firefighter will abstain from a rescue.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 


You people keep accussing others of making assumptions, when you have already made an assumption yourself that the police is guilty.

In the ignorant tripe I see on here, if someone doesn't agree that the cops are guilty, then they are using straw men and making assumptions.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
A full investigation by another department should be performed and could be in process.

In states I am familiar with (and I've requested info from a friend who is a judge and teaches law to police officers) another department, i.e. possibly the Sheriff or State Police would immediately do a complete investigation.

I ask again.... where were the tasers?

Until a complete report is released to the public, we are making many assumptions, and you know how the old saying goes, "assume" makes an ass out of you and me....

I would hope that the department would recognize 'how this looks' to the general public, of whom they are sworn to "protect and serve". I am asking my judge friend to find me statistics, but this officer must hold some sort of record, 12 years on a force and 6 or 7 shootings.



an external investigation would be good, just hope its not biased having an investigation by police on police seems a bit biased honestly, but how else can it be done?

Im not sure but i believe tasers are not exactly accurate it needs to shoot two prods in a general direction bit risky if you cant control them both accurately as it may hit a child. I also believe the guy would not come out of the house so they may have not had a clear shot.

come to think of it, if you taser a guy holding a child will the child be affected? apart from being dropped the current shouldnt jump to the child as well right?



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



You people keep accussing others of making assumptions, when you have already made an assumption yourself that the police is guilty.


An unarmed man was shot in the head.

Yes they are guilty.

But since they all stick together and have courts on their side you will never know justice. So you settle for the travesty you have. To the point that you are willing to defend that travesty because "you just don't know better".

You are a dinosaur pretty much.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
A full investigation by another department should be performed and could be in process.

In states I am familiar with (and I've requested info from a friend who is a judge and teaches law to police officers) another department, i.e. possibly the Sheriff or State Police would immediately do a complete investigation.

I ask again.... where were the tasers?

Until a complete report is released to the public, we are making many assumptions, and you know how the old saying goes, "assume" makes an ass out of you and me....

I would hope that the department would recognize 'how this looks' to the general public, of whom they are sworn to "protect and serve". I am asking my judge friend to find me statistics, but this officer must hold some sort of record, 12 years on a force and 6 or 7 shootings.



an external investigation would be good, just hope its not biased having an investigation by police on police seems a bit biased honestly, but how else can it be done?

Im not sure but i believe tasers are not exactly accurate it needs to shoot two prods in a general direction bit risky if you cant control them both accurately as it may hit a child. I also believe the guy would not come out of the house so they may have not had a clear shot.

come to think of it, if you taser a guy holding a child will the child be affected? apart from being dropped the current shouldnt jump to the child as well right?


Hi Choos... what I have seen in the past, 'generally' an investigation by another department is fine...

According to my source who is my grandson and an officer in a different state, the suggested effective range of a quality taser ($500) is 15 feet and very accurate. His department, who is a large inner city uses tasers often with great success and have greatly improved relations with citizens and still safely enforced the laws and arrested the bad guys.

The officer who shot the grandfather was said by the media to be 18 feet away, so it would be logical to me, given my information that an officer could get well within taser range.

Is it has been reported to date that the man never displayed a weapon and in fact was found afterwards to have no weapon on him, only a cellphone also it is reported to date that the man never said he had a weapon, never threatened anyone, no weapon was visible on his person.

It was reported intitally and by other neighbors warching the situation unfold that he was holding his grandchild on his left side and responding to officers although to date no information regarding what the man or the officers said has been reported.

What little I could read and heard today, as usual there appears to be a clamp down on the media, is the man was standing on his stoop, (porch) holding the door open with his shoulder.

According to my souce, the taser would not have harmed the child having been shot into the adult.


As I said earlier, everything is an assumption at this point other than an officer shot a suspect from 18 feet in the back of the head while he was holding his grandchild.

Again, I hope the department realizes how this appears to those who were not there, and especially since this officer has a sad history of several previous shootings/deaths in his 12 years.

I'm still waiting for information from my judge friend and his research, but I'm going to bet you, given on what I've read and the people I know, 7 shots and 6 deaths by an officer is suspect.

If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but I'm betting I won't need to if this situation is investigation impartially.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join