Police let unlicensed gunman, who killed unarmed customer, get away with bloody murder at Taco Bell

reply to post by TruthSeekerMike

Where is Al Sharpton on this one? Maybe if the guy that got shot was carrying skittles...

victim: unarmed white hispanic pedestrian with dog on leash
self-defense claimant: black male shooting a gun from his vehicle

hello!

They're saying Daniel was mentally disabled.

news.gather.com...

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
victim: unarmed white hispanic pedestrian with dog on leash

Where the hell does "white hispanic" come from? what does that mean? Is it just something to spice up a story to make one person appear white? Is president Obama a "white African American"?

so the dead victim had "mentality of a 12 or 13-year-old" and was unarmed and on foot.

the self-defense shooter was behind the wheels of a vehicle and with a gun in his hand, blazing self defense but he wasn't even scratched.

i don't buy 'self-defense' for a second and if the police do by not arresting him, it's cause they are scaredy-cats and doing the 'white' thing instead of the 'right' thing.

i have lost faith in the American police/justice system because it vindicates those who place no value on human life.

Originally posted by Manhater
Sad, I don't see the UN or the president, nor the FBI coming to this poor mans aid for justice. I should post flyers at school where they have Martin flyers and paste over them with this poor mans demise. Fair is fair. Then I'll say where is the justice?

doing that might be fair and just, but it isn't the right thing to do. it will only lead to more fighting and killing, lots of innocents will be hurt and that is neither fair nor just.

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
victim: unarmed white hispanic pedestrian with dog on leash

Where the hell does "white hispanic" come from? what does that mean? Is it just something to spice up a story to make one person appear white? Is president Obama a "white African American"?

That term came about with George Zimmerman...

And I wonder if Obamanut will come out and say.."If I had a son, hewould look like this shooter?" Absolutely not and the MSM will not say anything about this. The double standards make me sick...

reply to post by defcon5


Defcon is absolutely spot on in this point. Once charged, due process of law demands the accused has the right to a speedy trial. If charges are made to appease some democratic sense of outrage, that appeasement will only postpone the outrage if the police have failed to do a proper investigation and left the prosecution with nothing but rhetoric in an effort to gain a conviction. If this happens, and presuming the defendant has adequate representation, an acquittal would be eminent and then the outrage will rear its knee jerked head again.

I know that some of you hate fb, but it's great for exposing injustices. The reverends aren't coming to this guys aid and I don't believe the msm will unless we do something first. fb is a start.

Justice For Daniel Adkins on fb

Well, I learned one thing from the Trayvon nonsense. Best not to jump to conclusions and wait until more facts come to light. There are so many little things that could change my mind about a justifiable homicide in a case like this.

Defcon has nailed this with some links to reports and also to the correct assumption given to the shooter, of innocence. If "we" continue to call for "justice" how can the injustice ever be corrected? It cannot because as JPZ stated, the prosecution will be pressured into dealing with rhetoric and a sense of serving justice for justice sake.

On another note -- mainly pertaining to the OP title:

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
assuming they bothered to run the suspect to see if there is a gun license, and if there isn't - means its was an illegal carry.

This bugs me about ATS -- or any headline driven medium. So did the shooter have a permit or did he not and did you assume such as you stated, but decided to use it to drive your story anyway as fact (as presented in your title)? Call it nitpicking, but it just leads people here that only respond to titles and not the content and does nothing in the way of providing accurate and sound discussion of the matter.

i dont have a story to drive and i don't deal in rhetoric.

the police state they could not find the gun used, which is BS cuz

hello, they would be able to trace if it was registered - thru the bullet(s) in Adkins body

reply to post by ownbestenemy

...the prosecution will be pressured into dealing with rhetoric and a sense of serving justice for justice sake.

Better to appear to be the fool who is on the side of justice rather than seem wise in spite of justice.

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
i dont have a story to drive and i don't deal in rhetoric.

the police state they could not find the gun used, which is BS cuz

hello, they would be able to trace if it was registered - thru the bullet(s) in Adkins body

You are - presumably - referring to ballistic fingerprinting:

Some localities, particularly Maryland, have attempted to build up a large database of "fingerprints"; in the case of the Maryland law, all new firearms sales must provide a fired case from the firearm in question to the Maryland State Police, who photograph it and log the information in a database. The Maryland State Police wrote a report critical of the program and asking the Maryland General Assembly to disband it, since it was expensive and had not contributed to solving a single crime.[3] Subsequently however, the database did provide evidence used to obtain one murder conviction at an estimated cost of 2.6 million dollars per conviction.[4]

A California Department of Justice survey, using 742 guns used by the California Highway Patrol as a test bed, showed very poor results; even with such a limited database, less than 70% of cases of the same make as the "fingerprint" case yielded the correct gun in the top 15 matches; when a different make of ammunition was used, the success rate dropped to less than 40%.

You not only clearly do deal in rhetoric, you apparently deal from the bottom of the deck.

reply to post by BiggerPicture


So, a few quotes I heard in the video....

"He was walking across the Taco Bell drive-thru and almost got hit"
"The shooter thought he had a weapon, but it was a leash" Where's the dog? And a leash can be a weapon
"He walked up to the driver's window and words were exchanged"
"He might have swung at him"
"He thought he was going to get runned over"
"He had the mentality of a 12 or 13 year old" He was 28 years old though?

So, a mentally challenged 28 year old walks across traffic, then confronts someone in a car that almost hit him, swings at him through the window, possibly with a dog leash, and ends up shot.

I still think the shooting was not justified, and the guy was not a legitimate gun owner, and people scared of their own shadows should not carry guns.

BUT, there are plenty of things there to consider as to why the police haven't charged him yet. He was obviously acting in self-defense, he just should never have owned or used a gun.

lol im not even talking about that.

the gunman placed a 9/11 call ADMITTING he shot Adkins.

hello,

he admitted to having the gun.

yet they have not located the gun.

do the math.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Well this is what happens when you have "stand your ground" types of laws and anyone can claim you were a threat to their life.

This has nothing to do with the stand your ground law? The gun owner wasn't legal. He was already breaking the law anyway. NO amount of additional gun laws would have changed this situation.

Stand your ground is a good law. No one should be forced to retreat from a bully, just because they can. Instead, bullies should learn to be more careful who they might be confronting.

This dead guy might not have been a bully, and this shooter seems to have over-reacted, but it isn't the laws fault. Don't punish me, and all the lawful gun owners and trained gun handlers because of what two idiots did in a Taco Bell drive-thru.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

"The shooter thought he had a weapon, but it was a leash" Where's the dog? And a leash can be a weapon

I still think the shooting was not justified, and the guy was not a legitimate gun owner, and people scared of their own shadows should not carry guns.

BUT, there are plenty of things there to consider as to why the police haven't charged him yet. He was obviously acting in self-defense, he just should never have owned or used a gun.

hopefully we will have the gunman's 9/11 call to listen to soon,

as he admit he shot Adkins and also claimed over the phone that Adkins was wielding a metal pipe at him,

he likely realized he couldnt say a LEASH to 911/cops so he lied and said metal pipe. to support his 'self-defense' story. that lie, if anything, will be his undoing.

we shall see...

reply to post by getreadyalready


He was walking his dog. He wasn't just carrying a leash.