Graphic Video Released in “Firing Squad” Style Police Killing of Milton Hall

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: jacobe001

I wonder what would have happened if the cops and dog backed off some distance in order to de-escalate the situation and give the man some time to think about his current actions?

Nah, we don't have time for this. Killem!

Again, it was less than a minute.

And, what would have happened if the police backed off and he attacked one of the people taking video? Then whose fault would it have been? The police.

Did he have a history of attacking people violently or a history of violence with violent police that crowded him?
THINK

From the video, it is quite clear that the threat to him was not other people but the police. There was no one in the backdrop. In order to get to the camera man, he would have to get past the police in front of the camera man. You are just making excuses now.

What it comes down to is "Respect my Authority in this Fascist Country" we live in now where Freedom and Rights are thrown to the wayside from the top down all in the name of "safety"

We had to kill them to save them is what it comes down to in so many instances repeated here and abroad

a reply to: jacobe001

But no, We don't have time for this. It is his problem and we are not RESPONSIBLE for what happens to him.

It does not appear they shot him because they did not have time to waste. It appears they shot him because of his movement towards the officers on the left.

It is very much his problem and the police should not be held at fault for this man's violent demeanor and actions.

He was free to do as he pleased and make his own decisions. Just don't be surprised when the police react to those decisions.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

What do you have Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to the police or something? That was a sad post you just did there.

When did disagreement become a capital offense?

When did it become acceptable to resort to name calling and casting aspersions on someones character just because they had a different view?

I am surprised you have not drawn the attention of a moderator yet. I though it said "Deny Ignorance" somewhere on ATS?

I always hold the belief that when someone runs out of legitimate argument, they resort to name calling. And the first to do this has lost the argument.

Shameful.

a reply to: Iscool

Nope...The executed guy turned to his right and looks to have taken a cautious step parallel to the cops on the left side...Looked as tho he was going to try to leave...They had tasers... They had a dog...They chose to execute him...

Again, if you are seeing things that did not happen, I will not be able to convince you otherwise.

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: jacobe001

Why should it only be the responsibility of the police to deescalate the situation?

That says it all right there.
Enough said.

I thought it was part of the job........

a reply to: Iscool

Because they could easily have subdued him without killing him...Aside from the dog, and the tasers, they have bean bag guns they could have subdued him with...

I understand you are just now getting to the party but we have already covered these topics.

I would recommend going back and seeing what was already said then making new argument or challenging something I said in a new way.

Disgusting.

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: FraggleRock

If so many reasonable people thought these laws were unjust, why don't they petition their legislature to change said laws. Some would say it is because the entire system is corrupt. I would say it is because there are enough reasonable people who look at this situation and find fault in the guy wielding the knife, and not with the police.

Or wealthy people that get what they want through the government via lobbyists, bribes and campaign donations and when they break one of their own rules and are apprehended, they hire a top lawyer to get out of it.

If you run over a person in your car that is riding a bike, no problem. He is too important because he is an investment manager.
www.rawstory.com...
Wealthy fund manager avoids felony charges after running over cyclist because of… wealth

Run over a person while drinking and driving, no problem because he is a rich son of a millionaire and it was a case of affluenza.
america.aljazeera.com...
Teen avoids jail with affluence defense in deadly drunken-driving case

Who makes the rules?

STUDY: YOU HAVE 'NEAR-ZERO' IMPACT ON U.S. POLICY

www.breitbart.com...

A startling new political science study concludes that corporate interests and mega wealthy individuals control U.S. policy to such a degree that "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

a reply to: jacobe001

Did he have a history of attacking people violently or a history of violence with violent police that crowded him?

The police did not just drop out of the sky to surround him.

The police were called because of a disturbance / theft he was involved in.

At some point, he decided to pull the knife.

From the video, it is quite clear that the threat to him was not other people but the police. There was no one in the backdrop. In order to get to the camera man, he would have to get past the police in front of the camera man. You are just making excuses now.

Of course no one else was a threat to him. He was the threat to everyone else.

So, if no one else but the police are threatened oh well? The police can't have their safety threatened?

You have somehow completely reversed this situation. The suspect is the victim and the victim is the suspect. I don't know how you did it but you did.

What it comes down to is "Respect my Authority in this Fascist Country" we live in now where Freedom and Rights are thrown to the wayside from the top down all in the name of "safety"

I wouldn't say it was an issue of "respect my authority." If you are threatening the police with a knife and they have guns, you lose. How badly you lose is your decision. Do you drop the knife and spare your life, or do you start towards the cops and get shot?

Which of his rights were violated, specifically. People always claim rights were violated but which rights, specifically, were violated.

We had to kill them to save them is what it comes down to in so many instances repeated here and abroad

The police prioritize the safety of many groups during these incidents. First priority seems to be the innocent bystanders. Second priority is the officer's personal safety. Last, is the safety of the violent person who is being dealt with. If the safety of all can be assured great. If the safety of one needs to be jeopardized, I would expect the police to choose the violent person who needs to be dealt with.

a reply to: jacobe001

That says it all right there.
Enough said.

I thought it was part of the job........

It takes two to tango.

If only one of the parties wants to deescalate the situation, and one does not, the situation will not deescalate.

The police gave the man the opportunity to deescalate the situation by dropping the knife. He chose not to. You cannot hold the police accountable for the man's decision not to drop the knife when they gave him the opportunity to do so.

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: jacobe001

Of course no one else was a threat to him. He was the threat to everyone else.

The video does not show that.
If anything, it appears the public around him was against the police actions.
How could he be a threat to everyone else around him and yet the public around him were lamblasting the cops for their actions?

That does not sound like the public was threatened by him and wanted him put down?

a reply to: areyouserious2010

If I have offended you I apologize. "Misinformed" was not meant as an insult, it was meant to say you may have bad information.

No offense taken I simply want to avoid a difference in opinion turning into something personal. That's why I will try my hardest to address the argument and not the individual.

I agree with the fact that we are talking about human beings and not robots. The police are human beings who have the same strengths and weaknesses as everyone else. The police go through the same physiological changes as everyone else when presented with an extremely stressful, "fight or flight," situation. This is why we cannot expect them to do superhuman things when presented with such situations.

Indeed, police generally have the same strengths and weaknesses as anyone else. I would never expect police to operate as if they were superhuman. The issue I have is police are trained and equipped unlike civilians so there isn't a need for vigilantes. And even with that training and equipment they seem to operate no different than you would expect a vigilante to.

You are correct. And I would say that not trying to approach the guy and disarm him by hand is using common sense and logic.

Nor would I suggest simply walking up to the knife wielding individual. I would however expect an attempt at less than lethal force to subdue such an individual. Bean bag firearms were invented for just such a situation. And yet when one suggests the usage of such a weapon it's implied that those sorts of things are only plausible in the movies. And I'd ask why? I know the answer is usually about the effectiveness of such a tool but they never seem to even try. And I cannot understand what it would hurt to try and subdue a suspect with less than lethal force before unloading a flurry of gunfire. Police will always take the easy way out which unfortunately usually leads to death. What good is training and equipment if deadly force is the only option?

a reply to: jacobe001

Or wealthy people that get what they want through the government via lobbyists, bribes and campaign donations and when they break one of their own rules and are apprehended, they hire a top lawyer to get out of it.

If you run over a person in your car that is riding a bike, no problem. He is too important because he is an investment manager.
www.rawstory.com...
Wealthy fund manager avoids felony charges after running over cyclist because of… wealth

Run over a person while drinking and driving, no problem because he is a rich son of a millionaire and it was a case of affluenza.
america.aljazeera.com...
Teen avoids jail with affluence defense in deadly drunken-driving case

I understand, you are trying to indict the entire form of government, legal system, heck the entire system itself by pointing out these instances.

How about when the system works? How many times has a petty criminal who made a bad decision gotten a light sentence and never committed a crime again. It happens. How many times has a heinous crime been committed, the police identify and apprehend the suspect, the suspect is convicted and sentenced to an appropriate time in jail. It happens.

You just choose to highlight the failures and ignore the successes.

I am not prepared to fight that battle though.

Who makes the rules?

STUDY: YOU HAVE 'NEAR-ZERO' IMPACT ON U.S. POLICY

Well we make the rules. We live in a representative republic. Of course you, as a single person, have near zero impact on U.S. policy. If any one person had total control over the country's policies, we would live in a dictatorship.

The point is, if you feel strongly enough about a policy, petition the government to change said policy. If you have enough public support, elected officials will have to listen to you. If you don't have enough public support, there is probably a reason.

a reply to: jacobe001

If anything, it appears the public around him was against the police actions.

In my opinion, anyone who pulls out a camera to film the police in action is looking for that "gotcha" moment. How many times do you hear a narrator in an online video say "yea, those cops handled that situation perfectly."

The first criticism was "why did you shoot him so many times?" It was not "why did they shoot him?"

Let me remind you that someone called the police on him because of his aggressive actions.

Police responded to a call from a woman at a nearby mini mart before the shooting. She complained that the Hall was rude and aggressive, and had refused to pay for a coffee and other items. She also said Hall spit on someone inside the store.

CNN

a reply to: mindseye1609
True only if your firearm is holstered, then the draw/ acquisition time come in.
Not true if weapon is drawn and target sighted.

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: jacobe001



The point is, if you feel strongly enough about a policy, petition the government to change said policy. If you have enough public support, elected officials will have to listen to you. If you don't have enough public support, there is probably a reason.

But that is what the study pointed out.

Public Policy which I consider based on by the majority of Americans has zero impact on political, economic and foreign policy.

Now some will point out that we are not a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic, but then the politicians should be ruling therefore on the Constitution but as anything is up for interpretation, control via monetary interests is at the top of the lists.

Mega and Multinational Corporations and Central Banks via Lobbyists and the Revolving Door control our foreign and domestic economic policies for their own benefit at the expense to the citizens of this country.

The last time I checked, it is not supposed to be a Democracy for Corporate and Banking Fascism to have their way with our government and a Constitutional Republic for everyone else.

Nevertheless, this is different subject matter for this thread.

a reply to: FraggleRock

No offense taken I simply want to avoid a difference in opinion turning into something personal. That's why I will try my hardest to address the argument and not the individual.

And I thank you. Like I said I have no problems with disagreement. That is how the best ideas rise to the top.

Indeed, police generally have the same strengths and weaknesses as anyone else. I would never expect police to operate as if they were superhuman. The issue I have is police are trained and equipped unlike civilians so there isn't a need for vigilantes. And even with that training and equipment they seem to operate no different than you would expect a vigilante to.

I think it is a case by case basis. Just because one situation did not end as well as another does not mean the situation was handled poorly. It just means the situation may not have allowed for something that worked to end the situation peacefully.

Nor would I suggest simply walking up to the knife wielding individual. I would however expect an attempt at less than lethal force to subdue such an individual. Bean bag firearms were invented for just such a situation. And yet when one suggests the usage of such a weapon it's implied that those sorts of things are only plausible in the movies. And I'd ask why? I know the answer is usually about the effectiveness of such a tool but they never seem to even try. And I cannot understand what it would hurt to try and subdue a suspect with less than lethal force before unloading a flurry of gunfire. Police will always take the easy way out which unfortunately usually leads to death. What good is training and equipment if deadly force is the only option?

Hey, I am right there with you about the deployment of less lethal tools. I do not think a taser or pepper spray was appropriate in this situation.

I think a bean bag munition could have been very effective. The question being, is the department equipped with one and if they are where was it? These are things all departments should be thinking about when seeing something like this happen.

If an officer showed up with a bean bag weapon and he was told not to deploy it, there better be a REALLY good reason and if there isn't, heads should roll.

Questioning the police department on these issues is not second-guessing. These are relevant questions that should be asked to ensure police are deploying their assets effectively.

OMG! he was walking away!
he must have had weapons of Mass destruction and been a terrrroist.

oh well its so much easier on the paper work.
them cops Need to be on the street.
people dont shot them selves.

a reply to: jacobe001

But that is what the study pointed out.

Public Policy which I consider based on by the majority of Americans has zero impact on political, economic and foreign policy.

Now some will point out that we are not a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic, but then the politicians should be ruling therefore on the Constitution but as anything is up for interpretation, control via monetary interests is at the top of the lists.

Mega and Multinational Corporations and Central Banks via Lobbyists and the Revolving Door control our foreign and domestic economic policies for their own benefit at the expense to the citizens of this country.

The last time I checked, it is not supposed to be a Democracy for Corporate and Banking Fascism to have their way with our government and a Constitutional Republic for everyone else.

Nevertheless, this is different subject matter for this thread.

While I agree with the sentiment of what you said, I am not prepared to have an educated discussion on the subject.

a reply to: jacobe001

When Occupy Wall Street came around even when Barack Obama, the puppet of Wall Street was in place, how did the Main Stream Media tackle it? It was a confusing moment because the script would have been played better if it had been a "Republican" President in Power

JP Morgan and a host of other Big Banks called the Cops to destroy them and out of thousands, they pin pointed the light on one person #ting on a cop car to tarnish the image via the media.

It is all one big filthy corrupt game from the top to the bottom.

What did they want?

The end to corruption and the end to the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and DC

What was the media response?

Why don't you attack DC Politicians and host a protest there?

Because by doing so, they could change gears and make it how the protesters are not happy with the puppet in power rather than the masters pulling the strings.

Same Game here and in the next election


www.opensecrets.org...

Top Contributors to Obama

Goldman Sachs $1,034,615
JPMorgan Chase & Co $847,895
Citigroup Inc $755,057
US Government $638,335
Skadden, Arps et al $554,439
US Dept of Justice $540,636
IBM Corp $534,470
UBS AG $534,166
General Electric $532,031
Morgan Stanley $528,182



www.opensecrets.org...

Top Contributors to Romney

Goldman Sachs $1,033,204
Bank of America $1,013,402
Morgan Stanley $911,305
JPMorgan Chase & Co $834,096
Wells Fargo $677,076
Credit Suisse Group $643,120
Citigroup Inc $511,199
Barclays $446,000
General Electric $332,875