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: 2share:
Originally posted by FTD Brat
According to the report, he was supposedly arguing with neighbors and had a gun with him while holding the baby when the police were called.
When the cops arrived, they felt threatened and fired a single shot, killing the man on the scene.
Maybe it's just me, but is it truly impossible to use disabling fire; i.e., shoot a potentially dangerous suspect in the leg?
I see a lot of evidence in these sorts of cases, to suggest that what we're really dealing with here, are not adequately trained or disciplined cops, but basically goons with guns. An intelligent, skilled, and disciplined officer (not to mention one who isn't power tripping over the fact that he can simply blow people away with impunity, and get away with it via an excuse) is always going to have more options available to him, than an armed thug.
These aren't America's (or any other country's) finest; they're actually America's worst. The problem is both legal (the idea that police should be darn near omnipotent because of the War on Terror) and a quality issue. We've fairly clearly got a very large number of people out there with badges and guns, who simply should not be in that position.
Every time I turn around a cop kills someone. What the heck is going on? A number of cops appear to have just flat out horrible perception. They
perceive incorrectly, and someone ends up dead.
I feel horrible for the family. It'd be nice to go a few days without a cop shooting an undeserving citizen who did nothing which warrant a death sentence.
I feel horrible for the family. It'd be nice to go a few days without a cop shooting an undeserving citizen who did nothing which warrant a death sentence.
www.myfoxphoenix.com...
It's getting dangerous out there for decent, honest citizens!
Cops have such a bad reputation, few people want to be a cop. I know a HIGHLY troubled and disturbed child, who prides himself as a "liar" (Yes! That was his own description of himself.) who wants to be a cop for the power trip - that's his only reason.
In the past couple years locally, we've had a cop kill an unarmed, mentally handicapped, old black man and a different bad cop killed an unarmed, 100% nekkid, streaking mentally handicapped teenage boy who was hazed at a drunken adult party. The kid was running TO the cop with BOTH hands in the air when he shot him. 100% nekkid ... and the cop "feared for his life."
It's a cycle, bad cops breed violence of their own making.
"It's getting dangerous out there for officers. There's a lot of confrontations with subjects that are presenting deadly threats,
It's getting dangerous out there for decent, honest citizens!
Cops have such a bad reputation, few people want to be a cop. I know a HIGHLY troubled and disturbed child, who prides himself as a "liar" (Yes! That was his own description of himself.) who wants to be a cop for the power trip - that's his only reason.
In the past couple years locally, we've had a cop kill an unarmed, mentally handicapped, old black man and a different bad cop killed an unarmed, 100% nekkid, streaking mentally handicapped teenage boy who was hazed at a drunken adult party. The kid was running TO the cop with BOTH hands in the air when he shot him. 100% nekkid ... and the cop "feared for his life."
It's a cycle, bad cops breed violence of their own making.
edit on 17/2/2012 by Trexter Ziam because: (no reason given)
Two things:
The article posted later said he was shot in the back while walking into the house. That doesn't seem like a great judgement call IMO, especially given the info that the cop in question has been involved in so many shootings already. Though I will add I wasn't there obviously, this sounds like another unnecessary shooting by a trigger happy cop.
Second, the title mentions Glendale Police, which is not the city or the police department where this took place. It was Scottsdale, a different city.
The article posted later said he was shot in the back while walking into the house. That doesn't seem like a great judgement call IMO, especially given the info that the cop in question has been involved in so many shootings already. Though I will add I wasn't there obviously, this sounds like another unnecessary shooting by a trigger happy cop.
Second, the title mentions Glendale Police, which is not the city or the police department where this took place. It was Scottsdale, a different city.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Redwookieaz because: (no reason given)
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Where did this notion that police are only allowed to shoot if they “feel threatened” come from?
That is not, nor has it ever been the case…
Police are allowed to use deadly force for multiple situations, including someone endangering others, forcefully resisting, or being a fleeing felon. Heck, in many states now civilians can even shoot a fleeing felon without being in fear for their personal safety.
Obviously this gentleman was endangering his neighbors, and using the child as a shield. This should be plainly apparent to anyone reading the article, as normal people do not carry their grandchild into an altercation.
The fact that it was a single shot says a lot as well. Most likely he was taken out by a marksman with multiple other officers on the scene. They certainly would not have just allowed an officer with a handgun to fire on him when he was holding what was basically a human shield as a hostage. That was a high precision shot.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by superjesse13132000
www.myfoxphoenix.com...
..."Police are feeling more and more in danger these days" I say "BULL-S*#T!"...
It's right that they feel more in danger. The apparent sociopathic blood-lust so many of them are indulging, is likely to trigger a back-lash, whereby people afraid for their own lives are going to turn vigilante. So it needs to be stopped right now by these officers' superiors, before things turn from bad to worse.
Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Where did this notion that police are only allowed to shoot if they “feel threatened” come from?
That is not, nor has it ever been the case…
Police are allowed to use deadly force for multiple situations, including someone endangering others, forcefully resisting, or being a fleeing felon. Heck, in many states now civilians can even shoot a fleeing felon without being in fear for their personal safety.
Obviously this gentleman was endangering his neighbors, and using the child as a shield. This should be plainly apparent to anyone reading the article, as normal people do not carry their grandchild into an altercation.
The fact that it was a single shot says a lot as well. Most likely he was taken out by a marksman with multiple other officers on the scene. They certainly would not have just allowed an officer with a handgun to fire on him when he was holding what was basically a human shield as a hostage. That was a high precision shot.As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Just hang on a minute - if they couldn't see a weapon, how would they know if the neighbours were even telling the truth.
It turns out the man had guns in the house. That's not illegal if they're licensed. But the article also said the police saw something dark in his hand and thought, wrongly, that it was a gun. The neighbours might also have, 'seen something dark in his hand and thought, wrongly, that it was a gun'.
I wish the journalists who write up these reports would do a better job, and interview as many witnesses as possible. There always seem to be so many gaps that people have to imagine what was really happening.
The bloke might have been some nutter, but equally, things might be getting a spin put on them. After all, if he'd been feuding with neighbours for years, a feud is a two-way thing - so those neighbours had been feuding with him for years also. Who says their version of events is accurate?
reply to post by defcon5
1st underlined: How obviously exactly? Do you know what they were talking about, mister assumption?
2nd underlined: Normal people do not shoot people who are carrying a baby, in the back of the head because of some hearsay. Normal people also do not exist and since it is a logical fallacy, your argument lost its entire merit - seemingly, you are on the side of the police before you even read the article. It's obvious to me you have some sort of stake in the matter.
You mean, if he was shot in the body there would have been less gore, thus less reason for the other officers to refrain from shooting?
You seem like a really really weird individual to me. So do the others who defend the person taking a life, based on an article and their own experiences...just seems so ignorant.
Obviously this gentleman was endangering his neighbors, and using the child as a shield. This should be plainly apparent to anyone reading the article, as normal people do not carry their grandchild into an altercation.
1st underlined: How obviously exactly? Do you know what they were talking about, mister assumption?
2nd underlined: Normal people do not shoot people who are carrying a baby, in the back of the head because of some hearsay. Normal people also do not exist and since it is a logical fallacy, your argument lost its entire merit - seemingly, you are on the side of the police before you even read the article. It's obvious to me you have some sort of stake in the matter.
The fact that it was a single shot says a lot as well.
You mean, if he was shot in the body there would have been less gore, thus less reason for the other officers to refrain from shooting?
You seem like a really really weird individual to me. So do the others who defend the person taking a life, based on an article and their own experiences...just seems so ignorant.
police got called to a scene where there was a reported handgun in the hands of the perpetrator holding a child.
we dont know the full story so it may just have been that the guy was very aggressive and waving his gun in the direction of the officers.
Im not saying this is what happened and im not saying that the officers are perfectly justified to shoot dead the guy, who knows it may have been a lucky shot. the point is we dont know the full story no point pointing fingers at the officer when you dont know what happened.
we dont know the full story so it may just have been that the guy was very aggressive and waving his gun in the direction of the officers.
Im not saying this is what happened and im not saying that the officers are perfectly justified to shoot dead the guy, who knows it may have been a lucky shot. the point is we dont know the full story no point pointing fingers at the officer when you dont know what happened.
Originally posted by choos
police got called to a scene where there was a reported handgun in the hands of the perpetrator holding a child.
we dont know the full story so it may just have been that the guy was very aggressive and waving his gun in the direction of the officers.
Im not saying this is what happened and im not saying that the officers are perfectly justified to shoot dead the guy, who knows it may have been a lucky shot. the point is we dont know the full story no point pointing fingers at the officer when you dont know what happened.
No, the article says he was NOT holding a gun. He was unarmed. That's important.
Originally posted by Toffeeapple
Originally posted by choos
police got called to a scene where there was a reported handgun in the hands of the perpetrator holding a child.
we dont know the full story so it may just have been that the guy was very aggressive and waving his gun in the direction of the officers.
Im not saying this is what happened and im not saying that the officers are perfectly justified to shoot dead the guy, who knows it may have been a lucky shot. the point is we dont know the full story no point pointing fingers at the officer when you dont know what happened.
No, the article says he was NOT holding a gun. He was unarmed. That's important.
the posted article says police received a call to a man holding a handgun threatening neighbours while holding a baby. other than that there is no other mention that he no longer had the handgun.
Originally posted by choos
Originally posted by Toffeeapple
Originally posted by choos
police got called to a scene where there was a reported handgun in the hands of the perpetrator holding a child.
we dont know the full story so it may just have been that the guy was very aggressive and waving his gun in the direction of the officers.
Im not saying this is what happened and im not saying that the officers are perfectly justified to shoot dead the guy, who knows it may have been a lucky shot. the point is we dont know the full story no point pointing fingers at the officer when you dont know what happened.
No, the article says he was NOT holding a gun. He was unarmed. That's important.
the posted article says police received a call to a man holding a handgun threatening neighbours while holding a baby. other than that there is no other mention that he no longer had the handgun.
The neighbours could have been lying or mistaken.
The updated news article posted later in the thread confirms that he was not holding a gun when the police killed him. You'll have to read back.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Toffeeapple because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Toffeeapple
Originally posted by choos
Originally posted by Toffeeapple
Originally posted by choos
police got called to a scene where there was a reported handgun in the hands of the perpetrator holding a child.
we dont know the full story so it may just have been that the guy was very aggressive and waving his gun in the direction of the officers.
Im not saying this is what happened and im not saying that the officers are perfectly justified to shoot dead the guy, who knows it may have been a lucky shot. the point is we dont know the full story no point pointing fingers at the officer when you dont know what happened.
No, the article says he was NOT holding a gun. He was unarmed. That's important.
the posted article says police received a call to a man holding a handgun threatening neighbours while holding a baby. other than that there is no other mention that he no longer had the handgun.
The neighbours could have been lying or mistaken.
The updated news article posted later in the thread confirms that he was not holding a gun when the police killed him. You'll have to read back.edit on 17-2-2012 by Toffeeapple because: (no reason given)
i see, than this guy needs to be retrained or removed. probably needs to learn how to difuse aggressive situation without use of lethal force. i bet he was under a bit of stress sometimes you only have a small window of oppurtunity between you killing them or them killing you. most people would rather not be killed.
reply to post by choos
Great. You took back one of your assumptions in order to make room for another one..."I bet he was under a bit of stress"...
Unbelievable...do some of you even READ what you type anymore?
i see, than this guy needs to be retrained or removed. probably needs to learn how to difuse aggressive situation without use of lethal force. i bet he was under a bit of stress sometimes you only have a small window of oppurtunity between you killing them or them killing you. most people would rather not be killed.
Great. You took back one of your assumptions in order to make room for another one..."I bet he was under a bit of stress"...
Unbelievable...do some of you even READ what you type anymore?
reply to post by superjesse13132000
I see why there's so much confusion on this thread. There are three (that I saw now, maybe more) versions of this story on that same website. All of them, individually, paint a different picture than the others.
Could you add the other two (or more?) links to your OP?
That might help paint a broader picture. Thank you!
I see why there's so much confusion on this thread. There are three (that I saw now, maybe more) versions of this story on that same website. All of them, individually, paint a different picture than the others.
Could you add the other two (or more?) links to your OP?
That might help paint a broader picture. Thank you!
edit on 17/2/2012 by Trexter Ziam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by choos
i see, than this guy needs to be retrained or removed. probably needs to learn how to difuse aggressive situation without use of lethal force. i bet he was under a bit of stress sometimes you only have a small window of oppurtunity between you killing them or them killing you. most people would rather not be killed.
Great. You took back one of your assumptions in order to make room for another one..."I bet he was under a bit of stress"...
Unbelievable...do some of you even READ what you type anymore?
you have obviously never been in a life threatening situation before have you?
maybe you should have a slight understanding what people who put their lives on the line go through, if you have known traffic cops you might understand how thick their skins need to be (in australia that is). i know things are different in the US since you never know who you are going to pull over and how unstable that person with the gun is cause all you wanted was to give the guy a warning for not wearing a seatbelt next thing you know you have a bullet through your chest cause the paranoid driver thought you knew he had stolen something.
reply to post by choos
More than your entire generation combined I bet.
BLa bla bla, nonsense. Can't handle the job, don't sign up. But ow wait, they actually need to be dumb enough to take the job!
Why are you creating all these straw men? The guy was not pulled over, nor was there a gun on him. There was HEARSAY of a gun though..
Yeh right, why don't you go impress a 5 year old with your retarded straw man argument okay? That is NOT what happened here...nor do you put a cause to why the driver would be paranoid...you're just making stuff up as you go along. Get lost # muncher.
you have obviously never been in a life threatening situation before have you?
More than your entire generation combined I bet.
maybe you should have a slight understanding what people who put their lives on the line go through, if you have known traffic cops you might understand how thick their skins need to be
BLa bla bla, nonsense. Can't handle the job, don't sign up. But ow wait, they actually need to be dumb enough to take the job!
i know things are different in the US since you never know who you are going to pull over and how unstable that person with the gun is
Why are you creating all these straw men? The guy was not pulled over, nor was there a gun on him. There was HEARSAY of a gun though..
cause all you wanted was to give the guy a warning for not wearing a seatbelt next thing you know you have a bullet through your chest cause the paranoid driver thought you knew he had stolen something.
Yeh right, why don't you go impress a 5 year old with your retarded straw man argument okay? That is NOT what happened here...nor do you put a cause to why the driver would be paranoid...you're just making stuff up as you go along. Get lost # muncher.
Originally posted by choos
i see, than this guy needs to be retrained or removed. probably needs to learn how to difuse aggressive situation without use of lethal force. i bet he was under a bit of stress sometimes you only have a small window of oppurtunity between you killing them or them killing you. most people would rather not be killed.
I'm willing to bet the grandad was under a bit of stress when the bullet went through his head - I wonder if he'd rather have not been killed.
I haven't been able to find the other threads on this subject. Can anyone link them please? If there's more information, I'd like to see it.
I did stumble on this unrelated article while I was looking though...
Mass. Police Kill Unarmed Grandfather In Police Raid "Early Tuesday morning, police raided the home at 26 Fountain St. as part of a multiweek drug investigation and shot Stamps, who was not the target of the investigation, according to police reports. Two 20-year-old men were arrested on drug charges. No weapons were recovered at the scene."
newsone.com...
edit on 17-2-2012 by Toffeeapple because: (no reason given)
new topics
-
Can you see Earth's new 'minimoon' with the naked eye?
Space Exploration: 15 minutes ago -
An American aircraft was forced to take evasive action.
World War Three: 1 hours ago -
ATS Discord?
Introductions: 1 hours ago -
The fall of Vuhledar. Hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers trapped. Russia surrounds key fortress city
World War Three: 3 hours ago -
Happy Birthday Jimmy Carter
Politicians & People: 6 hours ago -
democrats under Obama's Plan "To Fundamentally Transform The US Of A" Into a Communist State
US Political Madness: 6 hours ago -
Welp...Guess this is "THE END". ATS is officially over. So Long, Folks!
General Chit Chat: 6 hours ago -
Avatar?
General Chit Chat: 7 hours ago
top topics
-
democrats under Obama's Plan "To Fundamentally Transform The US Of A" Into a Communist State
US Political Madness: 6 hours ago, 18 flags -
Welp...Guess this is "THE END". ATS is officially over. So Long, Folks!
General Chit Chat: 6 hours ago, 7 flags -
Pete Rose, MLB all-time hits leader, infamous Charlie Hustle dead
U.S. Sports: 15 hours ago, 6 flags -
Happy Birthday Jimmy Carter
Politicians & People: 6 hours ago, 4 flags -
The fall of Vuhledar. Hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers trapped. Russia surrounds key fortress city
World War Three: 3 hours ago, 4 flags -
An American aircraft was forced to take evasive action.
World War Three: 1 hours ago, 2 flags -
ATS Discord?
Introductions: 1 hours ago, 1 flags -
Avatar?
General Chit Chat: 7 hours ago, 0 flags -
Can you see Earth's new 'minimoon' with the naked eye?
Space Exploration: 15 minutes ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
Can you see Earth's new 'minimoon' with the naked eye?
Space Exploration • 4 • : Oldcarpy2 -
An American aircraft was forced to take evasive action.
World War Three • 10 • : Kurokage -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7608 • : underpass61 -
U.S. Officials have confirmed that Israeli Forces have now crossed into Southern Lebanon
Middle East Issues • 37 • : ufoorbhunter -
Question Marks About Keir Starmer's Past - There's a Secret MSM Won't Touch
Politicians & People • 13 • : angelchemuel -
ATS Discord?
Introductions • 12 • : Djarums -
Pope Francis Wisely Affirms All Religions Are Valid Pathways for Reaching GOD.
Conspiracies in Religions • 55 • : whereislogic -
democrats under Obama's Plan "To Fundamentally Transform The US Of A" Into a Communist State
US Political Madness • 6 • : Ohanka -
The fall of Vuhledar. Hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers trapped. Russia surrounds key fortress city
World War Three • 2 • : KrustyKrab -
Old School Punk
Music • 553 • : underpass61